The Federal Court reviewed the
refusal of Anjolaoluwa Ojo’s study permit application for a social worker
diploma. The officer was not satisfied that the minor applicant would leave
Canada after her authorized stay, relying principally on concerns about the
financial resources available for her studies and living expenses. The Court
granted judicial review because the officer did not meaningfully assess the
financial evidence submitted by her mother and aunt.
Key Principle
Where financial capacity is a
central reason for refusing a study permit, the officer must meaningfully
assess the funds and supporting documents in the record. A conclusory statement
that savings are “low” is insufficient where the application shows substantial
funds. Similarly, an officer cannot state that no proof of a family
relationship was provided without addressing a support letter expressly
identifying that relationship and the sponsor’s accompanying employment and
financial documents.
Background
The applicant was a minor who
sought to study social work at Georgian College. Her mother provided evidence
showing approximately $58,000 in savings to support her education. Her aunt in
Canada also offered financial assistance. The aunt submitted a letter
confirming their relationship, a T4 slip, employment confirmation, and other
financial records. The officer characterized the mother’s savings as low and
stated that no proof of the applicant’s relationship with her aunt had been
provided.
Court Findings
• “Low Savings” Finding Was
Unexplained
The officer described the
mother’s savings as low without identifying the amount considered, the expected
costs, or any deficiency in the evidence. Given that the record showed
approximately $58,000 in available savings, the conclusion required a clear explanation
connecting the funds to the anticipated tuition and living expenses.
• Minister Could Not Supply
Missing Currency Analysis
At the hearing, the Minister
argued that the applicant’s currency conversion may have been inaccurate. The
Court held that counsel could not provide a new explanation that did not appear
in the officer’s reasons, nor could the Court speculate about what the officer
may have intended.
• Proof of the Family
Relationship Was Submitted
The officer stated that no proof
of the relationship between the applicant and her aunt had been provided.
However, the aunt’s letter expressly identified the applicant as her niece and
explained her willingness to provide support, directly contradicting the
officer’s conclusion.
• Aunt’s Financial Evidence
Was Not Addressed
The aunt submitted a T4 slip,
employment confirmation, and supporting financial documents. None of these
materials appeared in the reasons, leaving the Court unable to determine
whether the officer considered her ability and commitment to assist the applicant.
• Core Financial Evidence Was
Not Meaningfully Considered
The mother’s savings and the
aunt’s supporting documents were central to whether the applicant could fund
her studies. The officer’s failure to engage with this evidence undermined the
financial assessment and prevented the Court from understanding the reasoning
process.
• Decision Was Unreasonable as
a Whole
The refusal depended
substantially on inadequate financial resources, yet the reasons did not
respond to the principal evidence addressing that concern. These material
omissions caused the decision to lack justification, transparency, and
intelligibility.
Outcome
The Federal Court granted
judicial review, set aside the study permit refusal, and returned the
application to a different officer for redetermination. No question was
certified.
Case Citation:
Ojo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 752 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad
Abrar (Barrister and
Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and
Statistics Analyst
