Search - consideration

Relevant provisions [21]            In this case, subsection 25(1) of the IRPA provides that an exemption from the requirements of the Act may be granted based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations: Humanitarian and compassionate considerations —request of foreign national Séjour pour motif d’ordre humanitaire à la demande de l’étranger 25 (1) Subject to subsection (1.2), the Minister must, on request of a foreign national in Canada who applies for permanent resident status and who is inadmissible —other than under section 34, 35 or 37 — or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, and may, on request of a foreign national outside Canada — other than a foreign national who is inadmissible under section 34, 35 or 37 — who applies for a permanent resident visa, examine the circumstances concerning the foreign national and may grant the foreign national permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to the foreign national, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected. 25 (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (1.2), le ministre doit, sur demande d’un étranger se trouvant au Canada qui demande le statut de résident permanent et qui soit est interdit de territoire — sauf si c’est en raison d’un cas visé aux articles 34, 35 ou 37 —, soit ne se conforme pas à la présente loi, et peut, sur demande d’un étranger se trouvant hors du Canada — sauf s’il est interdit de territoire au titre des articles 34, 35 ou 37 — qui demande un visa de résident permanent, étudier le cas de cet étranger; il peut lui octroyer le statut de résident permanent ou lever tout ou partie des critères et obligations applicables, s’il estime que des considérations d’ordre humanitaire relatives à l’étranger le justifient, compte tenu de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant directement touché. ...

Based on these considerations, the member found that the case was abandoned. ... Since the RPD did not take into consideration the applicant’s efforts to obtain a medical certificate, an error was apparently committed, opening the door for judicial review. [12]            Obviously, the Minister argues that the decision is reasonable. ... Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 882: [36]      This Court, in interpreting s 168(1) of the Act, has consistently held that the key consideration with respect to abandonment proceedings is whether the claimant’s conduct amounts to an expression of his or her intention to diligently prosecute his or her claim (Csikos v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2013 FC 632 (CanLII), at para 25). ...

Justification [6]                In my view, the Delegate was required to state a clear and supportable justification to deny the Applicant’s re-appropriation request given the large sum of money under consideration. [7]                As outlined above, by the letter of July 21, 2014, the Delegate was advised of the serious problems encountered by the Applicant in re-structuring the corporation’s financial affairs due to issues not of the Applicant’s own making. ... I find that, not only was it unfair for the Delegate to include it in the decision-making process without providing advance notice and an opportunity for the Applicant to respond, it is an extraneous consideration the introduction of which, in and of itself, renders the Decision under review as unreasonable. ... JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the Decision under review is set aside, and the matter is referred back to the Minister for redetermination on the following direction: The redetermination be conducted on a full and careful consideration of all the evidence with respect to the Applicant’s efforts to comply with the Income Tax Act. ...

The applicant testified at the hearing and also provided additional evidence concerning H&C considerations. [5]   In a decision dated June 12, 2018, the IAD dismissed the appeal. [6]   The applicant now applies for judicial review of this decision under section 74(1) of the IRPA. [7]   For the reasons set out below, the application will be dismissed. ... There is no dispute that these are all relevant considerations. [9]   There is also no dispute that the applicant had been physically present in Canada for only 386 days during the relevant five-year period.   ... STANDARD OF REVIEW [18]   It is well-established that the reasonableness standard of review applies to IAD decisions relating to the determination of residency obligations and H&C considerations (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Tefera, 2017 FC 204 at para 18; Ahmad v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 923 at para 18 [Ahmad]; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para 58 [Khosa]).   ...

The parties remain fully engaged and both sides have advanced their positions on the merits of the judicial review application very ably. [17]   I find the third of the Borowski factors to be a neutral consideration in the circumstances of this case.   ... At the same time, it would not be an abdication of this Court’s proper law-making function to decline to decide this case on its merits. [18]   In my view, the determinative consideration is the second of the Borowski factors.   ... That being said, the question of the significance of the respondent’s conduct while on release is not before me and I make no findings about it. [24]   Balancing all of the foregoing considerations, I decline to exercise my discretion to decide the Minister’s application for judicial review on its merits despite its mootness. [25]   Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed as moot. [26]   At the hearing of this application, the parties were in agreement that the application for judicial review did not give rise to a serious question of general importance for certification under section 74(d) of the IRPA.   ...

In support of this submission, the Applicant refers to the Minister’s Operational Instructions and Guidelines (OP-11 Guidelines, at page 13) which suggest a favourable consideration of family members with lawful status and stable employment in Canada. [13]   The Applicant further argues that the Officer made an arbitrary decision based on unintelligible reasons when he failed to justify how the legal presence of the Applicant’s parents in Canada warranted a negative consideration. [14]   The Applicant also submits that the Officer failed to consider that the presence of the parents with valid work permits would likely ensure that the Applicant has sufficient financial support (Girn v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1222 at para 32; Tavakoli Dinani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1063 at para 27; Demyati, above, at para 11). [15]   In drawing a negative inference from the parents’ status in Canada, the Officer also failed to consider that the Applicant may have a legitimate dual intent, as permitted by the IRPA at subsection 22(2). (2)   The Officer acted without regard to the evidence of the Applicant’s current studies [16]   The Applicant states that, to his knowledge, the Immigration consultant submitted evidence of his current studies at the University of Kaslik in Lebanon along with his application. ... Conclusion [38]   Due to the failure to provide an opportunity to respond to the Officer’s concerns; the application for judicial review is granted and the matter returned for a decision anew by a different Officer to ensure that the eventual decision will allow for additional representations and will reflect adequate consideration for the Applicant’s family ties. The Applicant’s possible dual intent is legitimate and legal; it is necessary that it be considered in such light for the eventual decision to be reasonable. [39]   The Court grants the application for judicial review and remits the file for consideration anew by a different Officer. ...

Background [1]   This application judicially reviews a decision [Decision] of the Immigration Appeal Division [IAD or Board], which found that there were insufficient humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] considerations to overcome the Applicants’ inadmissibility due to misrepresentations. [2]   The Applicants, Ms. ... The IAD dismissed the Applicants’ appeal, finding that there were insufficient H&C considerations to warrant special relief. ... The standard of review for the IAD’s consideration and weighing of H&C factors is reasonableness (Gao v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 939 at para 20 [Gao]; see also Yang at para 9). ...

Given the basis upon which I have decided this matter, there is no serious question of general importance which merits consideration that would be dispositive of this judicial review (Begum v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FCA 181 at para 39; Nguesso c. ... I decline to certify a question for consideration by the Federal Court of Appeal. ... No question is certified for consideration by the Federal Court of Appeal. ...

The Officer also considered compassionate and humanitarian considerations with respect to the Applicants and Diego’s son. ... No question was proposed for consideration by the Federal Court of Appeal and none appears from the record. ... No question is certified for consideration by the Federal Court of Appeal. ...

The Respondents argue that the CHRT only required the parties to engage in discussions about the process for compensation, with consideration given to its suggestions for discussion, as set out the Compensation Ruling. [21]   I am not persuaded by the AGC’s submissions that it has met this part of the test for the following reasons. ... Broad discretionary considerations come to bear in decisions such as these. There is a public interest consideration- the need for proceedings to move fairly and with due dispatch- but this is qualitatively different from the public interest considerations that apply when we forbid another body from doing what Parliament says it can do. ...