Difference between revisions of "Permanent Residence Application Process (18:V)"

This is a highly discretionary category, and generally, only exceptional circumstances will result in an H&C exception.  The Supreme Court of Canada in [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc61/2015scc61.html?autocompleteStr=Kanthasamy%20v%20Canada%20(Citizenship%20and%20Immigration)%202015%20SCC%2061%20&autocompletePos=2 Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2015 SCC 61] established a broad and comprehensive assessment of all the applicants’ circumstances in a H&C application.  The former test, which considers whether the foreign national would face “undue, undeserved, or disproportionate hardship” if they were forced to return to their country of habitual residence or citizenship, does not create three new thresholds for relief separate and apart from the humanitarian purpose of s. 25(1). Accordingly, officers should not look at s. 25(1) through the lens of the three adjectives as discrete and high thresholds, and use the language of "unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship" in a way that limits their ability to consider and give weight to all relevant humanitarian and compassionate considerations in a particular case. The three adjectives should be seen as instructive but not determinative, allowing s. 25(1) to respond more flexibly to the equitable goals of the provision.