Docket: IMM-4769-16
Citation:
2017 FC 816
Toronto, Ontario, September 8, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ELIZABETH
BAILEY
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Delivered from the Bench in Toronto, Ontario on September 8, 2017)
I.
Overview
[1]
The immigration officer noted that she was
sympathetic to the mistreatment that the Applicant reported at the hands of her
employer but she did not recognize, acknowledge or understand the degree of
exploitation which the Applicant suffered by her employer which is of
significant concern in such cases, recognizing that Canadian authorities put
into operation the Program for Live-In Caregivers. Canada should not
receive the reputation due to individuals, even if few, who could or would be
exploited and abused, without consequences. Thus, such individuals, as the
Applicant, should not be penalized under the auspices of a Canadian government
program.
II.
Decision
[2]
If it was not for the abuse and exploitation of
her employer, the Applicant, understandably, expected to remain in Canada under
that program. The evidence is very clear thereon.
[3]
Ms. Elizabeth Bailey applied for permanent
residence in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. An immigration
officer denied her application.
[4]
The Applicant submits that the officer’s
decision is unreasonable because it failed to adequately understand significant
evidence in her favour.
[5]
The Court agrees that the officer did not give
adequate understanding to significant evidence in the Applicant’s favour;
therefore, the decision is unreasonable, and the Court grants the judicial
review.
[6]
Although, the Applicant presents a few issues,
the Court needs only to consider whether the decision was unreasonable as to an
important element that was not taken into account appropriately.
[7]
The work conditions under which the Applicant
lived were both abusive and, furthermore, exploitative in respect of
compensation, all of which took place under a program initiated and put in
effect by Canadian immigration authorities for individuals such as the
Applicant.
[8]
A greater measure of sympathy is warranted, in
as much as what are humanitarian and compassionate grounds all about, if not to
be humanitarian and compassionate? That is in a situation wherein unusual,
undeserved, disproportionate hardship would ensure as it did in this case.
[9]
The above, in and of itself, lends itself to a
greater understanding of the Applicant’s position, who is trying to assist the
life and future of her family in her country of origin.
[10]
As the key evidence, referenced above, was not
appropriately given the weight which it was due, the decision of the officer
was unreasonable.
[11]
Therefore, the Court grants the application for
judicial review and returns it to another officer for it to be considered anew.
Email this Content