Federal Court


Officer erred in failing to specifically address medical evidence

Applicant was denied permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (“H&C”) grounds. Board noted applicant did not submit evidence to support conclusion state protection was not available to applicant in country of origin. Board concluded applicant did not become established in Canada to extent that severing ties amounted to disproportionate hardship. Applicant’s partner did not provide information on hardships incurred if relationship with applicant was severed. Applicant had immediate family in country of origin. Applicant suffered from diabetes. Application for judicial review was allowed. Officer erred in failing to specifically address important medical evidence. Officer did not provide sufficient justification for definitive conclusion that applicant would have access to government assistance should applicant be returned to country of origin and be unable to work. Finding was not reasonable. Board did not err in applying appropriate test for H&C grounds.

Holder v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

(Mar. 20, 2012, F.C., Near J., File No. IMM-5151-11) 213 A.C.W.S. (3d) 182 (13 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?