When the Wage on the Offer Letter Wasn't the Real Wage

The situation

Craig and Heather are pharmacists, trained and licensed abroad, who had spent the better part of a year working through the process of getting their credentials recognized in Ontario. By the time they came to Treadstone Law, they had already cleared the hardest part of that journey: both held conditional registration eligibility, and both had job offers in hand from the same employer, an independent pharmacy in Cornwall owned and operated by a pharmacist named Quang. Quang had been trying to fill two pharmacist positions for the better part of a year and was, by every account, glad to have found a married couple willing to relocate together.

The plan was for Treadstone Law to handle the immigration side: turning the job offers into employer-sponsored work permit applications that would let Craig and Heather begin working in Cornwall while their permanent residence pathway proceeded in parallel. Because pharmacist positions in a smaller Ontario community are the kind of role that can support a Labour Market Impact Assessment — a federal process where the employer demonstrates that hiring a foreign worker will not negatively affect the domestic labour market — Quang had already started that piece with the applications half-drafted. Our task, as we understood it at the first meeting, was largely to review what was in place and file.

What the review found

A Labour Market Impact Assessment lives or dies on one number: the wage. The employer has to show they are offering at least the prevailing wage for the occupation in that region, based on published wage data for the specific job title and location. Undercut that figure and the assessment is refused outright, regardless of how genuine the job need is. Because of this, the wage line on the offer letter is the single most scrutinized detail in the entire package, and it gets checked again later if the work permit itself is reviewed.

On paper, Craig and Heather's offer letters cleared the required rate for pharmacists in the Cornwall region. But reading the compensation structure behind that headline number told a different story. Roughly a fifth of the stated wage was built from an on-call differential — extra pay for evening and weekend coverage that Quang's pharmacy needed periodically, but which was not guaranteed hours. Without that variable component, both offers sat measurably below the required rate. The base, guaranteed salary — the only part an employee can actually count on from week to week — did not meet the threshold on its own.

This is not a rare mistake. Small and mid-sized employers filing their first Labour Market Impact Assessment often build the wage up from whatever total compensation feels competitive, without appreciating that immigration officers and the government reviewers assessing the wage offer are trained to look past the total and ask what portion is actually guaranteed. An offer that only reaches the required rate through discretionary or conditional pay is treated as not meeting it at all. Worse, if the mismatch surfaced later — during the work permit assessment, or in a compliance review after Craig and Heather were already working in Cornwall — the consequence would not fall only on the couple. Employers who are found to have misrepresented a wage offer can face penalties and future bans on hiring through the program, which would have put Quang's pharmacy, and by extension Craig and Heather's jobs, at real risk months after they had already relocated their household.

There was also a second layer to the problem. Heather's role had been scoped with fewer guaranteed weekly hours than Craig's, on the assumption that the pharmacy's slower midweek periods didn't justify two full-time pharmacists at first. That was a legitimate staffing decision, but it meant her guaranteed wage — hours multiplied by rate — fell further below the threshold than Craig's did, even before accounting for the on-call issue. Fixing the calculation method alone would not be enough for her offer; the hours themselves needed to change too, or the hourly rate would have to rise further to compensate.

What we did

1. Recalculated both wage offers against guaranteed compensation only. We stripped out the on-call differential and any other conditional pay from each offer and compared what remained to the published wage data for the role and region. This gave us the true gap: Craig's guaranteed base needed to rise by a modest amount to clear the threshold outright; Heather's needed a larger increase, or more guaranteed hours, or some combination of both.
2. Raised the issue with Quang directly, before either application was filed. We explained, in plain terms, why the on-call pay could not count toward the wage requirement and what was at stake if the offers went forward as written — not just refusal, but the risk of a compliance finding against the pharmacy down the line. Employers are almost always better partners in fixing this kind of problem before filing than after a refusal forces the issue.
3. Proposed a restructured compensation model rather than a flat raise. Rather than asking Quang to simply increase both salaries to whatever figure would clear the bar — which would have strained a small pharmacy's payroll more than the business could realistically absorb — we worked through a structure that separated guaranteed base pay from the on-call differential entirely, so the offer letters would state a defensible guaranteed wage and the on-call premium would sit clearly on top as genuine variable pay, no longer relied upon to meet the threshold.
4. Negotiated the guaranteed hours for Heather's position. We proposed increasing her guaranteed weekly hours modestly rather than pushing her hourly rate to a level Quang felt he could not sustain for a role that, honestly, did not yet have enough midweek volume to justify full parity with Craig's hours from day one.
5. Documented a formal review point. To bridge the gap between what the pharmacy could commit to immediately and what Heather and Craig had hoped for, we built a written commitment into the offer letter for a compensation and hours review after Heather's first several months, tied to the pharmacy's patient volume — giving her a documented path to full parity rather than an informal promise.
6. Refiled the Labour Market Impact Assessment and work permit applications on the corrected offers. Both applications went forward only once the wage figures matched what Craig and Heather would actually, reliably be paid — not what the paperwork needed to say.

The outcome

Both Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved, and Craig and Heather's work permits followed several months later, allowing them to relocate to Cornwall and begin working at Quang's pharmacy. That part of the story is a clean result. The renegotiation, though, was not painless for anyone.

Craig's final guaranteed wage landed close to what the couple had originally hoped for, since the gap on his offer had been smaller to begin with. Heather's did not. Her guaranteed hours increased, and her base rate rose, but she started in Cornwall on fewer guaranteed hours and a lower guaranteed income than the original offer letter — the one built on the on-call differential — had implied. The formal review point gave her a real path to full-time parity, and that review did happen roughly on schedule, resulting in additional guaranteed hours once patient volume supported it. But for the first several months in a new country, in a new role, Heather's household income was lower than either she or Craig had budgeted for when they accepted the original offers.

Quang, for his part, ended up paying more in guaranteed wages across both positions than the original offer structure would have cost him on paper, even though the total compensation package — once the on-call pay was added back in for the weeks it applied — was not far off from what he had first proposed. The difference was that the pharmacy could no longer treat that on-call pay as a cushion it might not always need to provide. It became a genuine, budgeted cost of running two full-time pharmacist positions.

Nobody in this story got the deal they walked in wanting. What they got instead was a wage offer that would actually survive scrutiny — at filing, and at any point afterward — and two work permits that were not sitting on a foundation that could be challenged later. Given that the alternative was a refused Labour Market Impact Assessment, a compliance risk to Quang's pharmacy, or a relocation built on a job offer that quietly paid less than promised, the compromise held up as the better outcome for everyone involved, even if it took some difficult conversations to get there.

What you can learn from this