Canada has long been seen as a land of opportunity, attracting skilled workers, students, and families from all over the world. Its inclusive immigration policies have allowed many to start a new life, contributing to the nation’s vibrant and diverse economy. However, recent changes to Canada’s spousal open work permit (SOWP) policy have sparked intense criticism and raised concerns about the future of family unity, financial stability, and Canada’s reputation as an immigration-friendly country.
The new restrictions, which took effect in January 2025, significantly alter the eligibility criteria for spouses of international students and foreign workers, and they have been met with resistance from immigration professionals, families, and job seekers. Immigration lawyers Mark Holthe and Igor Kyryliuk have raised serious concerns about the potential negative impact these changes will have on Canadian families and the broader immigration landscape. For many, the possibility of uniting with loved ones in Canada while securing employment has been a central aspect of their decision to migrate. Now, with these new limitations in place, what was once a hopeful dream for many could turn into a nightmare. Families already grappling with the challenges of settling in a foreign country are finding themselves facing even more barriers.
Historically, Canada’s immigration system has embraced the idea of family unity, and the spousal open work permit has been a vital part of that framework. Spouses of international students and foreign workers were previously granted open work permits, allowing them to support themselves financially and contribute to the economy. This policy created a sense of security for families, with many spouses finding fulfilling employment while they awaited permanent residency or other immigration pathways. However, the new policy introduces a stark shift. Now, spouses of international students are only eligible for open work permits if their partner is enrolled in specific programs, limiting opportunities for many. Furthermore, only the spouses of foreign workers in managerial, professional roles (Tier 0 or 1), or certain positions related to labour shortages and government priorities will be considered eligible. These tight restrictions significantly narrow the pool of applicants, making it harder for families to remain in Canada and support themselves.
Holthe has pointed out that these changes are part of a broader immigration strategy aimed at controlling the number of temporary residents entering Canada. In particular, the policy overhaul appears to be designed to limit the number of spousal open work permits issued, a move that has raised questions about the underlying motivations driving this shift. Holthe also expressed concern over the processing of applications, revealing that many spousal work permits are being handled in conjunction with post-graduate work permits. This has led to numerous refusals, leaving spouses unable to work and forcing families into difficult financial situations. Holthe’s assessment paints a troubling picture: spouses who once had the right to work are now faced with uncertainty, as their applications are rejected, leading to stress, financial strain, and even forced departures from Canada.
Kyryliuk, another immigration lawyer, echoed these concerns, highlighting the devastating impact these policy changes are having on families. In particular, he noted that the restrictions have forced many families to rethink their plans to stay in Canada. For some, the refusal of a spousal work permit has meant that they have no choice but to return to their home countries. The uncertainty of their future in Canada looms large, as they grapple with the financial implications of not being able to work. These changes also raise broader questions about the fairness of immigration policies, especially as many families have made long-term plans based on previous policy expectations. For many, the changes have come as a shock, upending their lives and leaving them without the support they had anticipated.
In addition to the immediate consequences for families, these changes are part of a larger immigration shift in Canada. Historically, Canada has expanded work permit eligibility to foster economic integration and support family unity. The recent restrictions signal a departure from this inclusive approach, as the government appears to prioritize certain professions and occupations while limiting opportunities for others. This shift aligns with broader governmental goals of addressing population growth, housing shortages, and labour market needs, but it also raises questions about the long-term impact on Canada’s immigration system. If the government continues down this path, it could further restrict pathways to permanent residency and make it more difficult for skilled workers and families to settle in the country.
Public perception of immigration has played a role in these policy changes, as Canada’s immigration system has become increasingly politicized. The government, under the leadership of Minister Miller, may feel pressured to appear more stringent in its approach to immigration, particularly as the issue becomes a hot topic in political debates. This shift in policy has led to aggressive enforcement tactics and a more selective approach to immigration, which has left many families feeling frustrated and disillusioned.
For those still navigating the new spousal open work permit system, Holthe and Kyryliuk offer some critical advice. Holthe emphasizes the importance of securing a job offer in an eligible occupation before applying, as this will increase the chances of success. He also suggests submitting both the post-graduate and spousal work permit applications simultaneously to avoid complications and refusals. Kyryliuk advises applicants to stay informed about changes to the list of eligible occupations and consult legal experts if necessary. Given the complexity of the new system, seeking legal advice has become more crucial than ever before, as the rules continue to evolve and become increasingly restrictive.
These new policy shifts have raised significant ethical concerns, with both Holthe and Kyryliuk questioning the fairness of the decision-making process. The timing of refusals and the deliberate sequencing of applications to meet policy goals could undermine fairness in immigration proceedings, leaving many applicants in a precarious position. Additionally, the changes have sparked discussions about the potential human rights implications, particularly with respect to the right to family life and non-discrimination.
As Canada continues to refine its immigration policies, it remains to be seen how these new restrictions will impact the future of temporary and permanent residency pathways. The stakes are high for families, workers, and those who dream of building a future in Canada. While the government’s focus on controlling immigration and addressing national priorities is understandable, the human cost of these changes cannot be overlooked.
If you’re a potential applicant, family member, or anyone concerned about the future of Canada’s immigration system, now is the time to stay informed. Join our WhatsApp or Telegram channels for real-time updates, and never miss out on critical immigration news that could change the course of your future. Have a report or article to share? Reach out to us at report@trendingnaijanews.com. Stay connected and follow us on X (Twitter), Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, TikTok, and Facebook for all the latest updates.