H&C Refusal Set Aside Over Hardship Evidence

The Federal Court set aside an H&C refusal over hardship evidence after finding that an immigration officer did not fully address evidence linking conditions in Jamaica to the applicant’s personal circumstances and family dependence. The permanent residence application must be reconsidered by a different officer.

Case Summary

• Case & citation: Mckenzie v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1390; Court file IMM-9962-25.
• Decision date & judge: November 12, 2026, by the Honourable Madam Justice Blackhawk.
• Issue: The applicant challenged the refusal of his permanent residence application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
• Outcome: Judicial review was granted and the application was remitted to IRCC for reconsideration by a different officer; no question was certified.

H&C refusal over hardship evidence was unreasonable

The applicant, a Jamaican citizen who had lived in Canada since 1999, argued that the officer failed to properly assess his establishment in Canada, hardships on return to Jamaica and the best interests of the child.

Justice Blackhawk found that the officer had reasonably considered the applicant’s establishment, employment history and Canadian relationships. The Court also found it was open to the officer to conclude that the evidence did not establish interdependent relationships that could not be maintained from abroad.

The Court similarly found the officer’s assessment of the evidence concerning the applicant’s minor child reasonable. The applicant had not identified overlooked evidence or a legal error that would justify intervention on the best-interests-of-the-child analysis.

However, the Court found that the officer did not fully grapple with evidence about the hardships the applicant could face in Jamaica and his family members’ dependence on his continued presence in Canada. That evidence connected country-condition material to his individual circumstances, including the living conditions of his mother and brother, his financial support for family, possible unemployment and difficulties reintegrating as a deportee.

Because the reasons did not adequately address that important evidence, the Court held that they were not transparent, intelligible and justified.

Reasonableness review and the remedy

The parties agreed that reasonableness was the applicable standard of review. The Court emphasized that judicial review does not permit it to re-weigh evidence simply because an applicant prefers a different result.

The judgment does not grant permanent residence or an H&C exemption. It requires IRCC to make a new decision on the application through a different officer, with proper consideration of the hardship and family-dependence evidence identified by the Court.

Source: Federal Court Decisions