Docket: IMM-23229-24
Citation: 2026 FC 222
Toronto, Ontario, February 17, 2026
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Brouwer
|
BETWEEN: |
|
CHAMKAUR SINGH BARYAR
CHARANJIT KAUR BARYAR
MEHAKDEEP KAUR BARYAR
|
|
Applicants |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicants, a family of three from India, seek judicial review of the refusal of their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds [H&C] pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. Both parties agree that the decision of the Immigration Officer is unreasonable, leaving remedy as the only issue for resolution by this Court. For the reasons set out below, I find that the decision is unreasonable and must be set aside, and the redetermination of this matter shall be expedited and completed before the Applicants are removed from Canada.
I. Background
[2] Chamkaur Singh Baryar, his wife Charanjit Kaur Baryar, and their minor daughter Mehakdeep Kaur Baryar, came to Canada in 2019 and sought refugee protection. They were represented by a consultant, since stripped of her credentials, who they assert failed to prepare them for their hearing and then, when their claims were refused, failed to file their appeals on time. They filed a complaint with the consultant’s regulator, the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants and then in December 2022 applied for permanent residence in Canada on H&C grounds, pursuant to subsection 25(1) of IRPA.
[3] In April 2024 the family was scheduled for removal despite their outstanding H&C application, but their removal was deferred for two and a half months so that Mr. Baryar, could complete “diagnostic medical treatment”
scheduled for the end of June 2024.
[4] On November 21, 2024, their H&C application was refused. They sought leave for judicial review of the decision, perfecting their leave application on January 31, 2025. On February 26, 2025, the Respondent sent a letter to the Applicants’ counsel consenting to the redetermination of their H&C application on generic terms and conditions. The Applicants responded with a request that the Respondent also stipulate to making best efforts to render a first stage decision on the redetermination within 120 days, because the Applicants were concerned about the prospect of removal before the redetermination was complete. The Respondent refused.
[5] The Applicants’ concern about removal turned out to be prescient. On May 5, 2025, the Respondent moved for judgment on consent, seeking an order remitting the H&C application for redetermination. They did not concede any specific errors and did not stipulate a timeline for completion. The next day on May 6, the Applicants were called in by the Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA] to begin removal arrangements.
[6] The Applicants successfully resisted the motion for judgment (Baryar et al. v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (22 May 2025), Toronto IMM-23229-24 (FC), per Battista J) and on May 27, 2025, obtained from CBSA a further deferral of their removal “to see that the matters before the court, and the entirety of the case surrounding the refusal of the BARYAR family’s application for Permanent Residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds are resolved.”
[7] The Respondent renewed their offer to settle after leave for judicial review was granted, this time stipulating the specific grounds asserted by the Applicants and assuring them that redeterminations are prioritized. The Applicants declined the offer and before this Court seek a judgment identifying the specific errors made by the Immigration Officer, an order imposing a timeline for redetermination, and costs.
II. Analysis
[8] The Applicants raised three issues for judicial review:
-
Did the Officer act unreasonably and/or unfairly in assessing the best interests of Mehakdeep by unfairly relying on extrinsic evidence?
-
Did the Officer act unreasonably by conducting their own research and relying on same in finding availability of health care and thus mitigate the hardship advanced by the family? Did the Officer act unfairly by failing to provide the family the chance to address their research and findings?
-
Did the Officer disregard the sympathetic circumstances leading to the request for relief including the incompetence of the Applicants’ previous counsel, family ties and the fact that they were granted a deferral of removal prior to the decision?
[9] The Respondent consents to the application for judicial review, and in the hearing explicitly conceded the errors identified by the Applicants. I accept the consent and will grant the application. While the Applicants’ counsel expressed a desire for the Court’s “moral and legal guidance”
for the redetermination, by which he may have been suggesting the Court should provide its own analysis of the decision, I decline to do so. The parties are in agreement about the merits of the application and there is no remaining lis between them beyond the question of remedy. If the Applicants want to ensure that the officer conducting the H&C redetermination understands the errors made at first instance, it is open to them to submit their memorandum of fact and law setting out the errors, along with this judgment, upon redetermination.
[10] As a remedy, the Applicants seek an order quashing the decision and remitting the matter for redetermination by a different officer prior to the Applicants’ removal. In the alternative they seek the imposition of timeline of 120 days for the redetermination.
[11] The Respondent opposes the imposition of a specific timeline for redetermination but agrees that the Court can require Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to complete the redetermination prior to the Applicants’ removal. The Respondent’s counsel submits that, in any event, CBSA’s deferral decision of May 27, 2025, contemplates a continuation of the deferral until any Court-ordered redetermination is completed.
[12] I am not as sanguine as the Respondent is regarding the continuing force of CBSA’s deferral decision. As such, I agree with the Applicants that an Order should issue requiring that the redetermination of their H&C application should be expedited and completed prior to their removal. However, I am not persuaded that a specific timeline needs to be imposed by the Court.
[13] The Applicants also seek their costs. They argue that the Respondent has unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings by failing to accept their settlement counteroffer until leave had been granted. They also contend that they should receive their costs for the motion for judgment of May 22, 2025.
[14] Costs are only awarded in immigration matters if there are “special reasons”
for doing so (Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22, s 22). The threshold is high for establishing that “special reasons”
exist (A.B.C.D. v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1296 at para 87 and the cases cited therein [A.B.C.D.]). Nevertheless, this Court has found such reasons to exist based on, inter alia, the nature of the case, the behaviour of a party or the behaviour of counsel (A.B.C.D. at para 88 and the cases cited therein).
[15] The Applicants have not met this high threshold in the case at bar. I disagree with the Applicants’ claim that the Respondent unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings, and I find that if the Applicants wanted costs for the Respondent’s motion for judgment they should have brought that request to the motions judge rather than raising it for the first time before me. As special reasons for costs have not been demonstrated, the request for costs is denied.
[16] The parties have not proposed a serious question for certification and I agree that none arises.
Email this Content