Stewart Sharma Harsanyi

05/21/2026

Success for our client, a long term resident of Canada at the JR for her H&C decision. Justice Thorne found (in part) the officers reasons irrational in the treatment of establishment in Canada (the main focus of the applicant’s submissions, including her 12 years in Canada and work as a health-care aide in long-term care during/after COVID) The Officer acknowledged positive factors (long residence, employment, skills, self-support, remittances, friends, and community ties) but then discounted them, essentially saying these are “things that anyone who has resided in Canada for a period of time might be likely to engage in.”

The Court called this irrational and a “no-win” situation for applicants: If you don’t integrate (skills, job, friends), you have no establishment.

If you do integrate, it’s dismissed as commonplace.

This approach misses the entire point of the establishment factor and functions as a veiled “exceptionality” test (which is legally incorrect). It also fails to explain why 12 years of demonstrated integration would be considered “significant” if the actual integration activities are disregarded.

Kaur v MCI 2026 FC 644

05/12/2026

It's official! Congratulations to Faraz Bawa KC! A well deserved honour.

05/12/2026

A pleasure welcoming our friends from Shory Law before Mr. Shory's KC ceremony!

04/20/2026

Delgado v. MCI 2026 FC 497

This is a great recent case from the Federal Court about the importance of empathy in assessing H&C applications.

In this case, the applicant was a 65 year old Cuban grandmother; she had sought H&C relief which was denied in late 2024; Justice Brouwer granted the application finding that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable. She had first fled her country in 2010 along with her son (who is gay) making her way to Canada that same year where her daughter was already found to be a protected person (her refugee claim had been accepted). Her claim too was accepted and she became a PR in 2012. 6 years later she went to Cuba because her brother was dying and returned to Canada the same year; she’s been here ever since. Her single trip to Cuba led to the Minister seeking to cessate her status which they managed to do in 2021. This was before the salutary change in jurisprudence regarding cessation proceedings. With the assistance of her counsel she filed a H&C application and raised that point along with her decade plus establishment in Canada, her family here, her grandchildren’s best interests, and the hardship that would result in going back to Cuba (she had documented and longstanding mental health challenges).
The H&C Officer refused the application. At one point the Officer noted that the Cuban health system was among the best in the world (Decision, para 7).The Officer dismissed the impact on the grandchildren seeing it as no different than other Canadian families with “varying challenges" and noted that the applicant may not want to return to Cuba given her "extended visit” or time in Canada. Finally, the Officer found that she had been granted a privilege by being recognized as a refugee and her return to Cuba showed disrespect for Canadian law.
The Court agreed with the applicant in several respects. Firstly, the Officer’s finding that the Cuban health system was among the best in the world was not in line with the actual evidence presented. Most of her health challenges were not present when she was in Cuba (pre-2010) and moreover the current state of Cuba’s health system is a far cry from what it may have been pre-2010.
In terms of the BIOC, the Court found that the analysis was not in accord with the jurisprudence. The Court agreed with the Applicant that the Officer ignored the emotional interconnectedness and the impact that separation and loss would have on them.
Ultimately the Court found that there is a “larger problem” with the Officer’s assessment: the lack of compassion. The Court cited Kanthasamy and Justice D. Campbell’s decision in Damte. The Court reiterated that H&C applications are “an exercise in empathy”. The Court found that the decision was utterly deficient in this regard and was dismissive overall. The Court specifically calls out the Officer’s characterization of the applicant’s decade plus life in Canada as an “extended visit". The Court also notes that the recognition of refugee protection is not a privilege but a right. There was no basis for the Officer to get on his high horse and make a moral finding that the applicant showed disregard for Canada’s laws; that she failed to appreciate the "privilege” granted to her and her going back to Cuba on one occasion to be with her dying brother. The Court found that these two passages demonstrated that the Officer failed to engage empathetically with the application.
The decision was set aside and remitted for reconsideration by a different decision maker.

04/06/2026

Our thoughts on a recent Federal Court of Appeal decision on mandamus the remedy for delay and a potential fix for uncertainty. It's something we're very familiar with and use on a regular basis to achieve movement on our clients files.

https://www.sshlaw.ca/mandamus-the-remedy-for-indolent-ircc-officers/

03/31/2026

"Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act" has become law.

Bill C-12 received royal assent and has become law, strengthening Canada’s immigration and asylum systems in 4 key areas

03/22/2026

Look for greater enforcement from an emboldened and empowered CBSA. In this case our client faced an allegation of misrepresentation for failing to declare the involvement of a paid consultant (a "ghost consultant").

Immigration, Family and Criminal Law

03/20/2026

Eid Mubarak to all our Muslim clients colleagues and staff!

03/03/2026

🚨 Important Update for Anyone Navigating Canadian Immigration: Bill C-12 – Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act 🚨
The federal government is advancing Bill C-12, which proposes major changes to Canada's immigration and asylum rules. If passed in its current form, it could introduce significant restrictions, including:

New ineligibility rules for refugee claims (e.g., claims made more than 1 year after arrival in Canada or irregular border crossings may be barred from full hearings at the Immigration and Refugee Board).

Sweeping powers for the government to suspend, cancel, or modify immigration documents like work permits, study permits, visas, and even permanent resident status — in the name of "public interest."

Enhanced information sharing between departments and stronger controls to combat fraud and misuse of the system.

Potential impacts on asylum seekers, temporary residents, and those already in process.

These measures aim to strengthen border security and system integrity, but they've raised concerns from human rights groups about access to fair hearings, retroactive effects, and broad executive powers.

At Stewart Sharma Harsanyi (sshlaw.ca) — Alberta's largest dedicated immigration law firm — our experienced team is closely monitoring Bill C-12. We help clients with refugee claims, appeals, work/study permits, permanent residency, inadmissibility issues, and Federal Court challenges.

If you're worried about how these potential new laws could affect your immigration status, application, or future plans — don't wait. Contact us today for personalized advice from lawyers who handle more immigration hearings and appeals than anyone in Alberta.

01/13/2026

Happy Lohri!

01/11/2026

The year starts off with disappointment to the many that were hoping that this would be the year they would be selected to bring their parent or grandparents to Canada.