Genuine Job Offer: Staffing Agency’s LMIA Refused Because the Jobs Were Its Clients’, Not Its Own

What happened

A genuine job offer is the first thing an LMIA application has to prove — and a staffing agency has just learned how strictly that test is applied. In a Federal Court decision released November 6, 2026, a staffing agency asked the court to overturn an officer’s refusal of its Labour Market Impact Assessment. The court dismissed the application. The refusal stands.

The employer, Rogami Services Limited, describes itself as a “Healthcare Staffing Agency.” In April 2024 it applied for an LMIA for two full-time personal care aide positions in Kingston, Ontario. On August 1, 2024, an officer of Employment and Social Development Canada refused the application on two grounds: the offer of employment was not genuine, and the employment of temporary foreign workers was unlikely to have a neutral or positive effect on the Canadian labour market.

The company sought judicial review. The court found the officer’s conclusion reasonable and dismissed the case.

What “genuine” means in an LMIA

A positive LMIA can only be issued if two things are true: the offer of employment is genuine, and hiring the foreign worker is likely to have a neutral or positive effect on the Canadian labour market. The genuineness requirement exists to protect temporary foreign workers and keep the program honest.

Subsection 200(5) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations sets out four factors for deciding whether an offer is genuine:

• Whether the offer is made by an employer that is actively engaged in the business in respect of which the offer is made (unless the offer is for a live-in caregiver);
• Whether the offer is consistent with the reasonable employment needs of the employer;
• Whether the terms of the offer are terms that the employer is reasonably able to fulfil; and
• The past compliance of the employer, or anyone who recruits for the employer, with the laws that regulate employment and recruitment in the province where the worker will work.

The Temporary Foreign Worker Program is a last resort. It lets Canadian employers hire foreign nationals on a temporary basis to fill immediate shortages only when qualified Canadians and permanent residents are not available.

Genuine job offer: why the officer said no

The officer found the offer failed three of the four genuineness factors.

First, the company was not actively engaged in the business the offer was made for. It did not operate a care institution and did not directly provide personal care to clients. Its main business was placing workers with its clients. Under the government’s guidance, an employer is actively engaged where it operates a business providing a good or service linked to the job offer. Placing care aides at other people’s retirement homes is not the same as running a care service.

Second, the offer was not consistent with the company’s reasonable employment needs. Because it was a staffing agency, the jobs would fill the labour needs of its clients, not its own. The officer found no direct need linking the job offer to the company’s principal business activity.

Third, the company had not shown it was reasonably able to fulfil the terms of the offer. It could meet the financial obligations. But as a staffing agency, it would rely on its clients for the other terms, such as working conditions, which would be dictated by those clients. When the officer asked for its contracts with its clients, the company’s representative replied that the request was “out of the scope of this application.” The company also could not say at which retirement homes the workers would be placed — that would depend on its clients’ demand.

The officer also found the company had not made reasonable efforts to hire Canadians or permanent residents, which goes to the second ground for refusal.

Genuine job offer: why the court upheld the refusal

The court agreed with the officer on each point, and the company’s counter-arguments did not survive.

The finding that the company was a staffing agency, not a healthcare provider, was grounded in the evidence — including its own website and its own description of its business in the LMIA application. Having made that finding, the officer could reasonably conclude the job offer was not linked to the company’s own business or needs.

The company said the officer’s reasons were internally contradictory, pointing to a note describing it as “a healthcare agency that provides staffs for many retirement homes.” The court noted that passage simply reproduced the company’s own description of its business in its application — it was not a finding by the officer. The officer’s choice of the occupational classification for nurse aides concerned the position offered, not the company’s business, which the officer classified under the employment services industry code.

The company also argued it provides valuable services to care homes that cannot recruit workers on their own. The court said that value is not the question under the genuineness test. The assessment looks at the employer’s own business and needs — consistent with the protective purpose of the requirement.

A previous positive LMIA from October 2023, for positions in the same occupational group, did not help either. That decision letter contained no reasons, the materials behind it were not before the court, and that application was made under a different stream, for a different location and at a different wage. The court could find no inconsistency between the two decisions.

On the labour market ground, the court did not need to rule at all. A job offer reasonably found not to be genuine is enough on its own to refuse the LMIA, so the second ground was left undecided.

Finally, the company argued the reasons were too brief to understand and that this was unfair. The court disagreed. The decision letter was brief, but the assessment notes and the notes of the officer’s interactions with the company, read together, explained why the offer was found not genuine. The officer had raised the concerns in writing and in a telephone interview and gave the company a chance to respond. There was no breach of procedural fairness.

One more detail worth noting for anyone filing a judicial review: the case was originally filed in the name of the company’s general manager. The court amended the style of cause, because the company — not its manager — applied for the LMIA and is the party directly affected. The proper respondent for an LMIA decision is the Minister of Employment and Social Development.

What this means for employers

This decision is a warning for any employer whose business model sits between the worker and the workplace.

The offer must match your business, not your customer’s. If you are a staffing agency, a labour supplier or a placement firm, an LMIA for workers who will actually work for your clients is very hard to defend. The genuineness test asks about your business and your needs — not about how useful your services are to someone else.

Be ready to show your contracts. When the officer asked for the client contracts, the answer “out of scope” badly damaged the company’s case. If the terms of the job depend on a third party, the officer will want to see the documents that prove you control those terms.

A past positive LMIA is not a promise. A different stream, a different location or a different wage can all make the earlier decision irrelevant, and a decision letter with no reasons proves nothing about why it was granted.

And do not neglect recruitment. The officer also found insufficient efforts to hire Canadians or permanent residents. Even where the court does not rule on that ground, it is a live part of every LMIA and can be the reason an application fails on its own.

The practical takeaway

A genuine job offer means the job is yours to give: your business, your need, your terms. This staffing agency could not show any of the three. Its website said what it was, its clients set the working conditions, and it could not even say where the workers would go. The court found that conclusion reasonable, and the refusal stands.

If you are an employer considering an LMIA — especially if workers will be placed with clients — get advice before you apply. The genuineness assessment is decided on your business model, and it is far easier to fix the application than to overturn a refusal. Read our guide on whether to appeal or seek judicial review after a refusal.

How VG Immigration Services can help

If your LMIA was refused, or you are an employer planning to hire through the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and want to know whether your job offer will pass the genuineness test, book a consultation at vgis.ca or message us on WhatsApp at 416-578-9269. We will review the refusal reasons, assess whether judicial review is available, and help you put together an application that stands up to the officer’s questions.

This post is general information only and is not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts, and whether a refusal can be challenged depends on the specific decision and the law in force when it was made.