Canadian Employment Law Today

al rule is that the evidence record for the pur- poses of a judicial review application is re- stricted to that which was before the decision maker. Although there are some exceptions to this rule, none applied to the present case. Accordingly, any additional evidence filed with the court subsequent to the date of the decision to issue the exclusion order was not to be considered. e only exception made by the court was to allow some of Barua's evidence that was directed as to what he said at the interview because it was purportedly before the decision maker. However, where the evidence of the applicant conflicted with the notes of the two officers, the court pre - ferred the notes because they were recorded contemporaneously. Worker expressed intention to stay after expiry of work permit e court also disagreed with Barua's argu- ment that his factual circumstances were identical to those in Sibomana. In that case, the applicants had sought entry on a temporary work permit. However, un - like Barua, they had stated that although they considered the possibility of obtaining permanent resident status, they intended to leave the country when their temporary status expired. It was in view of that express intention to leave the country that the court determined in Sibomana that the decision to issue an exclusion order could not be justi - fied or maintained under s. 20(1)(a) of the IRPA, as that paragraph applies only to entry to become a permanent resident. Accord- ingly, that exclusion order did not fall within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes defensible in respect of the facts and law. However, in Barua's case, the record be - fore the court clearly showed that he had no intention to leave the country upon expiry of his temporary work permit. e officers' notes reflected that conversation with him. erefore, it could hardly be said that Barua had the same intention as the applicants in Sibomana. If anything, the officers' notes showed that Barua's intentions were to en - ter and remain in Canada permanently, and therefore issuance of the exclusion order was appropriate and reasonable. e fact that Barua had re-entered Can - ada with his previous work permit, know- ing it was no longer supported by a job, and the fact that he said he was travelling alone when the opposite was true, in all likelihood heightened the officers' concerns about his intentions. e officers' notes stated that the applicant had been dishonest during examination, withheld information, and the had been allowed the opportunity to with - draw his application for entry. e court held that the reasons to is- sue the exclusion order were reasonable in the circumstances and they were intel- ligible, transparent, justifiable, and within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law. Had the applicant not attempted to se- cure a new work permit, his situation would have been very different and the range of his options much broader. Instead, his insis- tence to pursue things on his own resulted in his exclusion from Canada. Applicants for work permits should be aware that mis- stating their intentions can result in serious consequences. For more information see: • Barua v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 Car- swellNat 252 (F.C.). • Sibomana v. Canada (Citizenship and Im- migration), 2012 CarswellNat 3170 (F.C.). • Muthui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immi- gration), 2014 CarswellNat 200 (F.C.). • Assn. of Universities & Colleges of Canada v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 CarswellNat 126 (F.C.A.). Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 CREDIT: ANDREY POPOV/SHUTTERSTOCK October 14, 2015 | Canadian Employment Law Today ABOUT THE AUTHOR Sergio R. Karas Sergio R. Karas, principal of Karas Immigration Law Profes- sional Corporation, is a certified specialist in Canadian citizen- ship and immigration law by the Law Society of Upper Canada. He is past chair of the Ontario Bar Association Citizenship and Immigration Committee, co-chair of the Canada Committee, American Bar Association Section of International Law, and editor of the Global Business Immigration Handbook. He can be reached at (416) 506-1800 or karas@karas.ca.

• Cover