Your visiting relative was reported for working in Canada: what counts as work and what can happen

By Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha, lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation · Reviewed November 10, 2026

Published November 11, 2026

Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha is a lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation, called to the BC bar in 2019, and a member of the Law Society of British Columbia.

Updated November 10, 2026: sections 30, 41 and 44 of the Act, sections 2 and 180.1 of the Regulations, IRCC’s “What is work?” guidance and the Federal Court’s decision in Petinglay (2019) checked that day.

“A foreign national may not work or study in Canada unless authorized to do so under this Act” (IRPA s.30(1)). A visitor, including a parent on a super visa, has no permission to work. If someone has reported your relative, CBSA may look into it. If an officer finds they worked without authorization, the officer can write a report under section 44 for failing to comply with the Act, which can lead to a removal order. It can also mean refused or cancelled visas later. Not everything a visiting parent does is work, though, and an anonymous tip proves nothing on its own.

Lawgical Law Corporation, an immigration law firm in Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC, represents visitors in CBSA interviews and section 44 proceedings; this guide is by Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha.

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

What counts as work?

The Regulations define work as “an activity for which wages are paid or commission is earned, or that is in direct competition with the activities of Canadian citizens or permanent residents in the Canadian labour market” (IRPR s.2).

• Usually work: paid jobs, cash work, shifts at a family business in place of a paid employee.
• Usually not work: caring for your own grandchildren, helping around the family home.
• Grey areas: unpaid help in a family business. IRCC’s guidance asks: “Will they be doing an activity that a Canadian or permanent resident should really have an opportunity to do?” An activity that does not really “take away” from those opportunities is not work, and IRCC gives “unremunerated help by a friend or family member during a visit” as an example.

What has the Federal Court said?

Occasional help, not a de facto employee: decision set aside. In Petinglay v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 1371, a caregiver sometimes ran the cash register at a large liquor store when her sister, who worked there, took short breaks. She was unpaid, and the store had about 90 employees. The Immigration Appeal Division found it was work. On October 31, 2019, the Court set that decision aside: in the earlier cases where unpaid help counted as work, the people “became de facto employees on a regular basis,” and the Appeal Division had not dealt with how different these facts were.

The lesson I take from this case is that the details decide it: how often, whether anyone else was there to do the job, and whether the business relied on the help. Those facts need to be gathered before anyone answers CBSA’s questions.

Why this needs a lawyer

One lawyer, one file, every step:

• reviewing what your relative actually did;
• preparing for and attending a CBSA interview;
• a response to a section 44 report or an admissibility hearing;
• future visa and super visa applications that deal with what happened.

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.

What are my options?

1. Stop the activity now, and keep records of what was and wasn’t done.
2. Get advice before any interview. Your relative should answer truthfully; an untrue answer creates a second, worse problem.
3. If a section 44 report is written, respond with evidence about what the activity really was.
4. Leaving voluntarily before a removal order is made. If CBSA has already prepared a section 44 report, leaving does not automatically close the case. If no removal order is ultimately made, your relative does not need an Authorization to Return to Canada because of that departure. The unauthorized work can still affect future visa, permit or entry decisions.

Visitors and work at a glance

Worked example: the father at the corner store

Example. A father on a super visa sometimes watches the till at his daughter’s corner store in Abbotsford while she picks up her children from school. A neighbour reports him to CBSA. On Wednesday, November 25, 2026, CBSA asks him to come in for an interview. He stops helping at once, and his lawyer prepares him to explain truthfully how often he helped, that he was never paid, and who else was working, with the store’s staff schedules.

Mistakes I have seen

• I have seen visitors paid in cash “just to help out” and then deny it in an interview.
• I have seen families ignore a CBSA letter, hoping it would go away.
• I have seen later visa applications answer “no” to a question about past violations.

Frequently asked questions

Can a neighbour really report us?

Yes, anyone can send a tip. A tip is a reason to look, not proof.

Will my parent’s super visa be cancelled?

It can be if an officer finds them inadmissible or believes they won’t leave. That is not automatic.

Can my business be fined?

Employing someone not authorized to work is an offence. Get advice for the business too.

Related guides

See our guides on a super visa refusal, a CBSA section 44 report and a refused visitor record.

What should I do right now?

Stop any activity that could be work. Keep any letter from CBSA or IRCC. Get advice before your relative is interviewed.

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)

• Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 30, s. 41, s. 44 and s. 124 (current to October 19, 2026)
• Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, s. 2 and s. 180.1
• IRCC: What is work?
• Petinglay v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 1371 (October 31, 2019)

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