Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Doss, 2021 FC 623 : Federal Court Sets Aside IAD Relief After Speculative Assessment of Future Medical Costs

The Federal Court reviewed the Minister’s challenge to an Immigration Appeal Division decision allowing Rafik Anis Doss’s appeal of the refusal of his mother’s permanent resident visa. His mother had been found medically inadmissible because stage 4 renal failure could reasonably be expected to create excessive demand on Canadian health services. The Court granted judicial review, finding that the IAD’s humanitarian and compassionate analysis relied on speculation about the duration and seriousness of her future medical needs.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that humanitarian and compassionate considerations must be assessed in proportion to the seriousness of the inadmissibility being overcome. Where medical inadmissibility involves significant anticipated costs, the decision-maker must reasonably assess the likely burden on Canada’s health system before weighing family reunification and other compassionate factors. Findings about prognosis and future treatment must be supported by medical evidence.

Background

Mr. Doss, a Canadian citizen, sought to sponsor his 81-year-old mother, Dolores Babazoghli Finianos, a Spanish citizen residing in Egypt. She suffered from stage 4 renal failure, diabetes, and hypertension.

IRCC concluded that she would likely require dialysis and/or a kidney transplant within five to ten years. Dialysis was estimated to cost between approximately $30,000 and $70,000 annually, while a transplant could cost approximately $100,000. The officer found her medically inadmissible under subsection 38(1) of IRPA.

On appeal, the IAD accepted the medical inadmissibility finding but granted special relief on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. It gave significant weight to the close relationship between Mr. Doss and his mother, her limited support in Egypt, and his wish to care for her. It also found that the significant medical costs would likely be temporary because of her advanced age.

Court Findings

• Medical Burden Was Assessed on Speculation

The Court found no rational evidentiary basis for the IAD’s conclusion that treatment would last only a few years. The medical evidence indicated that Ms. Finianos might require a kidney transplant between 2022 and 2027 and did not suggest that age would prevent transplantation or substantially limit dialysis. The IAD’s conclusion was inconsistent with the available medical evidence.

• Evidence Did Not Establish Improved Health

The Court noted that Ms. Finianos did not complete the additional medical examinations requested by IRCC. The Canadian nephrologist relied upon by Mr. Doss had never examined her and had only reviewed laboratory results. Mr. Doss had no medical expertise, and his testimony was based largely on conversations with his mother. The record therefore provided little reliable evidence undermining IRCC’s diagnosis, prognosis, or excessive-demand assessment.

• Flawed Medical Analysis Affected the H&C Balance

The Court emphasized that more compelling humanitarian factors may be required where the obstacle to admissibility is particularly serious. Because the IAD understated the potential medical burden through an unsupported analysis, its balancing of family reunification and compassionate considerations against the excessive demand could not stand. The Court could not assume how the IAD would weigh those factors after proper assessment.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted the Minister’s application for judicial review, set aside the September 16, 2020 IAD decision, and returned the matter to a differently constituted panel for reconsideration. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Doss, 2021 FC 623 (CanLII)