Does Your Immigration Status Affect Your Rights After Termination?

Many employees who are partway through the immigration process, whether on a work permit, awaiting permanent residence, or working through a citizenship application, assume that asserting their legal rights after a termination of employment could jeopardize their status in Canada. That fear often keeps people from calling a lawyer. Concerned and vulnerable, they sign whatever offer and release the employer hands them and walk away without knowing their entitlements. The reality is more reassuring than most people realize.

What the Law Actually Says

Two sources of law apply directly to these concerns, and neither treats immigration status as a barrier to commencing a formal action such as a lawsuit.

The first area is the common law (judge-made decisions from courts) principle of reasonable notice. When a court determines how much notice a dismissed employee is owed, judges look at factors like the employee’s age, length of service, the seniority of their role, and how long it will reasonably take to find comparable work. Immigration or citizenship status is not one of the listed core factors, but the practical realities of an employee’s immigration history may still be relevant. An employee’s work history limited exclusively to a single employer, for example, can affect how long it realistically takes that employee to find comparable work. A recent Ontario court decision, Panchbhaya v Vulsay Industries Ltd, 2025 ONSC 5370 (Panchbhaya), discussed further below, illustrates that this practical limitation can support a longer notice period. Where an employee’s immigration status is tied to employment with a single employer, the notice period will also be longer, as illustrated in Nishina v Azuma Foods (Canada) Co Ltd, 2010 BCSC 502 (Nishina).

The second is Ontario’s Human Rights Code (the “Code”), which lists citizenship as a protected ground under section 5, alongside enumerated grounds such as race, ancestry, and place of origin. An employer cannot make employment decisions, including termination decisions, based on an employee’s citizenship status, aside from the limited exceptions set out in section 16 of the Code. Those narrow exceptions apply only where Canadian citizenship is required or authorized by law, where a citizenship or permanent residence requirement fosters participation in cultural, educational, trade union, or athletic activities by citizens or permanent residents, or where an employer prefers that its chief or senior executive is, or intends to become, a Canadian citizen. Outside those narrow exceptions, Imperial Oil Limited v Haseeb, 2023 ONCA 364 (Haseeb), discussed further below, illustrates that Ontario courts take citizenship-based discrimination seriously and will award significant damages where it occurs.

Mythbusters

“Suing my employer will hurt my citizenship application.” This is one of the most common fears we hear, and it is not supported by how Canadian immigration law actually works. A pending permanent residence or citizenship application should not affect whether you choose to pursue a civil claim against a former employer. Wrongful dismissal claims and Human Rights Tribunal applications are not specifically reported to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”), and asserting your employment rights is not a valid basis for delaying or denying an immigration application.

“If I push back, I will be seen as a troublemaker.” This concern is understandable, but the law says otherwise. The Code expressly protects your right to assert your legal rights without reprisal under section 8, and the Employment Standards Act, 2000 provides similar reprisal protections. An employer that punishes or discourages you for doing so exposes itself to additional liability, not the other way around.

“If you do not sign the release, your work permit will be cancelled.” This is a pressure tactic. Employers do not have the authority to cancel a work permit. Work permits are issued by the IRCC, and revocation is a federal process that has nothing to do with whether an employee signs a severance release. An employer who implies otherwise is misrepresenting your legal situation. More importantly, using the threat of immigration consequences to discourage you from asserting your employment rights is precisely the kind of conduct the Code is designed to prohibit. It is not a reason to sign. It may be an additional ground for a claim.

What the Courts Have Said

Panchbhaya, introduced above, demonstrates how an employee’s immigration history can factor into a termination notice period analysis. The plaintiff was hired within months of emigrating from India and worked for the same employer for the next 40 years, eventually becoming a laboratory manager. When he was terminated without cause at age 65, the employer argued for 12 to 18 months’ notice. The court disagreed, noting that the plaintiff had no practical work experience beyond his one Canadian employer, and that his age, decades of service, and narrow, specialized industry experience combined to limit his realistic prospects of finding comparable work quickly. The court awarded 26 months’ notice, two months above the conventional 24-month cap, based on the plaintiff’s “exceptional circumstances”.

In Nishina, the plaintiff’s immigration status was tied to her employment with the Defendant such that she could not work for another employer. After about 6 years of employment, at the age of 43, the plaintiff was dismissed from her employment as a QC associate, whose role was to ensure the company met applicable food-safety standards. The Supreme Court of British Columbia compared the plaintiff’s circumstances to that of an employee dismissed in a “one-employer town”. In the outcome, the plaintiff was awarded damages based on a notice period of 12 months.

Haseeb, also discussed above, confirms how seriously Ontario courts and tribunals treat citizenship as a protected ground. The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding that an employer’s policy discriminated against a job applicant based on citizenship. The employer’s policy required proof of Canadian citizenship or permanent residence as a condition of employment, even though the applicant held a valid work permit authorizing him to work for any employer in Canada. The Tribunal’s award of roughly $120,000 was eventually restored after lengthy legal proceedings. The case arose in the hiring context rather than termination of employment, but it confirms that discriminatory citizenship-based decision-making is unlawful at any stage of the employment relationship, and that Ontario adjudicators will award significant damages to victims where it occurs.

The bottom line: Ontario employment law does not treat citizenship or immigration history as invisible or irrelevant. They are facts a court can consider, and in some cases they are the deciding facts. Panchbhaya demonstrates that a lifetime spent in one workplace can justify notice well above the conventional ceiling. Haseeb shows that citizenship discrimination carries real financial consequences. Neither outcome was inevitable. Both required the employee to assert their rights.

Takeaways for Employees

• Your employment claim and your immigration matter are separate legal tracks. Pursuing one does not necessarily jeopardize the other.
• Do not assume that your notice period is comparably lower just because you are newer to Canada. Depending on the facts, a limited Canadian work history can support a longer notice period.
• If an employer connects the termination of your employment, or the terms it offers, to your citizenship or immigration status in any way that seems improper, document it and seek legal advice immediately. That may be independently actionable under the Code.
• Get legal advice before you sign anything. Every situation depends on its own facts.

The Bottom Line

Termination of employment is stressful enough without the added fear that asserting rights could cost you your future in Canada. It should not. The law treats your employment claim and your immigration status as separate matters, and where citizenship or immigration status becomes relevant, it often strengthens a claim.

Employers should take note: if a decision relating to an employee is even partly based on the employee’s citizenship or immigration status, aside from narrow exceptions, it carries real legal exposure under the Code, separate from any wrongful dismissal claim.

If you have any questions about your entitlement, contact Zubas Flett Liberatore Law LLP for counsel at 416-593-5844 or  questions@employment-lawyers.ca.