Connell v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1316 : H&C Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Mishandled BIOC, Mental Health, and TRP Request

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Bernadette Connell’s H&C application. She relied on establishment, hardship, mental health concerns, the best interests of her son and cousin’s son, and alternatively requested a TRP. The Court found three separate reviewable errors involving BIOC, mental-health hardship, and the failure to consider the TRP request.

Key Principle

An H&C officer must meaningfully assess how a parent’s deteriorating mental health could affect a child’s best interests, separately consider mental-health deterioration caused by removal as a hardship, and explain findings that medical evidence is insufficient. An expressly requested alternative TRP must also be considered and cannot be rejected through silence.

Background

The applicant had lived in Canada without status for more than ten years after leaving an abusive relationship. She supported a son living in Barbados and had a close relationship with her cousin’s child in Canada. She was diagnosed with depression, anxiety, hypertension, and PTSD, and psychiatric evidence stated that removal could worsen her mental health.

Court Findings

• BIOC Analysis Failed to Consider Mother’s Mental Health

The officer considered the benefit of the applicant returning to support her son but failed to assess whether deterioration in her mental health could impair her ability to care for and financially support him. This omission rendered the BIOC analysis unreasonable.

• Cousin’s Son Was Reasonably Assessed

The officer acknowledged the close bond, anticipated emotional difficulty, and possibility of continued contact. The Court found this portion of the BIOC analysis sufficiently responsive to the evidence.

• Mental-Health Deterioration Was Not Assessed as Independent Hardship

The officer focused mainly on access to treatment abroad but failed to consider whether removal itself could worsen the applicant’s PTSD and depression. This was a central component of the H&C claim.

• Medical-Care Finding Was Unexplained

The applicant submitted extensive evidence concerning limited mental-health services in Barbados and Saint Lucia. The officer merely stated that the evidence was insufficient without addressing that material or explaining why.

• Employment Analysis Was Reasonable

The Court upheld the officer’s finding that the applicant’s varied education, training, and employment experience increased her prospects of obtaining work abroad.

• Alternative TRP Request Was Ignored

The officer failed entirely to address the applicant’s express alternative request for a TRP. The Court held that silence could not amount to an implicit refusal and that the omission breached procedural fairness.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the H&C refusal, and remitted the matter to another officer. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Connell v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1316 (CanLII)