Overview of the Case
This discipline case arose from complaints by a group of Korean truck drivers against Canadian immigration consultant Yolanda Simao, then a member of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC).
They alleged that they had paid large fees to a Korean agency for Canadian trucking jobs that never materialized, and that Ms. Simao, as the Canadian professional involved, failed to properly protect their interests during the process.
The hearing took place in Toronto on November 27–28, 2007 before a three‑member CSIC Discipline Council panel, which issued written reasons on March 17, 2008.
Parties and Background
The complainants were five Korean nationals whose individual complaints were consolidated into Discipline File No. 2007‑013, representing a larger group of 24 Korean truck‑driver applicants.
They had contracted with ULSC Immigration Consulting, a firm based in Seoul that was not regulated in Canada, paying about 7.5–8 million Korean Won each (roughly CAD 8,000 at the time), plus additional amounts after arrival in Canada.
ULSC promoted “lucrative” trucking jobs in Canada and initially associated itself with a Canadian lawyer, but later brought in Ms. Simao and her firm, Prolegal Consulting Group, to help secure Canadian employers and positive Labour Market Opinions (LMOs), the predecessor to today’s Labour Market Impact Assessments (LMIAs).
How the Employment Plan Was Supposed to Work
The plan was that the 24 drivers would improve their English, complete truck‑driver training in Canada, and then be hired by a Canadian carrier under a positive LMO, which would allow them to obtain work permits.
ULSC opened an office in the same Toronto building as Prolegal and a private school called Academy of Learning (AoL), where the drivers studied English; Ms. Simao’s daughter taught some of these English classes.
The drivers also enrolled at ADANAC, a recognized truck‑driver training academy, and many successfully obtained Ontario A–Z licences after training and exams conducted in English.
Role of Yolanda Simao and the Employers
In April 2006, after complaints about earlier delays, ULSC asked Ms. Simao to step in, and she agreed—on a fee of CAD 2,500 per person—to find an employer and secure a positive LMO for the 24 drivers.
She wrote a letter dated April 21, 2006, describing herself as a CSIC member and stating that she was representing all Korean truck drivers on behalf of ULSC in preparing applications to the Canadian consulate to obtain work permits, which ULSC translated and sent to the drivers.
Her first attempt to obtain an LMO for one employer failed, but she later secured a positive LMO from Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC, now part of Employment and Social Development Canada) for DVA Highland Transport, covering all 24 drivers.
The English‑Language Requirement and Breakdown
Highland made clear in a July 31, 2006 letter that it would hire only drivers who were “fluent in the English language, reading, writing and speaking,” and that they must hold A–Z licences from an accredited school.
ADANAC, however, wrote positively about the drivers’ English skills and professionalism and reported that other carriers such as Challenger and Schneider were impressed and willing to hire them, particularly in team‑driving arrangements, though the positive LMO ultimately tied the group only to Highland.
After the LMO was issued in October 2006, some drivers obtained work permits at the border using the LMO, a Highland job offer, and a cover letter that Ms. Simao prepared for Citizenship and Immigration Canada as a courtesy, but Highland later decided not to hire them because their English language ability did not meet its internal standard.
Complaints, Evidence, and Investigation
When trucking jobs did not materialize after training and licensing, the drivers became frustrated; many pursued ULSC, which proved difficult to locate, and did not initially approach Ms. Simao due to language barriers and their assumption that she already knew what was happening.
Three complainants testified through an interpreter, describing their payments to ULSC, English classes in Korea and Canada, driver training, work‑permit attempts at the border, a March 9, 2007 meeting with Highland, and their belief that Ms. Simao was a Canadian professional acting for them.
CSIC’s investigator interviewed Ms. Simao multiple times, along with ULSC representative Justin Park, ADANAC’s Wayne Campbell, a Canadian politician formerly linked in ULSC’s marketing, and others, compiling a detailed record of the events.
Who Were the “Clients”?
A central legal issue was who counted as Ms. Simao’s “clients” under CSIC’s Rules of Professional Conduct, since her duties under Rule 3.2 and Rule 4.2 depended on that definition.
The Rules defined a client as anyone on whose behalf a consultant undertakes to represent, advise, or consult in relation to applications or proceedings under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), including dealings with designated officers in departments like HRSDC/ESDC.
The panel found that Ms. Simao had several client groups: ULSC (which she acknowledged), the Canadian trucking firms she dealt with on LMOs (J&L Personnel and Highland), and, crucially, the 24 Korean drivers themselves, whose interests she represented in the LMO process and in her letters to Canadian authorities.
Finding: Breach of Rule 3.2 (Quality of Service)
Rule 3.2 required an immigration consultant to serve clients conscientiously, diligently, and efficiently, at a standard consistent with what a competent consultant would provide in similar circumstances.
The panel accepted that the drivers clearly knew from early on that some level of English was needed to work as truck drivers in Canada and had invested heavily in improving their skills, both before and after arrival.
However, the panel held that once Highland explicitly stated its requirement for fluent English and later emailed that the drivers’ English was not acceptable for its operations, Ms. Simao had a duty to treat the Korean drivers as her clients and personally inform and advise them about this critical development.
Instead, she forwarded Highland’s negative assessment only to ULSC and never directly explained to the drivers that, under the actual hiring conditions of the LMO employer, their jobs were at serious risk, nor did she work with them to explore alternatives.
The panel concluded that this failure to communicate and advise, at the moment when the drivers most needed guidance from a regulated Canadian consultant, fell below the quality of service required by Rule 3.2 and therefore constituted professional misconduct.
Finding: No Breach of Rule 4.2 (Honesty and Misleading Information)
Rule 4.2 prohibits a consultant from knowingly assisting in or encouraging dishonesty, misleading information, omission of required facts, fraud, crime, or other illegal conduct, and warns consultants not to become the “tool or dupe” of unscrupulous clients or agents.
The evidence showed troubling conduct by ULSC, including providing port‑of‑entry documents that painted the drivers’ stay in Canada as short‑term and omitted their planned English and driver training, which the panel characterized as misleading.
There were also hints of possible irregularities involving an employment contract submitted with work‑permit applications, but that line of evidence was not developed sufficiently for the panel to make findings of fraud or illegality against ULSC or any involvement by Ms. Simao.
The panel ultimately found no proof that Ms. Simao knowingly participated in providing misleading information or that she consciously allowed herself to be ULSC’s tool or dupe for dishonest purposes, and therefore held that she did not breach Rule 4.2.
Sanction Approach
Given its conclusions, the panel viewed the case as primarily a failure to recognize and serve the Korean drivers as clients, rather than a situation involving deliberate dishonesty or fraud by Ms. Simao.
It noted that in matters where she clearly saw someone as her client—such as Highland—her work in securing a positive LMO for 24 workers was strong and reflected significant effort in a complex file.
The panel indicated it was not inclined to impose a suspension and invited written submissions from both sides on an appropriate penalty, signalling that any sanction should focus on the communication failure and misunderstanding of client relationships.
How This Case Fits Into the 2025 Regulatory Landscape
Since this 2008 decision, Canada has overhauled the regulation of immigration consultants: CSIC was replaced by the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC) and, in turn, by the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants (CICC) under the College Act, which came into force in 2020 and established the College in 2021.
In 2025, new draft and finalized regulations further clarify the College’s investigation and discipline powers, create a compensation fund for victims of unethical consultants, and expand public‑interest protections, including stronger complaint handling and the possibility of ministerial intervention if governance fails.
On the labour‑market side, the former LMO system has long been replaced by the more rigorous Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) process, with higher fees, stricter advertising and transition‑plan requirements, and closer oversight by Employment and Social Development Canada to limit abuse of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.
Cases like Simao’s are now understood as early examples of why clearer definitions of client relationships, explicit duties to foreign workers, and better control over overseas “partners” are essential to protecting vulnerable applicants in Canada’s immigration system.
SEO Meta Tags (5 Variants for 2025)
- Meta Title 1:
Simao CSIC Discipline Case – Korean Truck Drivers ExplainedMeta Description 1:
Concise 2025 overview of the CSIC discipline decision in the Yolanda Simao Korean truck drivers case, covering facts, Rule 3.2 breach, and today’s CICC context. - Meta Title 2:
Korean Truck Drivers vs. Consultant – LMO Case Study (Canada)Meta Description 2:
Learn how 24 Korean truck drivers paid for Canadian jobs, why Highland refused to hire them over English fluency, and what the CSIC Discipline Council decided. - Meta Title 3:
Immigration Consultant Duties in LMIA Era – Lessons from SimaoMeta Description 3:
A real‑world discipline case showing how unclear client relationships and weak communication can harm foreign workers under Canada’s LMO and modern LMIA rules. - Meta Title 4:
CSIC to CICC: What the Simao Decision Still Teaches in 2025Meta Description 4:
See how a 2008 CSIC ruling on Korean truck drivers foreshadows today’s stricter CICC regulation, victim compensation funds, and tougher oversight of consultants. - Meta Title 5:
English Fluency, Trucking Jobs, and Consultant Liability in CanadaMeta Description 5:
Case summary of the Simao discipline hearing, focusing on English‑language requirements, failed trucking jobs, and how consultant obligations are enforced in 2025.