Manitoba court overturns seven work-permit support-letter refusals

The Manitoba Court of King’s Bench has overturned seven refusals to provide a Winnipeg immigration candidate with a work-permit support letter, finding that officials gave incorrect explanations and treated a policy guideline as an automatic disqualification. In Prasad v. Manitoba (Labour and Immigration), 2026 MBKB 110, released August 11, 2026, Justice Bond ordered the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program to reconsider Rahul Prasad’s applications even though the temporary policy under which he applied had expired.

The ruling does not grant Prasad a support letter, a work permit or permanent residence. It requires a fresh administrative decision. The court stressed that the program retains discretion and that meeting its eligibility criteria does not guarantee a letter.

A corrected profile, but repeated refusals

Prasad came to Canada for post-secondary studies and completed a supply-chain management diploma at the University of Winnipeg. He subsequently worked as a security guard. His post-graduation work permit expired in May 2025, but he was authorized to continue working until May 2026 while an extension application was considered. The judgment says his employment ended when he no longer had authorization to work.

The provincial nominee process begins with an expression of interest. Selected candidates receive a letter of advice to apply, which invites an application for provincial nomination. A nomination can then support an application to the federal government for permanent residence. The work-permit support letter at issue in this case was a different document, intended to help prospective nominees seek a two-year Manitoba-specific work-permit extension while pursuing nomination.

Prasad received an invitation to apply for nomination in January 2025. His immigration consultant then identified an error in the expression of interest: commission-only work experience in India had been included when it should not have been, inflating his points score. A corrected expression of interest was submitted on January 14, 2025.

Rather than formally declining the invitation, Prasad left it unused, expecting it to expire after the 60 days stated in the invitation. The program’s computer system instead showed an expiry date in November 2025. The court said that discrepancy was unexplained. Although some correspondence described the invitation as declined, Justice Bond found that inconsistency immaterial: Prasad had not applied for nomination under it and had repeatedly explained the original error.

Between April and December 2025, he applied seven times for a work-permit support letter. Two refusals said he lacked a valid expression-of-interest profile on January 15, 2025, an explanation Manitoba conceded was incorrect. Another called his request a duplicate. The final four relied on the fact that he had previously received an invitation to apply for nomination.

Eligibility could not be hidden in an FAQ

The temporary policy’s main eligibility page required, among other things, a qualifying work-permit history, a valid expression-of-interest profile on the specified date and when applying, continued Manitoba residence, employment and an intention to settle in the province. It did not list a previous invitation to apply as a disqualification. That restriction appeared instead on a linked frequently asked questions page.

Justice Bond assessed procedural fairness in context, including the discretionary, online nature of the process and the decision’s importance to the applicant. The required level of fairness was relatively low, but applicants still had to know the eligibility requirements. Placing a disqualifying condition in a separate FAQ rather than the candidate-criteria list inadequately communicated the rule and was misleading, the court found.

Discretion required attention to the individual case

The court also reviewed the refusals for reasonableness. Under that standard, a decision must follow a rational analysis and be justified by the relevant facts and law. Broad discretion does not permit an administrator to disregard the purpose for which that discretion was granted.

Guidelines can help officials decide cases consistently, Justice Bond explained, but applying them as mandatory rules without considering individual circumstances improperly restricts their discretion. Here, the first three refusals rested on a clear misunderstanding of the facts. The last four treated the earlier invitation as an automatic bar without engaging with the inaccurate profile, the unused invitation’s expiry or the corrected profile.

The judge found no logical connection between an invitation issued on an inaccurate points score and Prasad’s suitability for a support letter. The policy was intended to assist prospective nominees seeking work-permit extensions, yet officials failed to consider why he remained in that position.

The brief rejection notices were also inadequate. Efficient processing did not require a detailed answer to every submission, but the reasons still needed to show how the applicant’s information led to the result. These notices did not engage with his central explanation.

Reconsideration despite the policy’s expiry

The temporary policy had expired by the time the court considered the remedy. Justice Bond nevertheless concluded that denying any practical remedy after finding unfairness and unreasonable refusals would itself be unfair and unreasonable. The court quashed all seven decisions and sent the matter back for reconsideration.

The decision concerns these particular refusals under the former temporary policy. It does not reopen the policy generally, require approval of every eligible application or transfer federal immigration decision-making to the provincial court.