An Alberta court has dismissed a civil claim after finding that a worker knowingly entered into an illegal contract to purchase a letter of endorsement for immigration purposes, ruling that enforcing the agreement would undermine public policy and the integrity of Canada’s immigration system.
The Alberta Court of Justice refused to order the return of $15,000 paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, despite finding that a contract existed and was breached when the defendant failed to return the money after the immigration application was rejected.
The plaintiff, a foreign national working in Canada on a post-graduate work permit, paid the defendant $15,000 in February 2024 in exchange for obtaining a letter of endorsement from the City of Grande Prairie. The worker understood this document would allow him to continue working in Canada after his work permit expired in August 2024 and potentially obtain permanent residency.
According to the worker’s evidence, the defendant agreed to obtain the letter by falsely representing to municipal authorities that he would employ the worker. The worker testified that he knew this arrangement was illegal and that the defendant refused to provide any written documentation of their agreement for that reason.
Cash payment
The worker provided the cash payment on Feb. 17, 2024, after withdrawing the funds from his bank account. The defendant requested no receipt be given. The worker understood the money would only be used to obtain the letter and would be returned if the application failed.
After months of unsuccessful attempts to contact the defendant, the worker learned in late July 2024 that the City of Grande Prairie had refused to provide the letter of endorsement. During a subsequent meeting, the defendant suggested the worker pursue a “fake refugee case” using the $15,000 already paid. The worker’s parents advised him against this course of action.
In a recorded phone call on July 30, 2024, the worker asked when he could retrieve his money. The defendant responded that he would deduct $1,800 for lawyer fees and return the rest within one and a half months. The defendant never returned any funds, despite acknowledging the debt in subsequent text messages.
Civil claim
The worker filed his civil claim on June 30, 2025, seeking $15,000 plus interest and costs based on breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The defendant failed to file a dispute note, resulting in a default assessment hearing.
The court examined the legal framework governing illegal contracts and found that the arrangement violated multiple provisions of federal immigration legislation. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act prohibits knowingly counselling or inducing misrepresentation of material facts in immigration matters, with penalties of up to $100,000 and five years imprisonment.
“Monetization of access to Canada’s immigration system is prohibited in order to protect equal access and opportunity to foreign nationals to Canada’s labour market, to ensure that foreign nationals are contributing positively by filling genuine labour gaps, and to protect prospective workers from financial exploitation by unscrupulous employers,” the court noted, citing a previous ruling.
The court found that an objective reasonable person would conclude both parties intended to enter a contract where the worker would pay at least $15,000 for a letter of endorsement, with funds to be returned if unsuccessful. The transaction was found to be contrary to immigration legislation and therefore illegal.
While the court acknowledged the contract was breached and not fully performed, it refused to enforce the agreement. The court determined that entering into contracts for submitting fake job offers undermines the Agreement for Canada-Alberta Cooperation on Immigration, the Rural Renewal Stream program, and the integrity of Canada’s immigration system.
Both parties at fault
The court found both parties equally at fault. “Although [the worker] framed his pleadings and testimony in a way that cast a sympathetic light upon him, I find that [the worker] was a willing buyer and [the defendant] was a willing seller,” the court stated.
The worker also claimed unjust enrichment, seeking restitutionary relief to unwind the illegal transaction. The court rejected this argument, finding that granting such relief would undermine the purpose of Canada’s immigration regime and violate public policy requiring bona fide job offers from legitimate employers.
“[The worker] knew how [the defendant] was proceeding, provided him with the required background information, and admitted to the Court that what he was engaging in was ‘illegal,'” the court found. “[The worker] did not come before this Court with ‘clean hands.'”
The court distinguished the case from a British Columbia ruling where funds were restored after an illegal immigration contract, noting that in that case no payments reached immigration officials and the application never proceeded to denial. In this case, the application was submitted to Grande Prairie officials, meaning the worker stood a chance of benefitting from the illegal contract.
The court acknowledged that refusing relief leaves the defendant with the worker’s $15,000 but determined this consequence was necessary to preserve the integrity of the legal system. The court found the denial of the claim was proportionate to the illegality surrounding the transaction.
The civil claim was dismissed. The worker testified at the hearing that he was returning to India to be with his family.
For more information, see Sibbal v Nathyal, 2025 ABCJ 198 (CanLII).
