CLASS ACTION AUTHORIZED AGAINST CANADA ALLEGING UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF "EMPLOYER-TYING MEASURES"(1) IMPOSED ON TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS, INCLUDING EMPLOYER-SPECIFIC OR "CLOSED" WORK PERMITS
MONTREAL, June 28, 2025 /CNW/ - On September 13, 2024, the Superior Court of Québec authorized the Association for the Rights of Household and Farm Workers to institute a class action against the Attorney General of Canada.
The Association argues that "employer-tying measures"1 imposed on temporary foreign workers2, including employer-specific work permits or "closed" work permits, breach sections 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Association asks that certain provisions of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations be declared unconstitutional, and that Charter damages (monetary compensation) be paid to all members of the class action.
The Attorney General of Canada contests the merits of the class action, which will be determined by a trial to be scheduled at a later time.
A person is automatically a member of this class action IF they worked in Canada after April 17, 1982 without having been a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada at the time, AND IF they meet at least one (1) of the following conditions:
They were issued a work permit which included the condition of working for a specific employer (or group of employers) or at a specific employer's workplace (or group of workplaces):
They meet this condition if they were hired through the Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFWP), the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) or the Non-Immigrant Employment Authorization Program (NIEAP).
They also meet this condition if they were hired through the International Mobility Program (IMP) or another immigration stream or program and their work permit included the condition of working for a specific employer (or group of employers) or at a specific employer's workplace (or group of workplaces).
OR
They were authorized to work in Canada without a work permit because they were employed by a foreign entity on a short-term basis, or because they were employed in a personal capacity by an individual who was not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident. This category:
includes domestic workers, personal assistants or caregivers (nannies or au pair) who entered Canada along with their employers, or to join their employers for a short-term in Canada;
includes accredited domestic workers employed in a personal capacity by certain foreign representatives, such as ambassadors, high commissioners, heads of international organizations, special representatives, or individuals occupying similar positions;
does not include individuals who were employed by a foreign State or other foreign entity to work at an embassy, a high commission, a consulate, a permanent delegation to a United Nations agency, or a special representative office;
does not include individuals employed by the United Nations, its agencies or an international organization of which Canada is a member.
Individuals who meet those criteria are automatically included in the class action. They are not required to do anything further to become members of the class action. They will never have to pay legal costs arising from the class action.
If a person does not want to be included in the class action, they may opt out of the class action by August 27, 2025 at 4:30 PM at the latest. The means of opting out and the consequences of doing so are explained in the detailed notice to members of the class action:
https://www.registredesactionscollectives.quebec/fr/Consulter/ApercuDemande?NoDossier=500-06-001263-231
1 The Attorney General of Canada contests the qualification of the challenged provisions as "employer-tying measures", which comes from the Association's allegations and the authorization judgment.
2 Sometimes referred to as migrant workers.
View original content:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/class-action-authorized-against-canada-alleging-unconstitutionality-of-employer-tying-measures1-imposed-on-temporary-foreign-workers-including-employer-specific-or-closed-work-permits-302486361.html
SOURCE Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
View original content: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2025/28/c4152.html
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'I'm not a troublemaker': Condo board orders resident to remove Canadian flags from balcony
A senior in Calgary's southeast is left wondering why his condo board is no longer allowing him to display Canadian flags on his property. Jim McLeman, 78, is the retired owner of a 14th-floor suite in The Lookout, located at 801 2nd Avenue S.W. Despite displaying Canadian flags outside of his property for around two decades, he was surprised to recently learn his condo board has a bylaw with a zero-tolerance policy for flags. 'Basically, I'm breaking the bylaws and they're giving me until June 26 to remove it,' McLeman said. As of June 27, McLeman remains in his home and the flag still stands on his balcony. The flag flap comes as Canada Day, the celebration embracing the country's colours and flag, approaches. McLeman bought the property back in 1998 and moved in after the building was constructed in 2000. Every summer, he would proudly display a few of his Canadian flags. Originally, he had three on display. Now, he only has a single flag situated on the corner of his patio. The three-by-five-foot Canadian flag is attached to a broom handle, which is secured to a post. After receiving an email notifying him of the bylaw violation, he searched for answers as to why this was suddenly an issue. 'They haven't said what the penalty would be,' he said. 'They just said I was violating the board of condos' bylaws.' It indicated an anonymous individual brought the issue to the board's attention, and that their bylaws prohibit the display of flags since it can face challenges if it allows one but not another. When contacted by Postmedia, the property manager responsible for The Lookout stated they would not discuss the company's policy with a third party, or provide a reason why the flag was not permitted. An annual general meeting for condo owners and tenants was held June 19, but McLeman couldn't attend as his wife suffers from end-stage Parkinson's. Additionally, he would have been unable to address the issue there as unit-specific issues or disputes are addressed outside of the meeting. 'I thought that this could've been brought up with owners at the meeting, but I guess they feel it's not the time or place,' he said. As an immigrant from the extreme northern end of Scotland, McLeman said he's proud to display the Canadian flag outside of his property. 'I came here back in '67, I was just a 20-year-old kid,' he said. 'I'm proud to be a Canadian. I'm told I cannot fly my country's flag, and I cannot believe it.' As a symbol that some have died for, McLeman is shocked he's being told to remove it. 'I'm not a troublemaker, nobody's said anything about it or told me I can't do that,' he said. 'But if there was a good reason, nobody has given me anything.' Erin Berney, a partner with Field Law in Edmonton, said condo boards have the authority to pass bylaws pursuant to the Condominium Property Act in Alberta. 'So, when you think bylaws, think almost like regulations,' Berney said. 'That's how they're treated, interpreted, and that's how they're enforced by the courts. The Condominium Property Act actually gives the (condo) board the authority and the mandate to enforce their bylaws for their particular condo corporation.' Since each condo corporation is unique, bylaws vary from one property to the next. Regardless, Berney said prohibitions on flying flags or hanging flags and signs in windows are fairly common bylaw prohibitions. In the end, it all goes back to the condominium's bylaws. 'Does the board give any discretion at all to allow the owner to fly a flag or post a flag somewhere, anywhere?' Berney said. 'If it doesn't give the board any discretion, then there's not much he can do. 'That said, if there is discretion under the bylaws, then we want to look at whether the board has been exercising that reasonably and consistently with its past decisions on similar issues.' Although the National Flag Act of Canada exists, it's not very mandating. 'All it says really is that individuals who are in control of apartment buildings or condominium buildings should be encouraged to allow the national flag of Canada to be displayed,' she said. 'I could conceivably see somebody, an owner or a resident in a condo trying to invoke this legislation to challenge a condo bylaw, prohibiting flags from being displayed. 'I'm just not sure if it would succeed, given that this legislation just encourages. It doesn't mandate anybody to do anything.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Carney comments on Trump 'terminating' trade talks with Canada
Prime Minister Mark Carney comments moments after U.S. President Donald Trump said that he was "terminating all discussions on trade with Canada" and threatened new tariffs over Ottawa's plans to push ahead with a digital services tax. Carney called the negotiations "complex." (June 27, 2025)
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge grants temporary injunction blocking a transgender health-care bill
Advocates fighting to protect access to gender-affirming health care for transgender youth in our province have scored a legal victory. Bill 26 received royal assent in December but hadn't fully come into effect before a judge issued a temporary injunction against the law.