Skip to content

The limits of open work permits

Kathleen Leighton

In Canada, foreign nationals have various options to obtain either “employer-specific” or “open” work permits – we discuss this distinction in greater detail here. Open work permits can be obtained by individuals in different circumstances, including (among others):

  • graduated international students who are eligible to obtain a Post-Graduation Work Permit;
  • individuals applying through International Experience Class (only in some cases);
  • individuals who hold a valid work permit at the time they apply for permanent residency through the Express Entry system and who are eligible for a Bridging Open Work Permit; and
  • spouses and common-law partners of certain skilled workers or international students.

However, it is important to note that the term “open” can be deceiving. While open work permits provide far greater flexibility than employer-specific work permits, they are not free of restrictions. Read more to understand some of the limits of open work permits, and how to overcome occupation restrictions.

Open work permit restrictions

There are various restrictions on all temporary residents, including open work permit holders, as imposed by regulation. These restrictions include, but are not limited to, that temporary residents:

  1. must leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay;
  2. must not work for an employer in a business where there are reasonable grounds to suspect a risk of sexual exploitation of workers – this can include strip club, massage parlours, and escort agency businesses; and
  3. must not study, unless otherwise authorized.

These restrictions will apply whether or not any conditions appear on the work permit itself.

Additionally, foreign nationals who are looking to work in occupations in which the protection of public health is essential will have to submit to a medical exam. Otherwise, the open permit will have occupation restrictions, namely a prohibition from working in:

  1. childcare;
  2. primary and secondary school education; and
  3. health services field occupations.

Note that medical exams can also be required for those who have spent time in certain designated countries, in some circumstances. Otherwise, there can also be restrictions against working in agricultural occupations.

As with the other implied restrictions noted above, these occupation restrictions are applicable even if they are not written on the work permit itself.

Officers also have the ability to impose additional conditions on the work permit, including with respect to the location of work. Therefore, work permit holders should ensure they review the details of their permit for such limits.

Overcoming occupation restrictions

As noted, medical exams are required for individuals to work in childcare, primary and secondary school education, and health services field occupations, even if the temporary resident otherwise holds an open permit.

That said, it is important to note that the medical exam must be completed before the work permit is issued to obtain a permit without these occupation restrictions. If a temporary resident already holds an open work permit, but has not yet completed a medical exam, they must:

  1. complete an “up-front” medical exam with a designated panel physician; and
  2. submit an application to change their work permit conditions.

In other words, the medical exam on its own is not sufficient to obtain authorization to work in these restricted occupations.

Additionally, if the applicant applied for their work permit from abroad and was already issued a Port of Entry Letter of Introduction, but has not yet travelled to Canada and obtained their open work permit, they may:

  1. complete an “upfront” medical exam with a designated panel physician; and
  2. bring their medical Information Sheet confirming completion of the exam to the border services officer when entering Canada.

It is important to keep in mind that medical exam results are not processed and made available in the system for border officers to view right away. There can be a delay, and the officer will need to be able to see the results in the system in order to issue an open permit free of occupation restrictions.

Conclusion

Open work permit holders should be aware that not all applicable restrictions may be listed on the permit itself, and they should seek advice if they need clarification on the limits of their permit.

Similarly, employers should seek advice to ensure any employees who hold open work permits are not restricted from working as contemplated, particularly those in education, childcare, agricultural, and health services entities.

Our immigration group would be pleased to advise on open work permits and assist with change of conditions applications as needed.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top