Every year Canada admits thousands of individuals into the country under foreign worker status, many of whom are employed in private households and on farms. These individuals face one or more measures restricting their right to resign and change employers – such as employer(s)-specific work permits or standard work contracts with clauses tying them to a specific employer in the country.

If the employment relationship ends with the employer-sponsor (or group of employers-sponsors), the individual’s right to work in Canada is automatically revoked.¹ As such, workers tied to their employers are radically hesitant to quit or take any action that could put their jobs at risk. This includes declining unsafe work, demanding the respect of the contract or reporting a right violation.

Since employer-tying measures impose such serious consequences on workers that quit or resign (such as the risk of not being able to renew their work permit), these workers de facto end up, according to North American jurisprudence, in a legal condition of servitude.

In broader terms, when foreign worker admission programs incorporate employer-tying measures, they result in the consolidation of an unfree labour system, characterized by the reduced applicability of human rights, employment, labour, immigration, tax and anti-trust legislations – and a diminished application of the Rule of Law. 

The particular susceptibility of employer-tied migrants to human rights abuses has been consistently recognized over the past decades by several U.N. agencies and human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Recently, a UN Special rapporteur confirmed that Canada’s closed work permit system constitutes a “breeding ground” for contemporary forms of slavery. Furthermore, the legality of work permits restricted to specific employers has been challenged in court before, in 2006. In a unanimous ruling, it was held that tied permits represent an unjustifiable and, therefore, unlawful infringement on fundamental rights.

Indeed, we cannot avoid the conclusion — a painful and shameful conclusion — that the foreign worker has become his employer’s serf, that the restrictive arrangement with all its implications has hedged the foreign worker in from every side and that the restrictive arrangement has created a modern form of slavery.

Kav LaOved Worker’s Hotline v. Government of Israel

The “End Migrant Worker Unfreedom” project constitutes a multi-year endeavour encompassing extensive preparation, including exhaustive legal and social science research, and constitutional argument development. On September 14, 2023, RHFW took a significant step forward by filing for authorization for a constitutional class action, officially initiating proceedings in court.

Moving forward, one of our permanent focus will be on consolidating the project finances, a crucial element to ensure optimal collaboration with the litigation team and, thus, the success of the action.

¹ In some cases, the right to stay is also immediately revoked; in other cases, the search for a new employer-sponsor is temporarily authorized, but during this process, the worker will be at high risk of irregular employment, loss of access to permanent status, loss of legal status, human trafficking, deportation, and debt bondage.