An Expired Labour Assessment Nearly Stalled Gurpreet's Bridging Permit

The situation

The plan had been simple, or so Gurpreet thought when he and his wife Harpreet sat down eighteen months ago to work out their timeline. Gurpreet had been in Canada for several years on an employer-specific work permit, wiring new-build homes and commercial units for a mid-sized electrical contracting company in Cornwall run by its owner, Gabor. Harpreet, a surveyor, had her own open work permit tied to Gurpreet's status as his spouse, and between the two of them the household had settled into a comfortable, dual-income rhythm.

The plan for that year was straightforward on paper. Gurpreet's permanent residence application, sponsored through the skilled trades stream his employer had supported, was working its way through the system, and once it reached a certain stage, he would become eligible to apply for a bridging open work permit, one that would let him keep working, for any employer, while the permanent residence decision was pending, rather than staying tied to Gabor's company for the length of the wait. It was meant to be a formality, the kind of filing their previous lawyer had told them was largely a paperwork exercise once the permanent residence application had been submitted.

That previous lawyer, however, had left the matter partway through, and by the time Gurpreet came to us, the file had sat without active attention for several months while the family assumed it was simply waiting in a queue. When we opened the file to prepare the bridging application, we found the underlying problem straight away: Gurpreet's original work permit had been supported by a labour market assessment, the document confirming the employer had tried and failed to find a Canadian worker for the role, and that assessment had a validity period which had already expired by the time we were retained.

An expired assessment does not, on its own, end someone's ability to work in Canada if their existing permit is still valid. But it meant the straightforward bridging request the family had been promised was no longer available in the simple form they expected, because the basis for the current permit was no longer current, and that gap needed to be resolved before anything else could move forward. Gurpreet was frustrated more than worried at first, assuming it was a formality we could clear up in a phone call, and it took some explaining before he understood why a document that had already done its job years earlier could still complicate a filing happening now.

The legal question

The legal question at the centre of the file was narrower than it first appeared, but it mattered a great deal to how quickly Gurpreet could get a bridging permit approved. A bridging open work permit is narrower than a general permit for anyone with a pending permanent residence application: it is available only to applicants under specific permanent residence categories who are physically in Canada, who already hold a work permit nearing its expiry or are on maintained status from a work permit application, and whose permanent residence application has passed the required early processing stage. Holding some other valid status, such as a study permit or visitor status, does not qualify a person on its own. The question was not whether Gurpreet's permanent residence file was far enough along, it was, but whether the fact that his original work permit rested on an assessment that had since expired created a problem with his current status itself, or was simply a historical detail that no longer mattered once the permit had already been issued.

We concluded, after reviewing the file closely, that the expired assessment did not undermine Gurpreet's current permit. A work permit, once issued, remains valid according to its own terms; the assessment supporting it does its job at the time of issuance and does not need to remain valid for the permit itself to stay in force. But the department reviewing the bridging application would still want a clear record showing that Gurpreet's employment situation, and the basis for his continued work authorization, was accurately reflected, and the previous lawyer's file contained an inconsistency that needed to be cleared up rather than left for an officer to notice on their own.

The inconsistency was this: at some point after the original permit was issued, Gurpreet had briefly taken on additional hours doing similar work for a second, related company Gabor also owned, without the paperwork being updated to reflect it. It was a small thing in practice, the same trade, a related business, no change to the substance of Gurpreet's work, but on paper it looked like undocumented work for an employer not named on his permit, and that was exactly the kind of detail that could slow down or complicate a bridging application if it surfaced during review rather than being addressed up front.

So the actual legal question we had to resolve before filing was whether that additional work needed to be disclosed and explained, and if so, how to do it in a way that showed good faith rather than concealment. We decided disclosure was the right course, even though it meant the bridging application would take longer to prepare than the family had hoped. Silence carried its own risk, since a review of Gurpreet's file at any later stage, including at the permanent residence decision itself, could still turn up the same gap, and an unexplained one discovered later reads very differently from one addressed candidly up front.

What we did

1. Requested the complete file from the previous lawyer's office. This took several weeks longer than it should have, since files transferred between offices are not always organized the way a new lawyer would want them, and we had to reconstruct a timeline of Gurpreet's work history and permit status largely from primary documents rather than any summary the prior file provided. Only once that timeline was clear could we see the gap between the expired assessment and the undocumented hours at Gabor's second business.
2. Went to Gabor directly, rather than leaving Gurpreet to explain an immigration technicality to his own employer. Gabor confirmed, in a short letter we drafted the framework for, exactly when the additional hours had occurred, why they had happened, simply operational need across two related businesses, and that Gurpreet's role and pay rate had not otherwise changed. Having that confirmation directly from the employer, rather than from Gurpreet alone, gave the disclosure far more weight than a self-reported explanation would have carried.
3. Prepared a disclosure to accompany the bridging application. With the employer's letter in hand, we addressed the additional hours plainly rather than waiting for an officer to raise it as a question later, which in our experience tends to read far better than an explanation offered only after being asked. We were candid that the additional work had not been separately authorized at the time, while explaining the closely related nature of the two businesses and the absence of any change to the substance of the role itself.
4. Cross-checked the underlying permanent residence file. That file was still active and running on its own timeline, and we needed to confirm nothing in it conflicted with what we were now disclosing about the additional hours, since an inconsistency between the two files would have created a second problem on top of the first. We made a small clarifying update to the permanent residence record to keep both files aligned before either was reviewed further.
5. Tracked the bridging application closely once it was filed. We prepared to respond quickly to any request for further information, given how much time had already been lost to the file sitting dormant with the previous office, and we advised Gurpreet, going forward, to keep his own running record of exactly which entity he worked for and when, however closely related the businesses might be, so no future filing would face the same ambiguity.
6. Set Harpreet's permit status against the same timeline. Her open work permit depended on Gurpreet's status remaining valid, so we confirmed that nothing in the bridging application or the disclosure would create a gap that might affect her own ability to keep working while the family's permanent residence application moved toward a decision, and documented that confirmation for the file in case either permit was later questioned.

The outcome

The bridging open work permit was approved, but on a shorter validity term than the family had originally hoped for, tied more tightly to the specific stage of the permanent residence file than to the general buffer they had expected when their previous lawyer first described the process. That meant Gurpreet would likely need to apply for a further extension before the permanent residence decision came through, rather than one clean bridging permit lasting the full waiting period.

The compromise reflected the reality that the department, having seen the disclosed gap, was not going to treat the file as a routine formality even once the disclosure was accepted without further question. Gurpreet kept working without any interruption to his employment, and Harpreet's status remained secure throughout, which was the outcome that mattered most to the family day to day. But the file no longer carried the straightforward, set-it-and-forget-it quality the previous lawyer had led them to expect.

Gurpreet told us afterward that the months the file had sat idle after the previous lawyer left were the part that frustrated him most, more than the substance of the problem itself, because it meant a straightforward filing had been allowed to drift until an actual complication had time to matter. We could not recover that lost time, but we could make sure the file that eventually went in was accurate and complete, rather than clean-looking but incomplete.

The family now keeps their own copy of every document connected to Gurpreet's work authorization, rather than relying on any one office to hold the full file, and they plan to file the next extension well before the current bridging permit's term runs out, rather than assuming, as they once did, that an immigration filing tied to ordinary continued employment will always be simple. Gabor, for his part, now keeps a standing note in his own records whenever an employee's hours shift between his two businesses, a small administrative habit that cost him little and that, had it existed two years earlier, would likely have prevented the disclosure from being necessary at all.

What you can learn from this