The Federal Court dismissed Baljit Kaur Grewal’s challenge to the refusal of her humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) permanent residence application. In Grewal v. Canada, 2026 FC 1159, Justice Ngo found the officer’s conclusion that the application lacked corroborating evidence was reasonable.
Court dismisses judicial review of H&C refusal
The decision, released September 15, 2026, concerned an H&C application made from within Canada under section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The officer had refused the application on December 10, 2024, finding insufficient establishment, hardship and best-interests-of-the-child factors to warrant relief.
Grewal, a 72-year-old citizen of India, entered Canada in April 2022 on a Temporary Resident Visa and applied for permanent residence on H&C grounds on October 4, 2023. Her application relied on her residence with her son and his family in Canada, claimed financial and emotional support from relatives, anticipated hardship if she returned to India, and her relationship with her grandchildren.
Officer found limited supporting evidence
The officer gave little weight to Grewal’s establishment in Canada, noting her three visits since 2017 and finding that the evidence did not show she could not re-establish herself in India. The officer also found insufficient evidence that her grandchildren would face a negative impact warranting an exemption if she returned to India, observing that their parents were their primary caregivers.
On hardship and support, the officer found no objective documentary evidence demonstrating that Grewal would face difficulties in India because of her age, health, lack of family support or country conditions. The officer considered financial documents and the family’s stated willingness to support her, giving that factor some weight.
The officer also addressed the possibility of family sponsorship and other processes raised in the application. The decision noted that H&C applications are not intended to substitute established immigration pathways.
Court applies reasonableness review
At the hearing, Grewal did not pursue a procedural fairness argument. The sole issue was therefore whether the refusal was reasonable, assessed under the reasonableness standard of review.
Grewal argued that the officer had overlooked contradictory evidence concerning her age, widowhood, family support in Canada, lack of immediate family in India and emotional ties with her grandchildren. She submitted that the officer focused on missing or insufficient evidence rather than the evidence that had been presented.
Justice Ngo disagreed. The Court found that the issue was not that the officer ignored contrary evidence or central arguments, but that the H&C assertions in the representative’s letter were largely uncorroborated. The supporting materials included identity and status documents, a letter from Grewal’s son’s employer, notices of assessment, a bank statement and documents relating to grandchildren, but the Court found no further evidence supporting the claimed establishment, hardship and best-interests factors.
Decision found coherent and responsive
The Court emphasized that the applicant bears the onus of establishing that an H&C exemption is warranted. It held that the officer could reasonably find the evidence insufficient and that reviewing the refusal did not permit the Court to reassess the record and reach a different result.
Justice Ngo also found that the officer’s discussion of possible avenues to reunite with family responded directly to Grewal’s submissions about the difficulties of parental sponsorship. The Court concluded that the officer’s reasons were coherent, rational and responsive to the submissions and evidence.
The application for judicial review was dismissed. No question was certified.
Practical significance
This decision turns on the record in this H&C application. It illustrates the Court’s finding that assertions in a representative’s submission letter, without corroborating evidence, may not establish claimed hardship, establishment or best-interests considerations. The ruling does not direct a general change to H&C assessment practices.
Source: Federal Court Decisions