Can Refugee Claimants Sue Canada Over Work Permit and PRRA Bars?

Can refugee claimants in Canada sue the government over PRRA and work permit bars?

Yes — an Ontario court has allowed a class action against the federal government to proceed, finding that refugee claimants have an arguable case that two key immigration bars may violate their equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The decision is Kaczor v. Attorney General of Canada, 2026 ONSC 2250 (CanLII), available at https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2026/2026onsc2250/2026onsc2250.html.

What is the 180-day work permit bar for refugee claimants?

The 180-day work permit bar prevents most refugee claimants from applying for a work permit until 180 days after they filed their refugee claim. In practical terms, this means a person who has fled their home country and is waiting for a refugee hearing cannot legally earn income in Canada for roughly six months. The court found there is some basis in fact to argue this restriction may discriminate on grounds protected by section 15(1) of the Charter, making it a suitable issue for the entire class to litigate together.

What is the 36-month PRRA bar and why does it matter?

The Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) is a process that allows someone facing removal from Canada to ask the government to assess whether returning them to their home country would put them at risk of serious harm. The 36-month PRRA bar blocks most failed refugee claimants from accessing this process for three years after a negative refugee decision. The court found that this bar also raises a credible equality rights argument worth certifying as a common issue for the class.

What does it mean that the court “certified” this as a class action?

Certification means the court has decided the case is suitable to proceed as a class proceeding under Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act. It is not a finding that the government did anything wrong — it is a procedural green light. The court was satisfied that the class is identifiable, that common legal questions exist across all class members, that a class action is the preferable way to resolve those questions, and that access to justice, judicial efficiency, and the goal of encouraging lawful government conduct all support letting the case move forward together.

Can the federal government claim immunity from paying damages in a Charter case?

Government defendants sometimes argue they should be shielded from paying compensation even if a court finds a law unconstitutional, relying on what lawyers call “good governance immunity.” The court examined this argument carefully. It found that where a government’s conduct could be characterized as clearly unconstitutional, reckless, or willfully blind to constitutional limits, damages under section 24(1) of the Charter may still be available. The pleadings here were enough to survive a motion to strike on this point.

What happened with the limitation period arguments?

The government argued that some class members filed their claims too late under the six-year limitation period in the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. The court rejected a blanket reduction of the class at this early stage, finding that determining when each person could reasonably have discovered their claim requires individual inquiries better suited to trial. However, one representative plaintiff’s claim was found to be time-barred, meaning that individual cannot act as a representative for the class going forward — though the class action itself continues.

Practical takeaways for refugee claimants and immigration applicants

• The 180-day work permit bar is under active legal challenge. If you are a refugee claimant who has been denied the right to work during your waiting period, this litigation may be relevant to your situation.
• The 36-month PRRA bar is also being challenged. Failed refugee claimants who were prevented from accessing a PRRA for three years after a negative decision may have rights worth exploring.
• Certification is not a win on the merits — but it matters. The case is now allowed to proceed, which means the constitutional questions will eventually be answered by a court.
• Limitation periods still apply. Even in a class action, your individual claim could be time-barred if you waited too long to assert it. Getting legal advice early is important.
• Charter damages are not automatic. Even if the bars are found unconstitutional, individual compensation will depend on the specific facts of each person’s situation.

If you are a refugee claimant or have been affected by immigration bars on work authorization or risk assessment, speaking with our Ontario immigration lawyers can help you understand your rights and whether this litigation affects you.

Questions about work permit refusals or barriers often go hand in hand with broader immigration status concerns. Our team also assists clients with work permit refusal matters and judicial review applications in Federal Court.

UL Lawyers offers a free initial consultation from our Burlington office and serves clients across Ontario. If you have questions about how this decision may affect your immigration matter, reach out to our immigration law team to discuss your options.

---

This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.