AB v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1540
In AB v. Canada (MCI) the Court examined the Officer’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s humanitarian and compassionate application on the grounds of “moderate” BIOC impact . On judicial review, the Court found that the Officer did not fully engage with the evidence presented on the BIOC. Furthermore, the Court observed a lack of coherence between the evidence and the Officer’s findings with regards to the Applicant’s family ties (not limited to the BIOC), with the Officer failing to take into account cultural norms and technological barriers. The application for judicial review was allowed.
Do v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1529
In Do v. Canada (MCI), the Court examined the Officer’s decision to refuse an Applicant’s Sponsorship application under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada (SCLPC) class on the grounds that the Sponsor had failed to declare the Applicant as their common-law partner in their prior permanent residence application. The Applicant had submitted a second application under the SCLPC class, to clarify the nature of their relationship, including specific dates, but it too was refused. On judicial review, the Court considered whether the Officer erred in his interpretation of the phrase “at the time of that application” in s.125(1)(d) of the IRPR, ultimately finding that the phrase refers to the lifespan of the application rather than only to the moment the application is submitted. The Court concluded that the Officer had reasonably interpreted s.125(1)(d) of the IRPR and applied it to the facts of this case. The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Pierre v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1524
In Pierre v. Canada (MCI), the Court examined the Officer’s decision to refuse an applicant’s humanitarian and compassionate application on credibility grounds. On judicial review, the Court found that the Officer breached the requirements of procedural fairness in rejecting the humanitarian and compassionate application on credibility grounds and that the requirements of procedural fairness were not met. The application for judicial review was allowed.
Itani v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1523
In Itani v. Canada (MCI), the Court examined the Officer’s decision to refuse an Applicant’s humanitarian and compassionate application on the basis of insufficient evidence regarding accessibility of required medication in their home country. On judicial review, the Court found that the Officer’s determination was flawed as it required the Applicant to produce evidence that was not directly relevant to the issue at hand, and that by focusing on the lack of evidence, the Officer had failed to take into consideration that objective country condition evidence before them. The application for judicial review was allowed.
Brar v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1522
In Brar v. Canada (MCI) the Court examined the visa Officer’s decision to refuse an Applicant’s work permit for misrepresentation [under s. 40(1)(1a)] based on the alleged failure to disclose a prior visitor visa refusal. On judicial review, the Court found that the Officer failed to clearly set out the alleged misrepresentation, making the decision unreasonable, particularly given the Applicant’s assertion that they had no knowledge of the visa refusal and continued to have no information about the refusal.