NELLY CEDANA Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF, 2017 FC 630

Date: 20170628 Docket: IMM-4729-16 Citation: 2017 FC 630 Toronto, Ontario, June 28, 2017 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:NELLY CEDANAApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCYPREPAREDNESSRespondents JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Ms. Nelly Cedana (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of an Officer, dismissing her application forpermanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (“H&C”) grounds pursuant to

section 25 of the Immigration and RefugeeProtection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”). [2] The Applicant is a citizen of the Philippines. She came to Canada in 2009 as a member of the Live-in Caregiver Programwith the goal of becoming a permanent resident of Canada. [3] Difficulties ensued and the Applicant’s original employment offer was not available. Ultimately she went to work for acouple who reduced her hours.

She took on other work as a housecleaner. [4] The Applicant alleges that the employers exploited and abused her; however, it is not necessary for me to make any findingsin that regard. [5] By an anonymous letter, this situation came to the attention of the Canadian Immigration authorities and the Applicant wasconvoked for an admissibility hearing before the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. [6] The Applicant was found to be inadmissible to Canada pursuant to paragraph 40(1)(

a) of the Act. As a result of that finding,she is inadmissible to Canada for a period of 5 years. [7] The Applicant sought relief by means of the H&C process, pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Act. In a decision datedFebruary 22, 2013, her application was denied. [8] An H&C decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Kanthasamy v. Canada (Minister ofCitizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 , [2015] 3 S.C.R. 909 at paragraph 44. [9] According to the decision in Dunsmuir v.

New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at paragraph 47, thestandard of reasonableness requires that the decision be justifiable, intelligible and transparent, and fall within a range of acceptableoutcomes. [10] Upon hearing the submissions of Counsel and reading the material filed, I am not satisfied that the decision of the Officermeets that standard. [11] The Officer apparently did not appreciate the purpose of the H&C process, that is to overcome non-compliance with thestatutory and regulatory obligations imposed by the Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the“Regulations”).

I am not satisfied that the Officer appreciated the effect of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada inKanthasamy, supra, in dealing with H&C applications. That decision emphasizes the equitable purpose of H&C relief. [12] As well, the Officer’s cursory dismissal of the psychiatric report was not reasonable, in my opinion.

The Officer was notentitled to undervalue the report solely on the grounds that it was based upon the Applicant’s own words. [13] In the result, the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Officer is set aside and the matter remitted to adifferent officer for redetermination, there is no question for certification arising. JUDGMENT FOR IMM-4729-16 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Officer is set aside and thematter remitted to a different officer for redetermination, there is no question for certification arising. “E.

Heneghan” Judge

FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-4729-16 STYLE OF CAUSE: NELLY CEDANA v. MCI AND MPSEP PLACE OF HEARING: toronto, ontario DATE OF HEARING: june 28, 2017 JUDGMENT AND reasons: HENEGHAN J. DATED: june 28, 2017 APPEARANCES : Mark Rosenblatt For The Applicant Khatidja Moloo-Alam For The RespondentS SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Mark Rosenblatt Barrister and Solicitor Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Nathalie G. Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada For The RespondentS