Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 26 : H&C Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Selectively Assessed Children’s Medical and Healthcare Evidence

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a family’s H&C PR application based on establishment and the best interests of their two children. The Court granted judicial review because the officer selectively assessed the medical evidence concerning the Canadian-born daughter’s asthma and food allergies and overlooked country evidence directly contradicting the healthcare findings.

Key Principle

An H&C officer must meaningfully consider the totality of important evidence concerning a child’s health and best interests. Where medical reports and country-condition materials directly contradict the officer’s conclusions, selective reliance on only favourable portions of the record may render the decision unreasonable.

Background

The applicants relied heavily on BIOC evidence concerning their daughter’s moderately severe asthma, serious food allergies, repeated emergency treatment, and ongoing specialist care. They also submitted evidence addressing healthcare accessibility and insurance limitations abroad, together with broader establishment and educational considerations affecting both children.

Court Findings

• Medical Evidence Was Selectively and Incompletely Assessed

The officer acknowledged the daughter’s asthma and allergies but relied primarily on one medical report. The Court found that several specialist reports, hospital records, emergency visits, and evidence of a three-day pediatric admission were not meaningfully addressed despite demonstrating that her condition was considerably more serious than the reasons suggested.

• Severity and Frequency of Treatment Were Overlooked

The record showed regular pediatric, respiratory, and allergy specialist appointments, along with repeated treatment for asthma exacerbations. The officer’s reasons did not engage with this pattern of ongoing medical care, leaving the Court unable to understand how the child’s actual health circumstances were incorporated into the BIOC assessment.

• Food Allergy Evidence Was Not Meaningfully Considered

The child had allergies to peanuts, eggs, and seafood, and the applicants specifically raised concerns about the prevalence of peanut products in local cuisine. The officer failed to address this evidence or explain how those risks affected the child’s best interests if the family were required to relocate.

• Officer Applied an Illogical Expectation to Medical Reports

The officer noted that a physician had not expressly stated that the child would face risk abroad because of asthma. The Court found this reasoning illogical because medical professionals ordinarily document diagnoses, treatment, and prognosis rather than assess how conditions will interact with healthcare systems in another country.

• Healthcare Evidence Was Selectively Quoted

The officer relied on portions of a healthcare report suggesting broad insurance coverage while omitting adjacent passages discussing barriers faced by foreigners, reimbursement ceilings, deductibles, and out-of-pocket expenses. The Court found that this selective treatment failed to fairly engage with evidence directly undermining the officer’s conclusion about healthcare accessibility.

• Contradictory Evidence Was Material to BIOC

The omitted evidence went directly to whether the daughter could maintain appropriate medical care and whether her best interests would be compromised by relocation. Because these were central considerations in the H&C application, the Court found that the officer’s failure to meaningfully account for them undermined the justification and transparency of the decision.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the H&C refusal, and remitted the application to a different officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 26 (CanLII)