Judge notes he was not analyzing propriety of Ontario’s licensing or compulsory trades regime
When granting a judicial review application challenging the denial of a work permit sought by a Nigerian citizen seeking to serve as a hairstylist apprentice, Canada’s Federal Court likened apprentices for compulsory trades to articling students in the legal profession.
From outside Canada, the applicant in Edem v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 66, applied for an employer‑specific work permit under the labour market impact assessment (LMIA) stream in August 2024.
According to the applicant, she intended to work as a hairstylist apprentice under the national occupational classification (NOC) 63210 – hairstylists and barbers. She provided a positive LMIA granted by the relevant department.
As proof of employment, the applicant submitted a November 2021 letter from a hair salon in Lagos, Nigeria, where she was working and performing many primary duties of a hairstylist.
On Dec. 5, 2024, the visa officer issued a decision denying the application upon determining that the applicant failed to meet the LMIA requirements.
Addressing the employment requirements for NOC 63210, the officer accepted that several years of experience could replace formal education and training.
However, the officer noted that the applicant lacked a trade qualification and had provided only one employment letter as proof of experience, rather than submitting education documents.
The applicant applied for a judicial review of the officer’s allegedly unreasonable decision.
Decision found unreasonable
The Federal Court granted the judicial review application but awarded no costs. The court considered the visa officer’s decision unreasonable.
First, the court ruled that the officer unreasonably found that they could not assess the applicant’s experience as she submitted only a letter of employment.
The court noted that the application indicated that the hair salon, where she has worked for over four years, continued to employ her.
Second, the court held that the officer unreasonably conflated the sub-occupation of a hairstylist apprentice with the primary occupation of a fully qualified hairstylist and imposed an inflexible requirement for trade certification under the NOC.
According to the court, while NOC 63210 covered hairstylists, other related occupations, and apprentices, it listed only the primary duties of hairstylists and barbers, not hairstylist apprentices.
The court said common sense dictated that the main job duties of a hairstylist and an apprentice were not equivalent.
The court explained that evaluating a hairstylist apprentice under the evidentiary standard applicable to a hairstylist would eliminate the purpose of being an apprentice, which was to gain the experience needed to qualify as a hairstylist.
According to the court, in Ontario:
- The NOC clarified that trade certification was compulsory
- Authorization, such as a certificate of qualification, was necessary for hairstylists and other compulsory trades
The court stressed that an apprenticeship program aims to equip prospective workers with some of the tools, experience, and training they need to earn the certification to independently practise a trade and qualify as a full-fledged member of the occupation.
The court considered apprentices for requisite trade occupations analogous to articling students, who should complete articles to gain the pre-qualification needed to independently practise the duties of lawyers under the provincial licensing regime.
The court added that preventing an apprentice or articling student from undergoing that step, given a failure to perform all the duties of the primary occupation before the mandated training period, would defy logic.
The court noted that it was not commenting on or analyzing the appropriateness of granting LMIAs for apprenticeship positions or Ontario’s licensing and/or compulsory trades regime.
The court found it inappropriate to comment on government policies or decisions made pursuant to these policies, notably when neither party filed a legal challenge against such matters.
