$24,000 ‘fees’: Three individuals convicted of defrauding temporary foreign workers
Three partners of a Calgary restaurant have been sentenced to 90-day jail terms, to be served on weekends.
The individuals were previously convicted of fraud over $5,000 for demanding tens of thousands of dollars from temporary foreign workers as supposed immigration “government fees” after the workers arrived in Canada and began working.
In R v Kasinathan et al., 2025, Justice Sandra Mah of the Alberta Court of Justice found Manikandan Kasinathan, Chandramohan Marjak and Mary Roche guilty on three counts of fraud under the Criminal Code.
The case involved three complainants — cooks Parthiban Ramalingam, Venkatesan Durairaj and Vijayasankar Krishnan — who came from India under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) to work at Marina Dosa Tandoori Grill in Calgary.
There were originally four co-accused, but the judged cited a lack of sufficient evidence against the fourth individual.
The offenders were each sentenced to 90-day jail terms, to be served on weekends, according to the CBC.
LMIA fee is $1,000 — not $24,000
In its May 2025 decision, the court confirmed that the processing fee for a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) is $1,000.
However, Justice Mah found that after each complainant obtained a work permit, landed in Canada and began working, the accused told them they personally had to pay large LMIA “government fees”:
- Ramalingam was told to pay $24,000 and paid $24,000
- Durairaj was told to pay $24,000 and paid $12,000
- Krishnan was told to pay $12,000 and paid $8,000
The judge accepted the Crown’s position that “the accused intentionally committed dishonest acts against the complainants by communicating a falsehood to each complainant that he must pay $24,000 towards a labour market impact assessment to deprive each complainant a sum of money exceeding $5,000.”
The federal government has amped up its enforcement and investigations of employers using the TFWP, leading to an increase in fines – and a public list of offending companies.
Reporting suspected criminal conduct
The defence argued the prosecution was an abuse of process, claiming the workers went to police to collect civil debts after pursuing Employment Standards and Service Canada complaints.
The court rejected this, finding no evidence the criminal complaints were brought for an improper purpose: “The evidence before this court does not support the complainants went to police for the sole and only purpose of collecting a civil debt.”
The court emphasized that the regulatory wage investigations and the criminal fraud allegations involved different relationships, parties, and legal frameworks. It also rejected claims that the complainants were sophisticated, not vulnerable, or colluded to fabricate allegations.
In its ruling, the court reiterated that reporting suspected criminal conduct to police does not require complainants to wait for the outcome of civil or regulatory proceedings. It stated: “Complainants and witnesses are legally entitled to report what they understand to be criminal conduct to the police, if they believe such circumstances exist.”
