Posted by: Dimple Verma, RCIC-IRB #R708308 | VG Immigration Services Canada
Published: May 8, 2026 at 2:00 PM ET
Federal Court Quashes Fourth Work Permit Refusal — But Refuses to Order Directions
On May 7, 2026, Justice Patrick Gleeson of the Federal Court released his decision in Mohandas v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 606 — a judgment that perfectly captures both the frustration and the structural limits applicants face when IRCC refuses an entrepreneur work permit again and again on substantially the same reasoning.
The Court granted leave, set aside IRCC’s November 13, 2025 decision, and remitted the matter to a different officer. But the Court refused to issue directions binding the next decision-maker, and refused to award costs. For VG Immigration clients pursuing C11 owner-operator work permits or PNP entrepreneur streams, this case is essential reading.
Worried About Your Application? Get Expert Help.
Federal Court decisions show that careful preparation by a Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant (RCIC) makes the difference between approval and refusal. Don’t risk your future on a self-prepared file.
Key Highlights
- Citation: Mohandas v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 606 (Justice Gleeson)
- Outcome: Application for leave and judicial review granted by consent on Minister’s motion; matter remitted to a different officer
- Refusal pattern: Four work permit refusals across three separate applications (June 2024, November 2024, April 2025 redetermination, November 2025)
- Reasoning across refusals: Departure risk under IRPR s. 200(1)(b), absence of LMIA, lack of significant benefit under IRPR s. 205(a), insufficient family ties outside Canada, weak financial establishment in country of residence
- What the Court refused: Costs (high “special reasons” threshold under FCCIRPR r. 22 not met) and directions binding the next officer
- Why no directions: The Court found no “endless merry-go-round” because the applicant had not pursued judicial review of every refusal — the April 2025 redetermination was never challenged
The Procedural History — Three Applications, Four Refusals
Mr. Mohandas, an Indian national living in the Gulf, sought a work permit to operate a business in Canada, with his spouse Rajlaxmi Prakash Kumta as an accompanying spouse. The procedural history is striking:
- First refusal (June 4, 2024): Application W310103509 refused. No judicial review filed.
- Second refusal (November 19, 2024): Application W309149452 refused on departure risk and absence of LMIA. Judicial review filed but discontinued in February 2024 after the Minister consented to redetermination.
- Third refusal (April 8, 2025): Same application redetermined and refused on different grounds — officer not convinced applicant was a shareholder of his Indian company, employment letter inadequate, business plan concerns. Judicial review not pursued. The applicant elected to file fresh.
- Fourth refusal (November 13, 2025): Fresh application W312518907 plus spousal application W312518909 refused. Reasoning closely mirrored the second refusal — departure risk, Gulf immigration status, similar Canadian businesses, no significant benefit under IRPR s. 205(a). Two new grounds added: insufficient family ties outside Canada and weak financial establishment in country of residence.
The Minister conceded the fourth refusal was unreasonable and brought a Rule 369 motion in writing to set it aside. The applicants opposed only the form of the order — they wanted directions binding the next officer and a costs award.
Why the Court Refused to Issue Directions
The applicants relied on Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1633, where the Court issued directions to prevent an “endless merry-go-round of judicial reviews.” Justice Gleeson distinguished Mohandas’s situation in a critical way at paragraphs [18]-[20]:
“Contrary to the Applicants’ position, the circumstances do not disclose an endless merry-go-round of judicial reviews and subsequent reconsiderations. … The PA has not challenged each of the refusals. While the PA has challenged two of the refusal decisions by way of judicial review, each of those decisions related to a new or fresh application.”
This is the central lesson: fresh applications do not chain together for “merry-go-round” purposes. Each new application is treated as a discrete file. If you choose not to pursue judicial review of a refusal and instead file fresh, you reset the procedural history — and the Court will not order extraordinary remedies based on a pattern that you, the applicant, did not litigate to its conclusion.
Need Strategic Guidance on a Complex File?
Dimple Verma, RCIC-IRB (R708308), Commissioner of Oaths, has guided hundreds of clients through difficult IRCC matters. We assess strengths, identify weaknesses, and build the strongest possible application.
Start your secure Work Permit intake
Skip the back-and-forth. Complete a structured intake in 25 minutes. Reviewed by Dimple Verma, RCIC-IRB. No payment required to start.
Why the Court Refused Costs
Costs in immigration judicial reviews require “special reasons” under Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules. The threshold is high — confirmed by the Court in Jahazi v Canada, 2024 FC 2072 at paragraph 23. Justice Gleeson held at paragraph [24]:
“That separate decision-makers dealing with separate and distinct work permit applications may have similarly erred by failing to link the use of boilerplate language to the evidence does not disclose special reasons warranting an award of costs.”
In other words: even if multiple officers across multiple applications produced similarly weak reasoning, that alone is not “special reasons.” Costs remain rare in immigration matters.
What This Means for You — Practical Lessons
If you are facing repeated work permit refusals, this decision sets out a clear strategic framework:
- Decide early whether to litigate or refile. If the refusal reasoning is genuinely defective (boilerplate language, ignored evidence, misapplied IRPR provisions), pursuing judicial review may secure a court-ordered redetermination — and preserves your ability to argue “merry-go-round” later if errors repeat.
- Filing fresh after each refusal can backfire. The Court here said fresh applications are not chained for the purpose of seeking directions. Each refusal must be challenged on its own merits if you want to build a litigation pattern.
- Prepare the strongest possible response to common officer concerns: departure risk under IRPR s. 200(1)(b), establishment in country of residence, family ties outside Canada, and significant benefit under IRPR s. 205(a) for C11 owner-operator and similar streams.
- Submit comprehensive evidence. Officer concerns about ownership, experience, and business plan — like those in Mr. Mohandas’s third refusal — are often defeated by detailed corporate records, audited financials, and a credible business plan with verifiable Canadian market analysis.
- Boilerplate refusals are vulnerable. Justice Gleeson confirmed at paragraph [9] that the second and fourth refusals “relied on substantially the same reasoning and language.” When officer reasoning copies prior refusals without grappling with new evidence, the decision is reviewable.
Common IRPR Concerns and How to Address Them
Departure risk (IRPR s. 200(1)(b)): Officers refuse when they believe an applicant will not leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay. Strong evidence of property ownership, employment continuity in country of residence, family ties, and a clear business exit plan all help.
Significant benefit (IRPR s. 205(a)): For C11 owner-operator work permits, the Court has consistently said officers must engage with specific evidence of how the proposed business will benefit Canada — job creation, capital investment, knowledge transfer, and competitive offerings. Generic “similar companies exist” reasoning is often unreasonable.
Financial establishment: Provide bank statements covering at least 12 months, evidence of business assets in country of residence, and tax filings. The fourth refusal in Mohandas added this ground without the applicant being put on notice — a procedural fairness concern that could itself be reviewable.
How VG Immigration Can Help
Navigating Canada’s work permit system, especially the C11 owner-operator and entrepreneur streams, requires expert guidance. Dimple Verma, RCIC-IRB (R708308), Commissioner of Oaths, at VG Immigration Services has helped clients across India, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia secure work permits, respond to refusals, and prepare for judicial review where appropriate.
If you have received one or more work permit refusals, we can review your file, identify the strongest legal arguments, and help you decide between judicial review, a fresh application, or both — with a clear strategy that does not waste time or money.
Take the Next Step With VG Immigration
Whether you’re applying for the first time, dealing with a refusal, or navigating Federal Court, our team will give you a clear path forward. Located at 211B-9300 Goreway Drive, Brampton, ON.
📅 Book a Consultation | Visit vgis.ca | 💬 WhatsApp
Related reading on vgis.ca:
VG Immigration Services Inc. | 211B-9300 Goreway Drive, Brampton, ON L6P 4N1 | +1 416-578-9269 | immigration@vgis.ca
Follow us: Instagram | Facebook | LinkedIn | TikTok | X
Discover more from VG Immigration Services INC.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.