Docket: IMM-23256-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1942
Toronto, Ontario, December 9, 2025
PRESENT: Madam Justice Go
|
BETWEEN: |
|
PARAMJEET KAUR NAGRA |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Paramjeet Kaur Nagra, is a 71-year-old widow and a citizen of India. The Applicant has been living in Canada since 2019 with her son, a Canadian citizen, her son’s wife and her two Canadian grandchildren.
[2] In March 2023, the Applicant submitted an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds. The Applicant’s H&C application was refused by a Senior Immigration Officer [Officer] in a decision dated November 25, 2024 [Decision]. The Officer was not satisfied there were sufficient H&C considerations to justify an exemption under subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c. 27 [IRPA].
[3] Applying the reasonableness standard of review per Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, I grant the application. The Decision reflects that the Officer failed to be alert, alive and sensitive to the best interests of the Applicant’s grandchildren. This error alone is serious enough to warrant setting aside the Decision.
[4] In support of her H&C application, the Applicant submitted documentary evidence under the themes of establishment in Canada, hardship and isolation upon return to India, and the best interests of her two minor grandchildren (now aged 11 and 6). In her H&C application form, the Applicant explained her relationship with her grandchildren, including teaching them about their family traditions and beliefs.
[5] The Applicant’s son also provided a letter stating that the Applicant’s presence has been a “source of immense joy and support”
for the Applicant’s grandchildren. The Applicant’s son described the Applicant’s relationship with her grandchildren as “deeply meaningful”
and has provided the children with a strong emotional foundation. The Applicant’s son further stated the Applicant’s participation in the children’s lives have been irreplaceable and her absence would be particularly distressing for the children who have grown to depend on her presence.
[6] In the Decision, the Officer acknowledged that the best interests of the child [BIOC] is “an important factor in the assessment of [an H&C application]”
but “not necessarily a determinative factor.”
The Officer acknowledged that the Applicant “has a very close relationship with the grandchildren”
and she wishes to remain in Canada to “instill religious and cultural knowledge to the children.”
However, the Officer stated: “Should the applicant be required to depart Canada, [the grandchildren] would still have the continued support of their parents and there is insufficient evidence before me to suggest that the applicant’s children [
sic] could not continue to provide adequate care for the children, including making alternative child care arrangement if necessary.”
[7] The Officer concluded: “While separation from the applicant may be disruptive for the children and there may be some emotional hardship associated with separation, I am not satisfied the children would be negatively impacted to an extent that this factor warrants more than minimal positive weight.”
[8] The Applicant submits that Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 [Kanthasamy] instructs that BIOC analysis must consider the child’s specific circumstances; it must not be reduced to a narrow “basic needs”
test, citing Williams v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 166 at para 66. The Officer erred in determining that the Applicant’s grandchildren would not be “negatively impacted”
by the Applicant’s departure, instead of identifying what was in their best interests and how these would be served based on different outcomes, contrary to the jurisprudence: Kanthasamy at para 39, Kaur v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 412 at para 21; Asantewaa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1129 [Asantewaa] at paras 9, 12, 24-28.
[9] The Applicant further cites Osipova v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1055 [Osipova] at paras 12-13 to submit that the Officer erred in their BIOC analysis by failing to consider or identify how the Applicant’s grandchildren would be affected by her departure. The Applicant submits that setting the standard as to whether the children’s basic needs will be met or that they would not “suffer”
from the Applicant’s removal form Canada does not adequately determine what is in the children’s best interests, contrary to the jurisprudence: Ganaden v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 325 at para 16; McDonald v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 394 at paras 36-38; Bautista v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1008 [Bautista] at para 28; Nagamany v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 187 at paras 37-38 and 44.
[10] I agree with the Applicant.
[11] As Justice Saint-Fleur noted in Asantewaa, a reasonable BIOC assessment calls for the determination of what is in the children’s best interests, and an officer must be “alert, alive and sensitive”
to the children's particular circumstances - viewed from the children’s perspective; this requires an officer “to grapple with the real-world situation of the children, examining their circumstances from a realistic perspective:”
Asantewaa at para 38 citing Gonzalez Madruga v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 822 at para 13.
[12] In this case, the Officer failed to apply the appropriate framework in their BIOC analysis when they found the children would not be “negatively impacted to an extent”
by the Applicant’s removal. These findings reveal that the Officer was focusing on whether the children would “suffer,”
thereby adopting a hardship lens, as opposed to what was in the children’s best interests: Kanthasamy at para 41; Bautista at para 28.
[13] I also agree with the Applicant that the Officer made speculative finding not based on the evidence before them when they suggested that the children may acquire religious and cultural knowledge from “his [
sic] own parents, other grandparents, or through any number of religious organizations and community groups.”
[14] The Respondent argues that the Officer’s findings were reasonable in light of the insufficient evidence that the Applicant submitted with respect to the BIOC, citing Panton v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 514 at para 51-53; Owusu v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (F.C.A.), 2004 FCA 38 [2004] 2 FCR 635, at para 8; Shah v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 424 at para 16; Gorelova v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1751 at paras 20-25 [Gorelova].
[15] However, I note the Officer did not justify the Decision based on the insufficient evidence about the Applicant’s relationship with her grandchildren, unlike the cases the Respondent cites. On the contrary, the Officer acknowledged the “strong relationship”
between the Applicant and her grandchildren, and the benefit the children receive from the “continued care and cultural knowledge”
shared by the Applicant.
[16] Further, it is one thing to regard the BIOC not to be a “determinative factor,”
it is quite another to assign it no more than “minimal positive weight,”
as the Officer did in this case, especially after acknowledging that the children benefit from their relationship with the Applicant and from the knowledge she imparts.
[17] In failing to give appropriate weight to the BIOC factor, the Decision was inconsistent with subsection 25(1) of the IRPA which requires officers to assess H&C applications while “taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected.”
The Decision was also inconsistent with the line of case law since Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 that regards BIOC as an “important factor”
in an H&C assessment.
[18] I also find, similar to Asantewaa, that the Officer improperly gave diminished weight to the BIOC because the Applicant was not the primary caregiver for the children. In so doing, the Officer erred by failing to consider how the Applicant’s grandchildren would be affected by her departure: Osipova at paras 12-13. I find Gorelova distinguishable on the facts, including, among others, the older age of the children involved in that case.
[19] For these reasons, I find the Decision unreasonable.
[20] The application for judicial review is granted.
[21] There is no question for certification.
Email this Content