Work Permit Refused Over Finances: The Second Income the Officer Ignored

Case: Dasse v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 1331 — judicial review granted

What happened

The applicant, an Ivorian citizen living in Ghana with his wife and four children, had more than 25 years of religious leadership experience and had served as a Senior Evangelist since September 2018. In late 2024, a Montreal church offered him a three-year Senior Evangelist position at $60,000 a year. He applied for a work permit on December 23, 2024, under the religious-workers stream.

His wife had also been offered a three-year role at the same church — leading the women’s ministry — also at $60,000 a year. Together, the couple’s expected income was $120,000 a year, well above the $69,835 low-income threshold for a family of six in Montreal. Their joint bank statement showed about $2,800, and their two adult children planned to work in Canada on open work permits and contribute to family expenses.

The officer refused the work permit on January 9, 2025, finding the applicant’s $60,000 salary and the couple’s bank balance insufficient to support a family of six in Montreal. The officer never mentioned the wife’s $60,000 offer. The family’s related work and study permits were then refused as a consequence.

What the Court decided

The Federal Court granted judicial review and set aside all six refusals, sending the applications to a different officer for redetermination:

1. Silence on central evidence can be the winning ground. The officer concluded the couple “together” lacked sufficient funds while never mentioning the wife’s salary — even though the family’s submissions expressly presented the two salaries as a combined $120,000. The more central the unmentioned evidence, the more readily silence implies it was ignored.
2. Short reasons are fine — but they must answer the evidence. Officers may write concise reasons, but those reasons still have to address the facts and concerns raised by the evidence before them.
3. No post-hoc rescue. The Minister argued the principal application had to be assessed first, ignoring the spouse’s prospective income — but that argument appeared nowhere in the officer’s reasons, and a reviewing court cannot supply a justification the decision-maker never gave.
4. You cannot count the spouse in the needs and ignore her in the income. The officer relied in part on documents from the wife’s own file, yet treated her income as if it did not exist.

What this means for you

When family applications are before the same officer, the officer cannot count your spouse in the family’s size and costs while ignoring your spouse’s income. And if a refusal ignores a central piece of your evidence — a job offer, a bank account, a property — that silence itself can be the ground for judicial review.

Practical points from this case:

• Present family income as a combined figure, with the contract or offer letter for each earner attached — do not leave the officer to connect the dots across separate files.
• If the officer’s reasons never mention your strongest evidence, that omission matters more than the length of the reasons.
• A refusal of the principal applicant’s permit does not automatically end the family’s case — the related refusals fell with it here.

How VG Immigration Services can help

If your work permit was refused on financial grounds, or your family’s related applications were refused as a consequence, book a consultation at vgis.ca or message us on WhatsApp at 416-578-9269.

This post summarizes a Federal Court decision for general information. It is not legal advice for a specific case, and every file turns on its own facts and evidence.