Docket: IMM-1522-25
Citation: 2026 FC 739
Toronto, Ontario, June 4, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Battista
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
PATRICIA GBEMISOLA DARAMOLA AND
BOLUWATIFE OLUWASU DARAMOLA
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
(delivered orally from the bench on June 4, 2026)
[1] The Applicants challenge the refusal of the permanent residence application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds made by the Applicant Boluwatife Daramola, who is the son of the Applicant Patricia Daramola.
[2] The Applicant Patricia Daramola made three unsuccessful attempts to sponsor her son as a member of the family class. The first two attempts failed due to missing supporting documents for the application and missing information from application forms. The third attempt failed because at that time Boluwatife was over the age of 22 and no longer qualified as a dependent child. The Applicants’ request to have Boluwatife’s application processed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was refused, and this is the judicial review of that refusal.
[3] I agree with the Applicants that the decision is unreasonable for its failure to engage with the central submissions of the Applicants. Those central submissions included the following:
-
-The disqualification of the Applicant Boluwatife from membership in the family class was due to circumstances beyond the Applicants’ control, as well as technical errors with his mother’s previous attempts to sponsor him, and her demonstrated ongoing intention to reunite with him;
-
-The turmoil of the ongoing family separation, and the prospect that the Applicant Boluwatife’s father may need to remain in Nigeria, despite being successfully sponsored, to look after Boluwatife due to his practical state of dependence;
-
-The Applicant Patricia’s “heroic”
contributions to Canada as a health care worker in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.
[4] The Officer referred to some of these factors, but failed to assess them. Instead, the application was refused based on the absence of evidence supporting other factors the Officer independently proposed. This resulted in a disconnection between the Applicant’s submissions and the basis of the refusal.
[5] The Respondent argues that the Applicant’s evidence was found insufficient by the Officer, but the Officer does not state this. The Respondent also argues that the factors independently introduced by the Officer for refusing the application, such as the absence of Boluwatife’s health issues or threats to his life, were justified. However, even if these were reasonable factors for the Officer’s consideration, the decision is unreasonable not for what it did say but what it did not say. The decision’s failure to grapple with the Applicants’ central submissions renders it unresponsive and unreasonable (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 127-128).
Email this Content