Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of the Nova Scotia Nominee Program (NSNP) eligibility criteria, particularly the ongoing requirement to maintain valid legal immigration status in Canada throughout processing.
• Weight given to the NSNP Application Guide and its provisions allowing withdrawal or refusal of applications where eligibility requirements, including legal status, are no longer met.
• Evidentiary assessment of immigration documents showing the applicant’s work permit expiry, refusal of extension, and pending restoration application, and whether these proved current legal status.
• Application of the reasonableness standard under Vavilov to the Program Officer’s decision, including whether the reasons were transparent, intelligible, and justified in relation to the facts and law.
• Alleged breaches of procedural fairness, including claims that the Officer failed to consider processing delays and did not provide adequate opportunity for clarification of the applicant’s status.
• Argument that the decision conflicted with the broader aims of provincial immigration policy—such as recognizing economic contributors—versus strict adherence to statutory and program criteria on admissibility and legal status.

Factual background

Ravinder Singh, a citizen of India, initially entered Canada on a study permit and later obtained an open work permit valid from April 11, 2023 to October 11, 2024. He relocated to Nova Scotia and secured employment as a transport truck driver, first with MT Moving Systems Inc. and later with AMJ Campbell Inc. Transport truck driving was recognized as an “Occupation in Demand” in Nova Scotia, positioning Singh to apply for permanent residence through the Nova Scotia Nominee Program (NSNP), Occupations in Demand stream.
On July 9, 2024, while holding a valid work permit, Singh submitted his NSNP application under the Occupations in Demand stream. The applicable NSNP Application Guide set out multiple eligibility criteria, including the requirement that the applicant “[has] proof of [their] immigration status in the country where [they] are currently living.” It further stressed that all documents must be valid both at the time of application and when applying for permanent residence, and that applications could be refused if documents were missing or invalid. Singh’s application proceeded on this basis.

Immigration status timeline and loss of status

As his work permit approached expiry, Singh applied on October 10, 2024, to extend his work permit, one day before its October 11, 2024 expiry date. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) acknowledged receipt of this extension application and confirmed that he was authorized to continue working under the same conditions as his original work permit until April 8, 2025 or until a decision was made on that extension, whichever came first.
On January 29, 2025, the work permit extension application was refused. The refusal letter explained that the officer was not satisfied Singh met the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Regulations. Critically, the letter advised that his temporary resident status expired on January 29, 2025, and informed him that he could apply for restoration of status within 90 days of that expiry, pointing him to the “Restoration of status” materials in the IRCC guide for changing conditions or extending stay in Canada.
On April 7, 2025, within the 90-day restoration window, Singh applied to restore his temporary resident status, identifying that he sought to restore his status as a visitor, not as a worker. On that same date, a provincial Nominee Officer emailed him requesting clear proof that he had maintained legal authorization to remain in Canada. The Officer provided three options: proof of a status extension application filed before expiry and still pending; proof of approval of such an extension; or proof that he had returned to his country of origin.
Singh responded the next day, providing a copy of his prior work permit, the refusal letter for the extension, and his restoration application to visitor status. These materials all entered the NSNP record and formed part of the evidentiary foundation for the later provincial decision.

NSNP program guide and ongoing eligibility

The NSNP Application Guide for the Occupations in Demand stream was central to the dispute. It required proof of immigration status as part of the eligibility criteria and emphasised that applicants themselves bear responsibility for providing all required documents, ensuring they are valid when submitted and when applying for permanent residence. The Guide warned that invalid or missing documents could lead to refusal. It also instructed applicants to advise the program of any status changes before receiving a permanent resident visa.
On page 11, the Guide stated that the province may withdraw a nomination at any time before an applicant receives a permanent resident visa and arrives in Canada if the applicant “no longer meet[s] the eligibility requirements of the Occupations in Demand stream.” Under the section “Gather the documents you need”, applicants living in Canada were required to include proof of legal status in Canada and to “ensure that [their] proof is valid when [they] submit [their] application.”
The court interpreted these provisions as reflecting an ongoing eligibility regime: although the text about valid documents is framed at the point of application, the explicit language allowing withdrawal of nomination if eligibility is later lost shows that legal status must be maintained, not merely demonstrated at the filing date. In addition, the decision referenced the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) sections 21(1), 22(1), and 41, underscoring that loss of status can render a foreign national inadmissible and ineligible for provincial nomination.

Provincial correspondence and opportunity to clarify status

Following the April 7–8 exchange, further communication ensued. On June 9, 2025, the NSNP Coordinator emailed Singh’s authorized immigration consultant. While the email addressed an employer-related matter, it also expressly noted that Singh had either not provided proof of legal status or that what was provided did not prove legal status in Canada. It cautioned that a foreign national who had not maintained status might be inadmissible under IRPA s. 41, 21(1), and 22(1), which would affect eligibility for provincial nomination.
On June 11, 2025, a program officer wrote to Singh reiterating that legal status in Canada was required to maintain admissibility and eligibility under the NSNP. The letter “offered [him] the opportunity to provide additional documentation confirming [he] currently h[eld] valid legal status in Canada” and warned that, if satisfactory proof was not received within 10 days, the application would be deemed not to meet minimum eligibility criteria and would be closed. The letter also advised that if an applicant could not demonstrate valid legal status, they must first restore their status in Canada—possibly by applying for a visitor record or by restoring worker status—before being eligible to apply for any immigration program.
On June 16, 2025, Singh’s immigration consultant replied, explaining that Singh had applied for restoration and asserting that he was “legally authorized to remain in Canada” by virtue of a non-enforcement policy while a bona fide restoration application was in process. This was the core evidentiary and legal position advanced on Singh’s behalf: that a pending restoration, even after expiry of temporary status, sufficed to meet the NSNP requirement of holding legal status.

Decision to close the NSNP application

On July 3, 2025, the program officer issued the impugned decision. The officer concluded that the documentation provided did not confirm that Singh currently held legal status in Canada and emphasized that maintaining valid status was a “key requirement” under both Canadian immigration law (IRPA ss. 21(1), 22(1), and 41) and the NSNP eligibility criteria. The letter stated that Singh’s application was therefore closed for not meeting the minimum eligibility requirements of the stream, but indicated that if his situation changed he could reapply and would be assessed under the eligibility criteria in effect at that later time.
By that date, as the court noted, it was “clear and unchallenged” that Singh did not, in fact, have legal status in Canada. His work permit extension had been refused on January 29, 2025, and his temporary resident status expired that same day. The restoration application filed on April 7, 2025 sought only to restore him as a visitor, and there was no evidence of any decision granting restoration by July 3, 2025. In oral argument before the court, Singh’s counsel acknowledged that he did not hold legal status at the time of the provincial decision.

Judicial review grounds and arguments

Singh applied to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia for judicial review of the July 3, 2025 decision. He argued, first, that the officer’s decision was unreasonable and failed to consider the totality of the evidence, including his position that NSNP applications in Nova Scotia did not require maintenance of legal status throughout processing and that his “applied status” via restoration should have been treated as lawful status. He contended that the conclusion that he lacked legal status was speculative and unsupported.
Second, he claimed a breach of procedural fairness: processing times for both NSNP applications and status-related immigration applications are lengthy, so maintaining legal status is often beyond applicants’ control. On this view, it was unfair for the province to penalize him for circumstances dictated by federal processing delays.
Third, he asserted that the officer’s decision conflicted with the purpose of the immigration program, which, in his submission, was to recognize individuals contributing to Nova Scotia’s economy, workforce, and communities. By refusing his application despite his contribution as a truck driver in a demand occupation, he claimed the decision undermined the program’s objectives.

Standard of review and reasonableness analysis

Both parties accepted that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. The court also referenced prior Nova Scotia authority confirming that reasonableness is the standard for NSNP decisions. A reasonableness review requires “respectful attention” to the decision-maker’s reasons and asks whether the result is supported by an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis that is justified in light of the legal and factual constraints.
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal’s summary of Vavilov in EMC Emergency Medical Care Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2024 NSCA 55, guided the analysis. Key hallmarks of a reasonable decision—justification, transparency, and intelligibility—were applied. The court emphasized that decision-makers are not required to address every argument in detail, but the reasons must permit the reviewing court to understand the path of reasoning on critical points and must not contain fatal logical flaws.

Court’s assessment of the NSNP decision

The court held that the Program Officer’s decision was reasonable. The decision clearly identified the NSNP stream at issue, the eligibility criteria applied, and the conclusion that Singh did not currently hold legal status in Canada. It highlighted the relevant IRPA sections and the NSNP eligibility provisions concerning legal status. The court found the officer had properly outlined the basis for refusal, considered the documentation provided, and reasonably determined that Singh lacked current legal status—a key requirement under both federal law and the NSNP guide.
On the applicant’s claim that he was only required to prove valid legal status at the time of submission, the court rejected his interpretation of the Guide. While some sections might be open to interpretation, the express language allowing withdrawal of nomination “at any time” if the applicant no longer meets eligibility requirements, including holding legal status, supported the officer’s view that eligibility was ongoing. The only text Singh relied on—requiring valid documents at submission—concerned the document checklist, not the broader eligibility framework. The court thus concluded that the officer’s approach was “in keeping with the provisions of the Guide” and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Additionally, the court underscored that Singh had not directly engaged with the statutory requirements under IRPA or with the clear April 7, 2025 email, which had laid out three paths to continue his application: timely status extension filed and still pending, proof of an approved extension, or proof of departure to his home country. He had done none of these by the time of the July decision. Overall, the court found that his concerns had been heard, but the decision remained reasonable in light of the factual record and the legal framework.

Evidence on legal status and procedural fairness claims

With respect to the evidentiary basis for finding that Singh lacked legal status, the court found the challenge difficult to understand. It was “clear and unchallenged” that he did not have legal status at the time of the decision, and this was acknowledged by his own counsel in oral submissions. All relevant emails and documents were part of the record, and the decision letter itself referred to the “documentation provided,” concluding that it did not confirm legal status. That conclusion was described as logical given the undisputed expiry of his status.
On procedural fairness, Singh had raised concerns about processing timelines in his Notice of Judicial Review, but he filed no evidence on actual processing times, and his written submissions did not develop that argument. The court held that he bore the burden of establishing a breach of procedural fairness and had not met it. Instead, the record showed that he was given an express opportunity to clarify his status and provide further documentation. The program officer had a copy of his restoration application and the June 16, 2025 letter from his consultant explaining his position. As such, he had been afforded an opportunity to be heard on his status before the negative decision was made.
The court also rejected the argument that the decision was inconsistent with the purpose of the immigration program. The only evidence before the court about program purpose was the NSNP Guide itself, and the officer’s decision was fully consistent with that Guide and with IRPA provisions requiring valid legal status in the country of residence. The applicant’s broader assertion about recognizing economic contributors had no evidentiary support in the record.

Outcome and costs

In its conclusion, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia held that the Program Officer’s decision of July 3, 2025 correctly found that Singh did not hold legal status in Canada as of that date and that, as a result, his NSNP application under the Occupations in Demand stream properly failed to meet the minimum eligibility requirements. The court ruled that the decision was both reasonable and procedurally fair.
Accordingly, the court dismissed Singh’s application for judicial review and ordered that costs be payable to the Respondent, the Minister of Labour, Skills and Immigration of Nova Scotia. The decision invited written submissions, up to five pages, on the question of costs if the parties could not agree within 30 days. No specific quantum or tariff amount was fixed in the judgment, meaning that while the Respondent was the successful party and entitled to costs, the exact monetary amount of costs (and any related financial impact) could not be determined from this decision alone.