Dubale v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 510

Date: 20250319

Docket: IMM-7092-24

Citation: 2025 FC 510

Toronto, Ontario, March 19, 2025

PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Aylen

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] The Applicant, a citizen of Ethiopia, seeks judicial review of the decision of a visa officer [Officer] refusing the Applicant’s application for a multi-entry temporary resident visa [TRV] to permit her to come to Canada for a three-month stay with her two Canadian-born children. The Applicant states that the purpose of the visit is to permit one of her Canadian-born children to have open-heart surgery and the second child to have a medical check-up.

[2] The Applicant’s TRV was denied by letter dated April 18, 2024, wherein the Officer stated that the TRV was refused as the Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay as required by paragraph 179(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. The Officer identified two factors supporting this conclusion: (i) the Applicant’s assets and financial situation were insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for the Applicant and her sons; and (ii) the purpose of the Applicant’s visit to Canada was not consistent with a temporary stay given the information the Applicant provided in her application.

[3] The Officer’s decision is largely contained in their Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes, which form part of the reasons for decision. The GCMS notes provide:

I have reviewed the application. I have considered the following factors in my decision. The applicant’s assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for themselves. Application and submissions reviewed. Applicant provided a CIBC void check and account summary; no statement provided detailing 3-months of transaction history. In the absence of satisfactory documentation showing the source of these funds, I am not satisfied the applicant has sufficient funds for intended purpose. The purpose of the applicant’s visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. No proof of medical insurance on file. Weighing the factors in this application. I am not satisfied that the applicant will depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for their stay. For the reasons above, I have refused this application.

[4] The sole issue for determination is whether the Officer’s decision was reasonable. When reviewing for reasonableness, the Court must determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible and justified. 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 (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] The Applicant asserts that the decision is unreasonable on a number of grounds. However, I find that it is only necessary to consider the reasonableness of the Officer’s finding that the purpose of the Applicant’s visit to Canada was not consistent with a temporary stay given the information the Applicant provided in her application. On a plain reading of the Officer’s GCMS notes, this finding is tied to the absence of medical insurance.

[6] In considering this ground, the factual context is important, as is the limited evidence provided by the Applicant in support of her application. The Applicant is a failed refugee claimant and previously had a deportation order issued against her (although she states that she did not realize that a deportation order had been issued and believed that her departure from Canada in 2019 was voluntary). By way of the TRV application, she sought authorization to come to Canada for a period of three months so that, primarily, her 5-year-old son could obtain open-heart surgery. In support of her application, the Applicant produced a one-page letter dated December 14, 2023 from a pediatric cardiologist with the Children’s Heart Fund of Ethiopia attesting to the need for her son’s surgery and confirming that the operation had to be conducted abroad as they were not equipped for such a procedure. No further medical records were provided.

[7] Moreover, also missing from the Applicant’s application was any evidence related to the medical procedure to be completed in Canada. There was no evidence of any scheduled surgery in Canada during the three-month period nor any evidence of an appointment with a Canadian pediatric cardiologist. Further, as noted by the Officer, there was no evidence of medical insurance for the Applicant’s son.

[8] The Applicant asserts that the finding regarding the absence of medical insurance is “puzzling” as there is no requirement to produce proof of medical insurance given that her son is a Canadian citizen. She asserts that as a Canadian, he would be entitled to medical coverage through the Ontario Health Insurance Plan [OHIP]. The Applicant asserts that the Officer’s decision is unintelligible as the Officer failed to explain why proof of medical insurance would be required.

[9] Contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, I find that the Officer’s concern with the absence of medical insurance was reasonable. Canadians are only eligible for programs such as OHIP where they meet the Canadian residency requirement of the program. The evidence before the Officer was that the Applicant’s children had been living with her in Ethiopia since 2019. I find that the absence of proof of medical insurance is directly relevant to the asserted purpose of the trip, which was to obtain cardiac surgery. The surgery would be very expensive absent medical insurance, be it private or provincial, and the funds available to the Applicant would not be enough to otherwise cover this expense. As such, I find that the absence of medical insurance was therefore a proper consideration for the Officer to have taken into account.

[10] While the Officer could have provided more detailed reasons, this Court has confirmed that the Officer’s duty to provide reasons on a TRV application is minimal, in recognition of the institutional context in which such decisions are made — namely, the high volume of TRVs that must be processed in Canada’s missions [see Afuah v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 596 at para 9]. While the reasons given by the Officer are brief, I find that, in all of the circumstances, they are sufficient to meet the Vavilov requirements.

[11] Based on the limited information and evidence provided by the Applicant in support of her application, I find that the Officer’s determination that the purpose of her visit to Canada was not consistent with a temporary stay was reasonable. This finding was, on its own, a sufficient basis upon which to refuse the Applicant’s application. As such, I need not consider the Applicant’s additional arguments related to the reasonableness of the Officer’s decision.

[12] As the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable, the application for judicial review shall be dismissed.

[13] No question for certification was raised and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-7092-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. The parties proposed no question for certification and none arises.

“Mandy Aylen”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: