Employer unlawfully charges fees for recruitment in B.C.
A Canadian employer has been ordered to repay $14,193 after a tribunal found it received a $12,000 recruitment fee from a temporary foreign worker it employed for just 21 days.
In a decision dated Jan. 27, 2026, Employment Standards Tribunal member Brandon Mewhort confirmed that 0712261 B.C. Ltd., operating as Shams Halal Meat in Coquitlam, B.C., contravened the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act by participating in a recruitment fee scheme. The ruling is a stark reminder that when third-party recruiters exploit workers, the employer at the end of the chain can still be held fully liable.
Recruitment ‘fees’ with immigration
Ehsan Moghaddaszadeh Kermani was told by an Iranian immigration consultancy called VisaTwo that a Canadian employer required $52,000 to guarantee a job. The employer's name was kept "classified" until full payment was made. Kermani paid.
Of the $52,000, $12,000 was paid by Kermani into an RBC bank account belonging to Mohammad Hassan Jalali Javaran, VisaTwo's agent in Canada. The Adjudicating Delegate found that Javaran then paid that $12,000 to Mohammed Shameem, the sole director and officer of Shams Halal Meat, to initiate the Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) process. Kermani had been told $10,000 was for the employer and $2,000 was for the LMIA application.
Kermani's employment as a meat cutter began May 5, 2023, and ended May 26, 2023. He was bound by a closed work permit restricting him to working only for Shams Halal Meat. The Adjudicating Delegate noted that after deducting the $12,000 paid to Shameem for the LMIA, the remaining $40,000 "was equivalent to the wages Mr. Kermani would have received during his first year of employment with the Respondent, Shams."
$52,00 as fee for employment
The Adjudicating Delegate traced the $12,000 through RBC bank records, WhatsApp conversations, Iranian currency exchange records, and Iranian court proceedings. RBC confirmed the account belonged to "Hasan Javaran" and that the $12,000 deposit was withdrawn in cash the same day it was deposited.
In Iranian court proceedings, VisaTwo's principals testified they knew the employer received the payment because they obtained the LMIA from "the employer." Javaran challenged the authenticity of the translated court document, but the tribunal found he had been in contact with one of the VisaTwo principals during the investigation and had a reasonable opportunity to verify its accuracy.
The Adjudicating Delegate concluded: "I also find there is sufficient evidence that Mr. Javaran received the $52,000.00 paid by Mr. Kermani as a fee for his employment with Shams and that this amount included a $12,000.00 recruitment fee that Mr. Javaran paid to Mr. Shameem to obtain the LMIA."
TFWP rules for recruitment fees
Under section 21 of the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, employers are prohibited from charging workers any fee for recruitment. The tribunal's ruling confirmed this prohibition applies whether the fee is charged directly or collected through a third-party agent acting on the employer's behalf.
Both Shameem and Javaran denied knowing each other. The tribunal rejected both denials after weighing the bank records, the LMIA paper trail, and a credibility assessment of the parties. Notably, the Adjudicating Delegate found Shameem to have been dishonest on several occasions, including with respect to wages — demonstrated by a conversation recorded by the employee during which Shameem made statements about wages that were inconsistent with what was provided for in the LMIA.
When confronted about those inconsistent statements by the Investigating Delegate, Shameem did not respond.
The final order against the employer left no room for ambiguity. Pursuant to section 38 of the Act, the Adjudicating Delegate found that "Mr. Kermani is entitled to recover $12,000.00 from the Respondent, Shams." The tribunal confirmed that order in full, directing Shams to pay $12,000 plus $2,193 in interest, for a total of $14,193.
The Adjudicating Delegate also found that Kermani was entitled to recover a separate $40,000 from Javaran for the balance of the recruitment and employment fee, and found that Javaran had acted as an unlicensed foreign worker recruiter.
However, the Determination made no enforceable orders specific to Javaran — a distinction the tribunal's decision preserved on appeal.
