Rising Penalties, Public Naming, and Judicial Pushback: Employer Compliance Inspections under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program

Employer compliance inspections under Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) have entered a markedly more punitive phase. Recent enforcement activity demonstrates a clear trend toward higher Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs), longer program bans, and expanded use of public naming through the federal list of non‑compliant employers.

At the same time, recent Federal Court jurisprudence confirms that procedural fairness remains a critical constraint on the federal government’s enforcement powers. The contrasting outcomes in Bolero Shellfish Processing Inc. and Pêcheries Lebreton & Fils Ltée 1illustrate both the reach and the limits of TFWP compliance enforcement.

Enforcement Trends – Higher administrative monetary penalties (AMPs), longer term bans and publicity

Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) have increasingly relied on escalating AMP penalties and public ineligibility listings as core enforcement tools. Employers found non‑compliant may face significant financial penalties, multi‑year or permanent bans from hiring temporary foreign workers, and publication on the federal registry of non‑compliant employers.

The practical consequences of these measures often extend well beyond the penalty itself, including reputational damage, loss of customers, labour shortages, and financing challenges.

Bolero Shellfish Processing Inc (September 17, 2025): Maximum Sanctions

Bolero Shellfish Processing Inc., a New Brunswick seafood processor, was fined $1 million and banned from the Temporary Foreign Worker Program for ten years, rendering it ineligible until September 2035. The enforcement action followed complaints by temporary foreign workers and was not the result of a random inspection.

ESDC alleged mistreatment of temporary foreign workers, non‑compliance with hiring and recruitment obligations, and failure to meet wage and working‑condition requirements. The matter remained under review for approximately four years before the final decision was issued in September 2025.

Bolero argued that the violations were administrative in nature and did not justify penalties of this magnitude. ESDC rejected that position, concluding that administrative errors did not excuse or prevent workplace abuse. The employer’s prior compliance history ($2000 AMPs) dating back to September 2020 appears to have been treated as an aggravating factor.

It has been reported that Bolero has pursued judicial review of the AMP decision and has publicly cited the stigma associated with the penalties and long‑term ban. The employer has also reportedly launched a defamation action against the federal government.

The Lebreton and Son Fisheries case (December 2025) – Holding Government Accountable on Procedural Fairness

In contrast, the enforcement action against Pêcheries Lebreton & Fils Ltée demonstrates the importance of procedural fairness in TFWP compliance decisions. In 2024, ESDC imposed a $365,750 AMP and a two‑year ban from both the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and the International Mobility Program.

The alleged violations included wage and statutory holiday non‑compliance, record‑keeping deficiencies, and failure to ensure a workplace free from violence. The employer reported the loss of a U.S. customer and sale of approximately $3 million arising from the reputational harm of having been named as a non-compliant employer.

On judicial review, the Federal Court overturned most of the sanctions and returned the matter to a new decision‑maker. The Court found that the decision‑maker failed to consider material evidence that was sent to the Department in response to the allegations.

The Court held that these procedural fairness defects warranted setting aside the ban and most of the penalties. While some underlying compliance findings were left intact, the Court emphasized that enforcement decisions must be based on a fair and complete evidentiary record.

Notably, during the proceedings, the federal government conceded that requiring the employer to provide employees with a specific guide on temporary foreign worker rights was an unreasonable compliance demand. This is an important point to be mindful of as many employers realize once they received an inspection notice that they have not disseminated this government pamphlet.

Following the Court’s decision, the two‑year ban was overturned, AMP amounts publicly listed were substantially reduced (from $365,750.00 to $8750.00), and the employer is currently shown as eligible to hire temporary foreign workers.

Take Aways

Together, the Bolero and Lebreton cases illustrate the evolving nature of employer compliance inspections under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. While ESDC has demonstrated a willingness to impose unprecedented penalties, the Federal Court has reaffirmed that enforcement must remain procedurally fair, evidence‑based, and proportionate.

For employers, compliance in the current environment requires not only meeting substantive program requirements, but also preparing strategically for inspections, investigations, and potential litigation. The Lebreton case demonstrates that employers that are prepared to litigate the imposition of substantive AMPs may be able to have the penalties substantially reduced. Moreover, they can and hold the government to account for decisions that have repercussions far beyond adherence with Canada’s employer compliance regime.

________________________________

1 Pêcheries Lebreton & Fils Ltée v Canada (Employment and Social Development), 2025 CF 2016 Federal Court of Canada). IMM-8506-24 December 22, 2025