Date: 20250324
Docket: IMM-8276-24
Citation: 2025 FC 540
Ottawa, Ontario, March 24, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Aylen
BETWEEN: |
SAMIR KHORSAND AND
ESRA NOROOZ
|
Applicants
|
and
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicants, citizens of Iran, are husband and wife. The Principal Applicant, Samir, was diagnosed with schizophrenia while living in Iran. He managed his condition with the help of his immediate family members (mother, father, and four brothers) when they all lived in Iran in the same building, together with the assistance of his wife. Between 2005 and 2018, the Principal Applicant’s immediate family members all fled Iran and moved to Canada. The Principal Applicant states that his mental health deteriorated after his family left and he struggled to obtain the medication required to treat his schizophrenia, with his brothers ultimately mailing his medication to him from Canada.
[2] The Applicants made an application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds under section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], which was based on the Applicants’ establishment in Canada, their family ties, the mental health of the Principal Applicant, hardship in returning to Iran and the best interests of the Applicants’ nieces and nephew. On May 3, 2024, a Senior Immigration Officer [Officer] refused their application, which refusal is now challenged before this Court.
[3] While the Applicants assert that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable on a number of bases, I find that the Officer’s flawed analysis of the Principal Applicant’s mental health is determinative.
[4] The applicable standard of review of an H&C decision is reasonableness [see Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 at para 44]. When reviewing for reasonableness, the Court must take a “reasons first”
approach and determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible and justified [see Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at para 8]. A reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision-maker [see Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 15, 85]. The Court will intervene only if it is satisfied there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency [see Adeniji-Adele v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 418 at para 11].
[5] In Kanthasamy, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that where a mental health diagnosis is accepted, the fact that an individual’s mental health would likely worsen if they were removed to their country of origin is a relevant consideration that must be identified and weighed regardless of whether there is treatment available in that country [see Kanthasamy, supra at para 48].
[6] In this case, the Officer accepted that the Principal Applicant was diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, takes various medications to treat his condition and requires the ongoing support of other people. However, rather than assessing whether the Principal Applicant’s mental health would deteriorate as a result of his removal to Iran, the Officer’s analysis focused exclusively upon the availability of medical care, medication and supports in Iran as a justification for assigning this factor little weight. While I acknowledge that there was no evidence from the Principal Applicant’s treating physician addressing the effect of removal on his mental health, there was affidavit evidence from the Principal Applicant and statements from his family members attesting to the deterioration of his mental health when his family left Iran, the improvement in his condition while reunited with his family in Canada and the difficulty he would face in managing his schizophrenia if returned to Iran. In the circumstances, I find that the Officer was obligated to engage with the evidence submitted by the Applicants and consider the effect of removal as part of their assessment of this factor, which they did not do [see Montero v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 776 at paras 27-30].
[7] I find that this error renders the Officer’s consideration of the Principal Applicant’s mental health unreasonable, which on its own is a sufficient basis to set aside the Officer’s decision and grant the application.
[8] The parties have proposed no question for certification and I agree that none arises.
JUDGMENT in IMM-8276-24
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
The application for judicial review is granted. The decision of the Officer dated May 3, 2024, is set aside and the matter is remitted to another officer for redetermination.
The parties proposed no question for certification and none arises.
“Mandy Aylen”
Email this Content