[2017] 2 F.C.R. D-5
Citizenship and Immigration
Status in Canada
Permanent Residents
Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations
Judicial review of immigration officer’s decision denying applicant’s application for permanent residence on humanitarian, compassionate grounds (H&C) — Applicants, mother (applicant), three minor children, citizens of both Grenada, St-Vincent and the Grenadines (St-Vincent) — Applicant’s H&C application filed under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 25(1) based in part on applicant’s psychological state — Officer not satisfied that country conditions in home countries, best interests of applicant’s children, applicant’s mental health condition warranting H&C exemption — Applicant arguing, inter alia, that officer’s decision unreasonable because officer erring in assessment of expert reports regarding applicant’s mental health — In analysis, officer considering several factors, in particular, psychotherapist, psychologist reports both indicating that applicant having mental health issues caused by events in Grenada, St-Vincent — After analyzing factors, officer concluding that return of applicant, children to Grenada or St-Vincent feasible — Whether officer’s assessment of evidence regarding principal applicant’s mental health unreasonable — While officer not erring in finding that applicant not seeking treatment in Canada, in determining that treatments needed could be available in Grenada or St-Vincent, officer’s analysis insufficient — When psychological reports available indicating that mental health of applicants would worsen if removed from Canada, officer must analyze hardship applicants would face if returned to country of origin — Officer cannot limit analysis to determination of whether mental health care available in country of removal — In present case, officer failing to consider whether applicant’s mental condition would deteriorate if removed to Grenada or St-Vincent in accordance with Supreme Court of Canada decision in Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 909 — In conclusion, officer’s decision unreasonable since failing to analyze, weigh impact that removal from Canada would have on applicant’s mental health in accordance with Kanthasamy – This failure sufficing to put officer’s decision outside limits of possible, acceptable outcomes; justifying Court’s intervention — Application allowed.
Sutherland v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (IMM-1513-16, 2016 FC 1212, Gascon J., judgment dated November 1, 2016, 16 pp.)