Navisa guide · Express Entry
The IRPR Sections Behind Every CEC Eligibility Criterion
The Canadian Experience Class checklist that most applicants and consultants work from lives on IRCC’s canada.ca pages: one year of Canadian work, the right TEER category, a minimum language score. Every one of those plain-language requirements is a restatement of a specific subsection of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. This guide puts the two side by side — the criterion as IRCC states it, and the regulation that actually governs it — quoting both verbatim and linking each to its official source. It is a reference summary, not immigration advice; it does not decide whether any given person is eligible, and it does not replace the judgment of a licensed RCIC.
The class itself: IRPR s. 87.1(1)
The Canadian Experience Class is not created by an IRCC web page. It is prescribed by section 87.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (SOR/2002-227), made under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Subsection 87.1(1) defines what the class is for:
“For the purposes of subsection 12(2) of the Act, the Canadian experience class is prescribed as a class of persons who may become permanent residents on the basis of their ability to become economically established in Canada, their experience in Canada, and their intention to reside in a province other than the Province of Quebec.”
Three ideas in that single sentence anchor everything that follows: economic establishment, experience in Canada, and the intention to settle outside Quebec. IRCC’s public program page restates the Quebec point in plain terms:
“You must plan to live outside the province of Quebec.”
The substantive membership tests — the ones a file actually turns on — are set out in subsection 87.1(2). The rest of this guide walks each IRCC-stated criterion back to the paragraph of 87.1(2) or 87.1(3) that governs it.
Criterion: one year of Canadian work experience
IRCC’s program page states the work-experience requirement as a duration and an hours figure:
“be at least 1 year of work or 1,560 hours total (30 hours per week) in the 3 years before you apply”
That is the operational restatement of paragraph 87.1(2)(a), which sets the regulatory floor — the amount of experience, the three-year window, and the requirement that it be acquired in Canada:
“they have acquired in Canada, within the three years before the date on which their application for permanent residence is made, at least one year of full-time work experience, or the equivalent in part-time work experience, in one or more occupations, other than a restricted occupation, that are listed in TEER Category 0, 1, 2 or 3 of the National Occupational Classification”
The 1,560-hour figure on the IRCC page is the arithmetic of “one year of full-time work experience” at 30 hours a week; the regulation carries the “or the equivalent in part-time” alternative that the page also references. Both point to the same three-year look-back and the same in-Canada requirement.
Criterion: the work is in NOC TEER 0, 1, 2 or 3
IRCC states the skill-level requirement in terms of the National Occupational Classification TEER categories:
“Your skilled work experience must: be in 1 or more of these NOC categories: training, education, experience and responsibilities (TEER) 0, 1, 2, or 3”
That requirement is not a policy choice IRCC makes on the page — it is written into paragraph 87.1(2)(a) itself, in the words “listed in TEER Category 0, 1, 2 or 3 of the National Occupational Classification” quoted above. The regulation ties the class to a specific, published classification, which is why the exact NOC code claimed for a period of work matters: it is the code, and its TEER level, that the regulation tests.
Criterion: the duties actually performed match the occupation
IRCC asks the applicant to show the work matched the NOC description — the lead statement and the main duties:
“show that you performed: the actions in the lead statement of the NOC job description, and most of the main duties listed”
That two-part test is a restatement of paragraphs 87.1(2)(b) and 87.1(2)(c), which separate the lead statement from the main duties and add a specific requirement — that all of the essential duties were performed:
“(b) during that period of employment they performed the actions described in the lead statement for the occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of the National Occupational Classification; (c) during that period of employment they performed a substantial number of the main duties of the occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of the National Occupational Classification, including all of the essential duties”
The regulation is stricter than the summary in one important way: it requires “including all of the essential duties.” This is the paragraph a reference letter is read against — the letter has to describe duties that map to the lead statement and cover the essential duties of the claimed NOC, or the experience does not count under 87.1(2), regardless of how long the person worked.
Criterion: paid work, and what does not count
IRCC states two boundaries on the page — the work must be paid, and certain kinds of work are excluded:
“be paid work (you must have been paid wages or earned commission—volunteer work or unpaid internships don’t count)”
“Self-employment and work experience gained while you were a full-time student (even if you were on a co-op work term) doesn’t count toward the minimum requirements for this program.”
Those exclusions are the plain-language version of subsection 87.1(3), which tells an officer what to leave out when counting the work experience:
“For the purposes of subsection (2), (a) any period of employment during which the foreign national was engaged in full-time study shall not be included in calculating a period of work experience; (b) any period of self-employment or unauthorized work shall not be included in calculating a period of work experience; and (c) the foreign national must have had temporary resident status during their period of work experience.”
IRCC has published a narrow exception to the self-employment exclusion, made through a temporary public policy rather than a change to the regulation: self-employed, fee-for-service physicians’ Canadian work experience counts, for physicians invited to apply through Express Entry on or after April 25, 2023. Outside that specific policy, subsection 87.1(3)(b) applies as quoted above.
Paragraph 87.1(3)(c) is the regulatory basis for the authorization requirement IRCC also states directly:
“be gained by working in Canada while authorized to work under temporary resident status”
IRCC adds a modern clarification the regulation predates — that remote work still has to be physically performed in Canada for a Canadian employer:
“If you worked remotely, you must have been physically in Canada and working for a Canadian employer.”
Criterion: the language threshold
IRCC states the language requirement as an approved test plus a minimum score in all four abilities, with the exact threshold keyed to the occupation’s TEER level:
“take approved language tests in English or French”
“CLB 7 for TEER 0 or TEER 1 occupations”
“CLB 5 for TEER 2 or TEER 3 occupations”
The regulatory home of the language test is paragraph 87.1(2)(d). Notably, the regulation does not itself fix the CLB number — it delegates that to the Minister, which is why the specific CLB 7 / CLB 5 thresholds live in a Ministerial instrument and on the IRCC page rather than in the text of 87.1:
“they have had their proficiency in the English or French language evaluated by an organization or institution that is designated under subsection 74(3) using a language test that is approved under that subsection, the results of which must indicate that the foreign national has met the applicable threshold that is fixed by the Minister under subsection 74(1) for each of the four language skill areas”
That delegation matters in practice: because the threshold is “fixed by the Minister,” it can change without the regulation changing. A criterion whose number can move is exactly the kind that rewards checking against the current official source rather than a remembered figure.
The documents that evidence these criteria
Each criterion has to be proven with a document, and IRCC lists what those are on its Express Entry documents page. Two map directly to the 87.1(2) tests above — proof of the work experience, and the language results:
“proof of work experience (such as a reference or experience letter from an employer)”
“language test results”
The reference or experience letter is where the paper meets the regulation: it is the document expected to carry the dates that satisfy 87.1(2)(a) and the duties that satisfy 87.1(2)(b) and (c). A letter that omits the hours, the period, or duties that map to the claimed NOC leaves a criterion unproven even where the underlying work would have qualified.
Where cited analysis fits: a finding that shows the section behind it
The reason to line the criteria up against the regulation this way is that an eligibility assessment is only as trustworthy as the source it can point to. It is one thing to write “the work experience appears sufficient”; it is another to say whichparagraph of 87.1(2) the conclusion rests on and quote it. That difference is the whole design intent behind how Navisa reads a file.
Pillar S3 — the shipped mechanism
The analysis runs against retrieved official sources, and every finding cites the section it rests on — clickable.
Rather than write a paragraph and hope it is right, the analysis retrieves the governing regulation and the IRCC program guidance for the stream, and each finding is anchored to the IRPR section or IRCC page behind it — the same verbatim excerpts and source links used in this guide. The output is a structured memo per case (issue, facts, rule, application, conclusion) in which the “rule” is a real quotation with a link, not a summary from memory.
The CEC excerpts quoted throughout this guide come from Navisa’s own grounded legal graph for the Canadian Experience Class stream — the same store the product reads when it cites a finding. Grounding the marketing in the same sources the product uses is the point: an analysis that claims to read and cite the law has to be held to that standard on the page as well. What the engine does not do is decide the case. It surfaces the criterion, quotes the section, and shows its work; whether the criterion is met on the facts of a particular file is a judgment that stays with the consultant.
A record of what was checked, and against what
When a finding is anchored to the exact IRPR paragraph and IRCC page behind it, the file gains a durable record: not just that eligibility was considered, but which rule each conclusion was measured against and where that rule was read. That is the kind of record-keeping a CICC file review looks for — evidence that the assessment was tied to the governing law and its official source, rather than an unsupported opinion. Navisa is not certified, approved, or endorsed by the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants; the point is only that a cited, sourced analysis leaves behind the sort of paper trail a professional file review expects to find.
What this guide and this tool do not do
- This is general information about a public regulation and IRCC’s published guidance. It is not legal advice and does not assess any particular case.
- Navisa does not determine whether a person is eligible for the Canadian Experience Class. It cites the criterion and its governing section; applying the rule to the facts stays with the consultant.
- Thresholds set by the Minister (such as the CLB language requirement) can change without the regulation changing. Always confirm the current figure against the official source linked above.
- Navisa does not replace the judgment of a licensed RCIC. Nothing is filed or submitted without consultant review and approval, and no outcome or processing time is guaranteed.
Part of the Navisa guides library. For the live record of IRCC policy changes, see the policy tracker.
See a cited analysis on one of your files
Run a real file through Navisa and watch the eligibility analysis anchor each finding to the IRPR section and IRCC guidance behind it, quoted and linked. The trial is free, with one case included and no card required.