Foreign workers paid for jobs they never applied for, and a licence didn't survive
Foreign workers paid for Canadian jobs they never applied for, at businesses that sometimes had no work waiting when they arrived. A national regulator has permanently revoked the licence of the immigration consultant whose operation arranged those offers without clearly separating recruitment fees from immigration fees.
The decision, released June 25, 2026, came from Kathleen Gowanlock, Public Representative and Vice Chairperson of the Discipline Committee of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants. Gowanlock approved a joint settlement that revokes the consultant's licence, bars him from ever re-applying, and orders a $25,000 fine within one year. The committee reviewed four complaints drawn from 45 the College had received against him.
Jobs and immigration handled by the same operation
The consultant, licensed since 2011, owned or was affiliated with several immigration and recruitment businesses operating across Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. According to the agreed statement of facts, immigration services and employment recruitment were offered through overlapping business names, staff and operations, and he did not ensure the two were clearly separated or explained to clients.
In each of the four complaints, non-licensed staff arranged a job offer, supported by a labour market impact assessment, for a client who never applied for the position or attended an interview. The roles ranged from fast-food counter and supervisor jobs to a restaurant supervisor post and a retail supervisor position. The consultant maintained that the fees he charged were for immigration services only.
He acknowledged, though, that he failed to make clear which services were immigration-related, which were recruitment-related, and what the fees covered. Gowanlock found this created confusion and a conflict of interest. He also conceded breaching federal immigration and citizenship laws by allowing unlicensed staff to give immigration advice for payment.
Offers for jobs that did not hold up
One client, a visitor in western Canada, was recommended for a supervisor role she said she was not qualified for, holding a Grade 10-equivalent education and no supervisory experience. When she raised this, staff insisted she qualified, and later told her she could be "moved to the front of the line" in exchange for an extra US$2,000.
Her work permit was refused twice, and she was directed to travel between provinces to try again, running up flight, accommodation and living costs. Another client, a chef working in Australia, arrived to find the promised employer overstaffed with no job for him. A third, from Indonesia, landed to learn the restaurant behind his offer had been sold, voiding his permit.
A fourth client said he made two cash payments of $15,000 to third parties in India tied to his file, though the consultant did not acknowledge receiving the money. Staff also characterized one complainant as "mentally unstable" and told him not to return until he was stable, according to the agreed facts. Several clients sought refunds; some went months without a reply.
A licence revoked for good
Gowanlock noted that the consultant accepted full responsibility, cooperated through counsel and agreed to resolve the four complaints early, sparing the complainants a longer hearing. She weighed that cooperation against the scale of the harm, pointing to the number of people affected and to a pattern of conduct that fell short of professional standards.
He had already been placed under an interim order in May 2025, set to run for 24 months, that barred him from providing immigration services while the College investigated. The final decision replaces it.
Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance on joint settlements, Gowanlock accepted the agreed penalty as within the range of reasonable outcomes. The consultant's licence is permanently revoked, he can never re-apply to the College or any successor body, and he must pay the $25,000 fine by June 25, 2027, with no order as to costs. As the committee put it, "These clients have experienced financial and inestimable personal loss."
