An Alberta trucker who paid his employer $37,000 for a work permit lost his entire lawsuit against the company after a judge ruled the payment violated immigration laws designed to protect foreign workers from exploitation.
H.S., a temporary foreign worker from India, sued Syndicate Transport Ltd for $56,956 in Alberta Court of Justice, seeking return of money he paid for a Labour Market Impact Assessment, property damage costs and allegedly unpaid wages from his employment as a long-haul trucker between January and June 2023.
The court dismissed all claims, finding that H.S. and Syndicate had entered into an illegal contract when the worker paid for his LMIA — a document employers must obtain to hire foreign workers that costs $1,000 and is supposed to be paid by the company, not the employee.
Illegal LMIA sale discovered
Justice S.L. Corbett found that despite H.S. characterizing his payment as a “border security fee,” text messages between the worker and Syndicate’s manager revealed the company was selling LMIAs to foreign nationals.
In a recorded conversation from January 2023, Syndicate’s manager asked H.S. if he had “anymore boys who need LMIAs” and told him they “have more LMIA for sale.” The manager also said “LMIA same paid totally but will credit something a bit 5000/10000 not more than that.”
H.S. secretly video recorded himself paying $35,000 cash to Syndicate’s manager in the company’s office. He also paid an additional $2,000 and $500 to other individuals, bringing his total payment to $37,500.
The court noted that H.S. testified “they take from every driver this fee” and that he consulted other drivers before making the payment, learning they had paid similar amounts.
Immigration law violations
The judge explained that federal Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations prohibit employers from charging foreign nationals any fees for LMIAs or recruitment costs. The regulations are designed to “preserve equal access and opportunity to foreign nationals to Canada’s labour market” and “protect prospective workers from financial exploitation by unscrupulous employers.”
Even though H.S. claimed he was promised the money would be returned and that he was “coerced” into paying, the court found both parties were equally at fault. The judge noted H.S. was a willing participant who even offered to introduce other potential LMIA buyers to Syndicate.
No restitution available
The court rejected H.S.’s claim for return of the $37,000, finding that even if restitution might normally be available for illegal contracts, it would not apply here because the agreement had been fully performed — H.S. received his LMIA, work permit and employment as promised.
“Restitutionary relief based on unjust enrichment unwinds the illegal transaction and returns a plaintiff to the position s/he would have been in had the illegal act not occurred,” the judge wrote. “I find that it is not possible to unwind the contract to the status quo ante because the contract had been fully performed.”
The court also ruled that allowing restitution would “defeat the policy underlying the illegality, which prohibits monetization of access to Canada’s immigration system.”
Property damage claim fails
H.S. also sought $2,000 he claimed to pay for property damage to a company truck following a single-vehicle accident in May 2023. However, the court found insufficient evidence to support this claim.
While H.S. produced bank records showing he transferred $2,000 to someone named Ekpal Singh, the payment went to that individual’s personal account with no proof Syndicate ever received the money. The court noted H.S.’s communications about the reason for the transfer were inconsistent, sometimes claiming it was for property damage and other times suggesting it was for immigration paperwork.
Wage dispute dismissed
The largest portion of H.S.’s claim involved $17,956 in allegedly unpaid wages. He argued his employment contract promised $27.30 per hour but he was only paid $17 per hour.
However, the court found H.S. failed to prove his case. His time records were inconsistent and contained mathematical errors. In one affidavit, he claimed to work 1,380 hours, while in another he claimed 954.9 hours. The court’s own calculation of his submitted time sheets showed only 634.72 hours.
Crucially, a pay stub H.S. had claimed was “forged” actually corroborated that he was being paid the agreed rate of $27.30 per hour. When the court cross-referenced this with bank deposit records, it confirmed H.S. had been paid properly for the hours he actually worked.
“On a balance of probabilities, I find that (he) did not prove that Syndicate underpaid him for his work,” the judge concluded.
The case proceeded as a default judgment after Syndicate failed to file a dispute note in response to the lawsuit. However, the court noted that even in default cases, plaintiffs must still prove they have valid causes of action and are entitled to the remedies they seek.
For more information, see Singh v Syndicate Transport Ltd, 2025 ABCJ 109 (CanLII).
