As an immigration lawyer with extensive experience navigating Canada’s complex immigration system, I recently joined Steven Meurrens, Deanna Okun-Nachoff, and Hannah Lindy on the Borderlines podcast (June 13, 2025) to discuss the Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application under section 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). This discretionary remedy remains a cornerstone of Canada’s immigration framework, offering a lifeline to individuals who face barriers to permanent residence due to lack of status or inadmissibility. Below, I explore the H&C application’s significance, drawing on insights from our podcast discussion and my text Inadmissibility and Remedies, while highlighting its enduring power to deliver equitable outcomes.
What is an H&C Application?
An H&C application allows individuals in Canada (and, in somewhat rare cases, abroad) to seek permanent residence or exemptions from IRPA requirements when they do not qualify under standard streams like family sponsorship or economic classes. As indicated in our text, Inadmissibility and Remedies, “Section 25(1) of the IRPA allows the minister of citizenship and immigration or their delegates the discretion to exempt applicants from most requirements of the Act,” except for inadmissibility due to security, human rights violations, or organized criminality (ss. 34, 35, 37). The Supreme Court’s 2015 Kanthasamy decision clarified that the test is whether an applicant’s circumstances would “excite in a reasonable [person] in a civilized community a desire to relieve the misfortunes of another” (Chirwa, 1970), emphasizing a holistic, compassionate approach over rigid checklists.
Key Factors in H&C Assessments
Officers evaluating H&C applications consider a range of factors, including:
-
Establishment in Canada: Ties through employment, community involvement, or relationships.
-
Hardship upon Return: Challenges in the country of origin, such as adverse conditions or lack of medical care.
-
Best Interests of a Child (BIOC): A pivotal consideration, requiring officers to give substantial weight to the impact on children.
-
Nature of Non-Compliance or Inadmissibility: The reasons for ineligibility and whether they can be mitigated.
-
Unique Circumstances: Contributions to Canada, sympathetic personal history, or other compelling factors.
During the Borderlines podcast, I emphasized the subjective, almost poetic nature of H&C applications:
“A humanitarian and compassionate application is necessarily subjective… Can you hear a good man groan and not relent and not compassion him?”
This Shakespearean lens, (that quote in particular was from a decision by Justice Harrington) underscores the need to “stir the heart” of the decision-maker, a sentiment echoed by my colleagues who stressed the importance of compelling advocacy.
The H&C’s Power to Overcome Barriers
The H&C application is a versatile remedy, capable of addressing a wide range of immigration challenges. As outlined in Inadmissibility and Remedies, it can overcome:
-
Criminal Inadmissibility: Even without rehabilitation or a record suspension, officers can grant relief if compassionate factors outweigh past offenses
-
Misrepresentation: Despite the five-year ban under s. 40, jurisprudence allows H&C considerations to be processed
-
Non-Compliance: Issues like overstaying status or failing to meet economic class criteria can be mitigated with H&C grounds.
-
Family Reunification: For “de facto” family members excluded from family class definitions, H&C offers a pathway.
In the podcast, I highlighted its flexibility:
“H&C, the powerful remedy that can overcome criminality, convictions in Canada, can overcome misrepresentation grounds of inadmissibility, can overcome any number of things other than [security, human rights violations, or organized criminality].”
This makes H&C a critical tool for individuals like failed refugee claimants, temporary residents facing hardship, or those with inadmissible family members.
Challenges in the Current Landscape
The 2025-2027 Immigration Levels Plan poses significant challenges, reducing H&C admissions from 10,000 in 2025 to 4,300 by 2027, despite rising demand. As my colleague Deanna noted, “With such a limited number and with so many people in such difficult circumstances right now… I have a much harder time saying, yes, this one rises to the level.” I echoed this caution, warning against “selling false hope” to applicants, particularly international students or temporary workers with minimal hardship:
“International students that have been here for a brief period of time, that on its own in my mind is not enough to meet the threshold. I fear… a lot of these applicants are being sold false hope.”
Yet, the H&C’s discretionary nature allows for creative advocacy. Cases like Aboubacar (2014) and Shrestha (2016), which I discussed in the podcast, demonstrate how general country conditions (e.g., poverty in Niger, earthquakes in Nepal) can justify relief without requiring unique hardship, reinforcing Kanthasamy’s equitable approach.
Crafting a Compelling H&C Application
Success hinges on thorough preparation and advocacy. As Hannah Lindy emphasized, “You have to do a very, very detailed stat dec from the applicant… that really sets out in huge narrative detail their story.” I added:
“You need evidence… statutory declarations, bank statements, income tax returns, objective country conditions, psychological reports, medical reports, school reports, letters from teachers, letters from your friends and family.”
A strong application anticipates officer concerns, addresses gaps, and presents a narrative that aligns with the Chirwa standard. Regular updates are critical, as processing can take years, and officers bear no duty to seek additional information (Owusu v. Canada, 2004).
Judicial Oversight and Ethical Advocacy
Federal Court trends show increased scrutiny of H&C refusals, particularly when officers misconstrue facts or rely on boilerplate reasoning. Steven noted, “When it becomes hard to write refusals based on the actual facts, the facts get a bit misconstrued,” a point I’ve seen in cases like Bahadur Singh (2019), where officers failed to apply an empathetic lens. This judicial oversight underscores the importance of robust submissions to make refusals difficult.
Ethically, we must avoid overpromising. As Deanna stated, “We owe an ethical duty to our clients to not take advantage… and really be ethical.” I concur, emphasizing realistic assessments to protect clients from false hope, especially given the competitive landscape.
The H&C’s Enduring Relevance
Despite tightened quotas, the H&C remains a vital safety net. In Inadmissibility and Remedies we wrote: “H&C relief has been part of Canada’s immigration system for decades. It has, and will continue to play, an important role in the future.” With emerging issues like climate displacement, the Ukraine diaspora, and others the H&C’s flexibility may prove even more critical, as it can address hardships ill-suited to refugee protection under ss. 96 or 97.
In closing, the H&C application is a powerful tool to overcome lack of status and inadmissibility, offering hope to those who fall through the cracks of Canada’s immigration system. As I said on Borderlines, “It allows you to step into the shoes of the applicants and understand their lives… It’s incredibly rewarding once you get that first stage approval.” By combining rigorous evidence, creative advocacy, and a compassionate narrative, we can continue to secure meaningful outcomes for our clients.
For those considering an H&C application, consult experienced counsel to assess your circumstances and build a compelling case.
Comments