Skip to main content
Lawgical Law
Corporation
(778) 598-3785 Book a consultation

Negative LMIA: the reasons ESDC gives, when to reapply, and when to go to the Federal Court

By Pardeep S. Grewal, lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation · Reviewed November 10, 2026

Published

Pardeep S. Grewal is a lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation, called to the BC bar in 2024, and a member of the Law Society of British Columbia.

Updated November 10, 2026: section 203 of the Regulations, ESDC’s “After you apply” page (modified August 4, 2026) and every published Federal Court decision on an LMIA from 2015 to November 2026 (31 decisions) checked that day.

The fix: read the reasons and the officer’s notes. If the refusal rests on gaps in your own ads or documents, file a better new LMIA. If the officer applied a guideline as a fixed rule, ignored your evidence or relied on something you never saw, apply for judicial review.

The deadline: 15 days from the decision to apply to the Federal Court (IRPA s.72(2)(b)). The employer applies from inside Canada, so the 15-day limit for a matter arising in Canada applies, as the Court confirmed in Seven Valleys, 2017 FC 195.

Why a lawyer: a second application that repeats the first one’s gaps usually fails the same way, and the court route has a short deadline. Why a lawyer

Book a consultation

The lawyers who review these refusals

Sundeep S. Grewal, Barrister and SolicitorSundeep S. GrewalBarrister and SolicitorPrabhpreet Kaur Sangha, Barrister and SolicitorPrabhpreet Kaur SanghaBarrister and SolicitorPardeep S. Grewal, Barrister and SolicitorPardeep S. GrewalBarrister and Solicitor
About our lawyers

Sundeep S. Grewal founded Lawgical Law Corporation and argues immigration cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada.

Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha focuses on refugee claims, immigration appeals, inadmissibility, detention reviews and Federal Court cases, and has presented at Continuing Legal Education seminars and the National Immigration Conference.

Pardeep S. Grewal is an immigration and estates lawyer known for clear communication and practical strategy.

If Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) issued a negative Labour Market Impact Assessment, you cannot use it to support a work permit, and the processing fee is not refunded. Most negative LMIAs rest on the same few findings: not enough effort to hire Canadians, job requirements set too high, an offer that does not look genuine, or a wage below the local median. We reviewed every published Federal Court decision on an LMIA since 2015. Where the refusal rested on the employer’s own ads or documents, the Court usually upheld it. Where the officer treated a guideline as a fixed rule, ignored evidence, or relied on information the employer never saw, the Court usually set it aside. Which side of that line your refusal falls on decides what to do next.

Lawgical Law Corporation, an immigration law firm in Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC, prepares LMIA applications for employers and takes negative decisions to the Federal Court; this guide is by Pardeep S. Grewal.

Book a consultation about your LMIA or work permit TapClick to open a short form. Our team will contact you to arrange a time.Short form, 4 quick fields Open form

What does the officer assess?

Under section 203 of the Regulations, the officer decides whether the job offer is genuine and whether hiring a foreign worker is likely to have a neutral or positive effect on the Canadian labour market. The labour market factors in section 203(3) include:

  • whether the job will create or keep jobs for Canadians, or pass on skills to them;
  • whether it is likely to fill a labour shortage;
  • whether the wages and working conditions meet Canadian standards for the job;
  • whether the employer has made reasonable efforts to hire or train Canadians;
  • whether the employer kept the commitments it made in any earlier LMIA.

Genuineness looks at the business itself: whether it is actively operating, whether the job fits its real needs, and whether it can meet the terms of the offer.

Why this needs a lawyer

One lawyer, one file, every step:

  • reading the decision and the officer’s notes to find the real reason;
  • a new LMIA that answers each concern with evidence;
  • judicial review in the Federal Court where the officer got it wrong;
  • the worker’s options while the employer’s file is fixed.

Immigration lawyers are members of a provincial law society (in our case, the Law Society of British Columbia), and only lawyers can appear for you in the Federal Court.

The reasons ESDC gives most often

In the 21 published decisions on a negative LMIA, these were the grounds, and most refusals relied on more than one.

  1. Not enough effort to hire Canadians (15 of 21). Usually an advertising gap: ads without the full business address, no proof that ads to under-represented groups ran, a Job Bank ad that lapsed before the decision, full-time-only ads where part-time is the norm, or an advertised wage below the median or below what the foreign worker would be paid. Typical wording: “You have not demonstrated sufficient efforts to hire Canadians in the occupation.”
  2. Job offer not genuine (10 of 21). A start-up not yet operating, a staffing agency placing workers with clients, doubts about the ability to pay, or, in trucking, a fleet or insurance record that does not match the drivers claimed.
  3. Wage (9 of 21). Officers check the Job Bank median on the day you file, and expect more than the median when the job adds skills or has hard conditions. In one case the officer wrote that “the wage offering was insufficient to attract a qualified Canadian/PR to apply”.
  4. Requirements set too high (7 of 21). Most often more experience than the NOC description. For a long-haul driver, an officer wrote that “experience may be considered as an asset; however, it is not an essential requirement for the position.”
  5. No labour shortage (7 of 21). Based on labour market data and, often, a call to a union or industry association.

What wins in the Federal Court?

The Court set aside 12 of the 21 refusals (one only in part). The winning arguments fell into three groups:

  • A guideline treated as a fixed rule. In Next Alutech Ltd. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development), 2026 FC 262, the officer insisted on a bank attestation and ignored the other financial documents filed. The Court held on February 25, 2026 that the attestation is only one acceptable document, and sent the file back. In Tufor Holdings Ltd., 2021 FC 1350, a Surrey restaurant won because the officer asked only whether the under-represented-groups ad rules were met, not whether its overall recruitment was reasonable.
  • Evidence ignored, or reasons that don’t explain the result. In D. Garcha Trucking Ltd., 2026 FC 637, a BC trucking company’s refusal was set aside on May 21, 2026 because the reasons did not deal with its ownership and authorization documents.
  • Information the employer never saw. Refusals have been set aside where the officer relied on a phone call to an industry association or a third party’s opinion without giving the employer a chance to respond.

Refusals were upheld where they rested on the employer’s own material: unjustified experience demands, ads below the Job Bank median, inconsistent ads, or a business that was not yet operating. The Court also repeats that recruitment is judged as of the filing date, so later fixes to the ads do not count, and that a past positive LMIA does not carry a new one.

What did the Court say in 11043277 Canada Inc.?

In 11043277 Canada Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development), 2026 FC 54, a trucking company’s LMIA was refused. The officer found the company’s evidence showed a fleet of 67 trucks, not the 140 or more it claimed, and that its ads demanded 13 or more years of experience, far beyond comparable postings. The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review on January 14, 2026: the findings were reasonable on the evidence the employer had filed.

The lesson I take from these cases is to sort the refusal before deciding anything. If it rests on our own ads or numbers, the faster route is a new application that fixes them. If the officer applied a rule that isn’t one, or ignored what we filed, that is a case for the Court.

What are my options?

  1. File a new LMIA that deals with every reason given: new recruitment if the ads fell short, the right wage, realistic job requirements, and business records that show the need.
  2. Judicial review in the Federal Court within 15 days if the officer treated a guideline as binding, ignored evidence, or relied on information you never saw.
  3. An LMIA-exempt route for the worker, if one genuinely fits (for example, an open work permit or an exempt category).
  4. Ask ESDC to reconsider. As with any administrative decision, you can ask the officer to look again where there was an error of fact or law, or where new information would change the result. There is no formal process or right to it: officers have told employers there is “no re-consideration nor appeal process in place, for a negative LMIA decision” (Babic, 2016 FC 174). And asking does not stop the 15-day court deadline.

A negative LMIA at a glance

Question Answer Source
Is the processing fee refunded? No ESDC “After you apply” page
What does the officer assess? Genuineness and labour market effect IRPR s.203
Most common refusal ground Not enough effort to hire Canadians (15 of 21 published cases) Federal Court decisions, 2015–2026
Formal reconsideration or appeal? No appeal; reconsideration is discretionary Babic, 2016 FC 174
Court deadline 15 days IRPA s.72(2)(b); Seven Valleys, 2017 FC 195
Can the employer reapply? Yes, with a new application ESDC

Worked example: the recruitment gap

Example. An Abbotsford farm-supply company receives a negative LMIA on Monday, November 16, 2026, because its job ads ran for less time than required and asked for five years of experience for a role that normally needs two. The refusal rests on its own ads, so rather than go to court it runs new ads for the full period, lowers the experience requirement to match the job, documents every Canadian applicant, and files a new LMIA.

Mistakes I have seen

  • I have seen ads go out without the full business address of the work location.
  • I have seen employers advertise to Canadians at one wage and offer the foreign worker a higher one.
  • I have seen job requirements written around one particular worker, which officers notice.
  • I have seen employers refile within days with the same ads and the same job description.

Frequently asked questions

Who can challenge a negative LMIA, the employer or the worker?

The employer is the applicant, so the employer usually brings the judicial review. The worker should get separate advice on their own status.

Does a negative LMIA affect the worker’s future applications?

Not by itself. But if ESDC found the offer was not genuine, a later work permit officer may look closely at any new offer from the same employer.

Can I see the officer’s notes?

Usually, through an access to information request to ESDC, and they come with the court record if you apply for judicial review. The notes often show the real reason more clearly than the refusal letter.

We had a positive LMIA for the same job last year. Doesn’t that help?

Usually not. The Court has said a past approval matters only if the facts and evidence are the same, and each application is judged on its own record.

See our guides on how the LMIA works, a fake job offer or LMIA and a refused work permit.

Related guides: a work permit refused despite a positive LMIA.

What should I do right now?

Write down the date of the decision and count 15 days. Gather your ads (as the public saw them), applicant records and payroll. Decide with a lawyer whether the refusal is one to fix with a new application or one to take to court.

Book a consultation with our immigration lawyers in Surrey, Abbotsford or Vancouver, or online from anywhere.

Ready to book? Open the booking form ↑

Sources (official)

This article is general information, not legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts.