Helmzadeh v. Canada: Federal Court Clarifies What Substituted Evaluation under IRPR Section 98.10 Really Means

In an important judicial review decision, Helmzadeh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1023, the Federal Court reaffirmed the proper interpretation and application of substituted evaluation under subsection 98.10(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR). The decision is particularly significant for Start-up Visa applicants who may not meet the precise technical thresholds of the program but nonetheless demonstrate a compelling ability to become economically established in Canada.

This case serves as a legal guidepost for both immigration practitioners and officers, emphasizing that the substituted evaluation mechanism is not a narrow override for language test results—but a broader discretionary tool requiring substantive consideration of the applicant’s overall economic potential.

Background: A Qualified Applicant with an Imperfect Language Score

The principal applicant, a 52-year-old Iranian physician and entrepreneur, applied for permanent residence under Canada’s Start-up Business Class. She and her family already resided in Canada, and she was working under a valid work permit. Her start-up venture, aimed to develop data management software for healthcare providers - a business aligned with her professional background and in line with Canadian innovation priorities.

However, her application was refused because her IELTS score in the Listening component was 4.5—falling just short of the required Canadian Language Benchmark (CLB) level 5 in all four language skills, as mandated by paragraph 98.01(2)(b) of the IRPR. While she had scored 5 in Reading and Writing and 6 in Speaking, this single shortfall rendered her technically ineligible.

In response, she requested a substituted evaluation under section 98.10(1), arguing that her overall profile—including her extensive medical experience and current entrepreneurial activities in Canada—demonstrated her potential for economic establishment, despite not meeting the strict language benchmark.

Her request was denied. The officer stated that they were not satisfied she had strong enough communication skills in English to justify a substituted evaluation. The Federal Court found this reasoning inadequate and unreasonable.

The Legal Framework: What Section 98.10(1) Actually Requires

Subsection 98.10(1) IRPR allows an officer to substitute their own evaluation of an applicant’s ability to become economically established in Canada, where the standard eligibility requirements—such as language test scores—are not, in themselves, sufficient indicators of economic potential. This discretionary mechanism exists to account for cases where rigid criteria may not fully capture an applicant’s merit or potential.

It is important to note: the substituted evaluation is not a waiver of the rules, nor is it meant to automatically reward applicants with marginal test scores. Instead, it requires a holistic, reasoned assessment based on the applicant’s full background, experience, and potential to integrate into and contribute to Canada’s economy.

What the Officer Got Wrong: A Narrow, Mechanical View

As the Court emphasized in paragraph 27 of the decision:

“What is to be potentially substituted is not merely the replacement of the evaluation of the language test results… but rather an overall evaluation of an applicant’s ability to become economically established in Canada.”

The Officer failed to engage with this broader legislative standard. The reasoning focused exclusively on the language scores, stating only that the applicant had “received the minimum required score in two out of the four assessed areas.” No effort was made to connect her communication skills to her broader capacity for economic establishment. Nor did the Officer consider her medical background, her start-up’s innovation potential, or her contributions to the Canadian economy through ongoing entrepreneurial activities.

By anchoring the substituted evaluation decision solely on a narrow technical review of her IELTS results, the Officer missed the entire purpose of 98.10—to assess the economic viability of the applicant when the regulatory criteria fall short of capturing it.

The Court’s Findings: A Failure to Apply the Correct Legal Test

Justice Thorne ruled that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable for failing to justify its conclusions in light of the legal test under section 98.10(1). The Court was particularly critical of the absence of any consideration of Helmzadeh’s extensive professional experience or the economic promise of her business:

“The Officer did not, in any way, consider the submission about medical expertise, nor provide any other analysis beyond the aforementioned fact that the Principal Applicant had only achieved the minimum score in two language skills assessment areas.” (para 28)

The Court did not find that Helmzadeh was entitled to a substituted evaluation, nor did it substitute its own judgment for that of the Officer. Rather, the Court’s role was to evaluate whether the decision-making process was legally sound. It found it was not—and ordered the matter returned for redetermination by a different officer.

Further Flaws in the Decision

Beyond this central error, the Court also noted other issues with the officer's decision-making process:

• Ignoring Crucial Evidence: The applicant specifically asked the officer to consider her "extensive medical experience". The Court found it unreasonable that the officer's decision failed to consider this submission in any way.

  
  

• Rejecting After-the-Fact Justifications: In court, the government's lawyer argued that the officer’s focus on communication skills was a proxy for determining economic establishment. The Court firmly rejected this attempt to provide a rationale that wasn't in the original decision, stating, "The reasoning of the Officer cannot be buttressed in this fashion, after the fact".

  
  

Mootness Raised—but Rejected

The Minister attempted to argue that the case was moot because the applicant’s commitment certificate from the designated entity had expired prior to the PR application. While not the central issue in this case, the Court addressed this point briefly. It found that the mootness doctrine did not apply, particularly since there was no indication the Officer had refused the substituted evaluation on that basis. In fact, the Officer had proceeded to evaluate the request, which would not have occurred if the expired certificate were truly disqualifying.

Importantly, the Court also acknowledged the lack of clarity around whether COVID-era IRCC operational bulletins—like OB 669—could have impacted how expired documents were treated. Since the Officer had not considered or discussed this, it could not be used as a post-facto justification.

Why This Case Matters

This decision is a landmark in clarifying how immigration officers must apply discretionary tools like substituted evaluations. It sends a clear message:

• Process Matters: This case shows that you have a right to a fair process where the decision-maker applies the correct legal test. An officer cannot misinterpret the law to deny you a proper evaluation.

  
  

• Build a Holistic Profile: This case proves that your entire history—your professional experience, education, and the strength of your business—matters. It is critical to present a comprehensive profile that paints a full picture of your potential.

  
  

• Substituted Evaluation is About the Big Picture: A request for a substituted evaluation is not about asking for a single score to be ignored; it's about asking for your entire potential for economic success in Canada to be assessed. This legal distinction, highlighted by the Court, is the foundation of a strong request.

For Start-up Visa applicants—many of whom bring advanced skills from other countries, often in regulated professions—this ruling is a critical protection. It ensures their potential is not dismissed due to narrowly interpreted eligibility rules, particularly when their contribution to Canada’s economy is evident through experience, entrepreneurship, and innovation.

Conclusion

The Helmzadeh case is not just about one applicant’s PR denial. It’s about safeguarding the integrity of Canada’s immigration process—ensuring that discretion is used wisely, that regulations are interpreted correctly, and that applicants with real potential are evaluated accordingly.

At Blacksy Immigration, we guide our clients through complicated immigration pathways with clarity and realism. If you or your team are applying under the Start-up Visa Program and believe your strengths go beyond what test scores show, we’re here to help present your case effectively—before it reaches judicial review.

—o—

About the Author

I’m Ahmet Faruk Ocak, a Canadian immigration lawyer and the founder of Blacksy Immigration Law Firm 🌊. 

At Blacksy, we specialize in providing honest, straightforward, and tailored immigration solutions to individuals and businesses worldwide. Our brand promise is simple: no unnecessary fuss, no false hopes, and no empty promises—just realistic, reliable guidance to help you achieve your immigration goals.

Whether you’re expanding your business to Canada, transferring top talent, or planning your future here, we’re here to guide you with precision, transparency, and care.

Visit us at www.blacksyimmigration.com to learn more or to start your journey.