Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20230517

Docket: IMM-3543-22

Citation: 2023 FC 694

Toronto, Ontario, May 17, 2023

PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan

REASONS AND JUDGMENT

• [1]Ms. Carmelita Balance (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of a Case Processing Officer (the “Officer”), refusing her application for permanent residence in Canada on Humanitarian and Compassionate (“H and C”) grounds, pursuant to section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001 , c. 27 (the “Act”).

• [2]The Applicant is a citizen of the Philippines. She has resided in Canada, as a visitor, since 2015. She has lived with her daughter and son-in-law, and their three children since 2015. She made her H and C application on the basis of her establishment in Canada and the best interests of her grandchildren, for whom she has provided care.

• [3]The Applicant now argues, among other things, that the Officer ignored evidence and made an unreasonable decision.

• [4]The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) submits that the decision is reasonable and that there is no basis for judicial intervention.

• [5]Following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, the decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness.

• [6]In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision”; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99.

• [7]In my opinion, considering the contents of the Certified Tribunal Record, and the written and oral submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that the decision fails to meet the applicable standard of review.

• [8]The reasons of the Officer are not intelligible. Without addressing every flaw, I note that the treatment of the issue of the Applicant’s establishment seems to include consideration of the possibility of sponsorship by her daughter.

• [9]It is impossible to discern the reasoning of the Officer in refusing the Applicant’s H and C application. Accordingly, the application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision will be set aside and the matter remitted to a different officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-3543-22

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Officer is set aside and the matter remitted to a different officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification.

“E. Heneghan”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: