The Federal Court dismissed the Singh family’s challenge to the refusal of their H&C application for permanent residence, finding the officer’s assessment of hardship, establishment and the children’s interests was reasonable. Justice Benoit M. Duchesne released the decision on September 21, 2026.
Background to the H&C application
The applicants, citizens of India, entered Canada on visitor visas in May 2018 and made refugee claims on arrival. Their claims were rejected by the Refugee Protection Division in November 2021 after it found they had an internal flight alternative in Mumbai or Bengaluru. The Refugee Appeal Division dismissed their appeal in August 2022.
In May 2023, the applicants applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, making further submissions through late 2024. Their H&C submissions relied principally on country conditions, alleged hardship on return to India and their establishment in Canada, rather than a fear of persecution.
An officer refused the application on March 13, 2025. The applicants then sought judicial review, arguing that the officer did not give appropriate weight to the relevant H&C factors.
Applicants challenged hardship and BIOC findings
The applicants argued that the officer gave too little weight to hardship faced by the female applicants in India, including evidence concerning violence against women, gender inequality and cultural barriers to the associate applicant’s independence and employment.
They also submitted that the officer improperly treated their positive establishment in Canada as a factor against granting relief. They challenged the officer’s description of their establishment as not uncharacteristic of people who settle in a country for an extended period.
The applicants further argued that the best interests of the children analysis was unreasonable. They said the officer did not properly assess the minor children’s individual circumstances, their lives in Canada and the potential effects of returning to India. Other arguments concerned pollution, food scarcity, healthcare access and the associate applicant’s emotional distress and depressive symptoms.
Court applied reasonableness review
Justice Duchesne held that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness. The Court emphasized that judicial review is not an opportunity to reweigh evidence, reassess it or reach a more favourable conclusion for an applicant.
On the evidence concerning women in India, the Court found that the officer recognized problems involving violence against women, gender gaps and sexual abuse, and gave rational reasons for assigning the applicants’ submissions moderate weight. The Court concluded that the applicants were asking it to reweigh the record.
The Court also found that the officer had commended the applicants’ efforts to establish themselves in Canada and had assigned some weight to that evidence. Referring to establishment as not uncharacteristic did not, by itself, impose a higher legal test or require exceptional establishment, particularly where the assessment remained fact-specific and considered as a whole.
On the best interests of the children, the Court found that the officer considered each minor child individually, including their age, capacity, needs, maturity and real-world circumstances. The officer considered evidence about education, crime, gender discrimination and the children’s personal situations, and concluded that their interests lay in remaining with their parents and receiving the parents’ support and care.
The Court found the officer also reasonably considered the evidence on pollution, food scarcity, healthcare and the associate applicant’s mental health. Although it would have been preferable for the officer to expressly state the weight assigned to the mental health argument, the decision read holistically showed that the issue had been appropriately considered.
Judicial review dismissed without costs
The Federal Court concluded that the applicants had not shown that the officer’s decision was unreasonable. Their application for judicial review was dismissed without costs.
The parties agreed that there was no serious question of general importance, and the Court declined to certify a question under paragraph 74(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Practical significance
This decision illustrates that an H&C judicial review will not succeed simply because applicants disagree with the weight an officer gave to hardship, establishment or country-condition evidence. The Court focused on whether the officer’s reasons were justified, transparent and intelligible in light of the record.
The decision also confirms, in this case, that an officer may describe establishment as usual or ordinary without necessarily making the assessment unreasonable, provided the officer conducts a fact-specific analysis and does not impose an exceptional-establishment requirement.
Source: Federal Court Decisions