Deen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1059 : H&C Relief, Unreasonable Assessment of Medical Evidence

The Federal Court reviewed an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) refusal of an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds under s. 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The application was based largely on the principal applicant’s terminal stage-four breast cancer, urgent medical needs, and the impact of her circumstances on her spouse and caregiver. The Respondent conceded that the officer had unreasonably minimized the medical evidence. The Court granted judicial review but declined to order the exceptional remedy of a directed verdict requiring IRCC to grant H&C relief.

Key Principle

An H&C decision must meaningfully engage with significant evidence concerning an applicant’s medical condition, prognosis, treatment needs, and hardship. Where an officer fails to grapple with extensive and compelling medical evidence, the decision may be unreasonable. However, even where judicial review is granted, the Federal Court will generally remit the matter for redetermination rather than substitute its own decision unless the record establishes that only one reasonable outcome is possible.

Background

The Applicants, both citizens of Guyana, arrived in Canada in 2017. Ms. Deen was diagnosed with stage-four breast cancer in October 2020, with the cancer having spread to her lymph nodes, lungs, bones, and brain. She underwent chemotherapy and continued treatment as her condition deteriorated. Her medical circumstances formed a central part of the H&C application submitted in November 2023. Despite repeated requests for expedited processing, including requests supported by medical evidence and assistance from their Member of Parliament, the application remained outstanding.

The H&C application was ultimately refused on February 20, 2025. Ms. Deen passed away on September 24, 2025. Her surviving spouse, Mr. Laljie, continued the judicial review proceedings. The Respondent conceded that the officer’s decision was unreasonable because it minimized Ms. Deen’s medical evidence.

Court Findings

Medical Evidence Was Unreasonably Minimized

The Court found that the officer’s treatment of the medical evidence was clearly unreasonable. The decision failed to meaningfully address Ms. Deen’s diagnosis, prognosis, suffering, physical condition, and the effect of her medical circumstances on both Applicants. The Court found the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of hardship from urgent medical needs to be unintelligible and unjustifiable given the extensive medical evidence before the officer.

Directed Verdict Is Exceptional

Although the Court has authority to issue directions under the Federal Courts Act, judicial review generally requires the Court to respect Parliament’s choice to entrust the initial decision to the administrative decision maker. A substituted decision or directed verdict is appropriate only in exceptional circumstances, particularly where only one reasonable outcome is possible or remitting the matter would serve no useful purpose.

Redetermination by a Different Officer

The Court declined to order IRCC to grant the H&C application. The H&C process involves broad discretion and factual assessment, and significant new circumstances—including Ms. Deen’s death—had not yet been assessed by IRCC. The matter was therefore returned to a different officer, with Mr. Laljie permitted to provide updated submissions and evidence. IRCC was directed to issue its decision within 45 days after receiving the additional information, or confirmation that no further information would be provided.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted the judicial review, set aside the H&C refusal, and ordered redetermination by a different IRCC officer. The Court declined to grant a directed verdict, declined to certify the proposed question, and awarded no costs.

Case Citation:

Deen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1059 (CanLII)