Canada Judgment

Federal Court

Eweka v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Officer's failure to substantively consider and weigh the applicant's front-line shelter work during the early COVID-19 pandemic was an unreasonable omission; the decision is therefore quashed and must be redetermined by a different decision-maker.

Court disposition

Application for judicial review allowed; February 21, 2024 decision quashed and remitted to a different decision-maker for redetermination.

Orders

  • The application for judicial review is allowed
  • The February 21, 2024 decision is quashed and sent back to a different decision-maker for redetermination
  • No serious question of general importance is certified

02

Material facts

Parties

IKPONMWONSA EWEKA

Applicant Counsel: Gökhan Toy

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent Counsel: Gregory George

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Judicial Review (immigration Humanitarian and Compassionate Application) / Federal Court Judgment (decision Quashed and Remitted)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant argued for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds based on establishment in Canada, hardship if returned to Nigeria, and contributions as a community shelter front-line worker during the early COVID-19 pandemic; submitted that the Officer failed to address this specific and relevant factor and sought remittal.
Respondent
Minister acknowledged that the Officer's brief decision did not address the front-line work factor; respondent defended the decision otherwise and relied on the Officer's overall assessment of the application.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 at para 19

    Humanitarian and compassionate discretion exists to mitigate the rigidity of the law and is not limited to a fixed set of factors.

  2. 02

    Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 at para 25; Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817 at paras 74-75

    Officers making H&C determinations must substantively consider and weigh all relevant facts and factors before them.

  3. 03

    Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 127-128

    Under reasonableness review, a decision must be responsive to the submissions and evidence; failure to address relevant factors renders a decision unreasonable.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Officer's failure to substantively consider and weigh the applicant's front-line shelter work during the early COVID-19 pandemic was an unreasonable omission; the decision is therefore quashed and must be redetermined by a different decision-maker.

Obiter and limits

  • Court cited prior Federal Court decisions (Chinwuba, Uwaifo, Iroka) finding similar omissions unreasonable.
  • The factors warranting H&C relief vary by circumstances and officers must engage with all relevant submissions and evidence.

Court disposition

Application for judicial review allowed; February 21, 2024 decision quashed and remitted to a different decision-maker for redetermination.

  • The application for judicial review is allowed
  • The February 21, 2024 decision is quashed and sent back to a different decision-maker for redetermination
  • No serious question of general importance is certified

Source and reliance status

Federal Court · 25 April 2025

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Federal Court

Judgment· 25 April 2025

2025 FC 748

Eweka v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2025-04-25 Neutral citation 2025 FC 748 File numbers IMM-7538-24 Decision Content Date: 20250425 Docket: IMM-7538-24 Citation: 2025 FC 748 Ottawa, Ontario, April 25, 2025 PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi BETWEEN:

IKPONMWONSA EWEKA Applicant and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] The Applicant, Ikponmwonsa Eweka, applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds (“H & C Application”). An officer at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“the Officer”) refused the application. Ms. Eweka challenges this determination on judicial review. [2] The parties agree, as do I, that the merits of the decision ought to be reviewed on a reasonableness standard. [3] Ms. Eweka is a citizen of Nigeria. She came to Canada approximately eight years ago and made a refugee claim. I do not have the refugee decision before me, but the parties submit that she was excluded from refugee protection because she had access to permanent residence status in Italy. [4] Ms. Eweka sought relief principally on her establishment in Canada and the hardship she would face on return to Nigeria. Ms. Eweka raised a number of issues on judicial review. The determinative issue is the Officer’s treatment of Ms. Eweka’s work as a community shelter worker during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. This factor was raised in counsel’s submissions to the Officer and in the support letters. As acknowledged by the Minister, the Officer does not address this factor in their brief decision. [5] Given that the purpose of humanitarian and compassionate discretion is to “mitigate the rigidity of the law in an appropriate case”, there is no limited

set of factors that warrant relief (Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 [Kanthasamy] at para 19). The factors warranting relief will vary depending on the circumstances, but “officers making humanitarian and compassionate determinations must substantively consider and weigh all the relevant facts and factors before them” (Kanthasamy at para 25; Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817 [Baker] at paras 74-75). [6] The Officer failed to substantively consider and weigh the Applicant’s contributions as a front-line worker in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic -- a relevant factor raised by the Applicant. This Court has addressed this issue in several cases and found it to be unreasonable for an officer to not evaluate this factor as part of an applicant’s personal circumstances (Chinwuba v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 679 at paras 32-37; Uwaifo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 679 at paras 32-36; and Iroka v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1316 at paras 6-10). [7] The Officer’s treatment of Ms. Eweka’s work as a front-line worker during the pandemic is both unresponsive to the submissions or evidence before them and a failure to consider all relevant factors raised by the application as required (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v

Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 127-128; Kanthasamy at para 25; Baker at paras 74-75). Accordingly, the decision is unreasonable and must be redetermined. JUDGMENT in IMM-7538-24 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is allowed; The February 21, 2024 decision is quashed and sent back to a different decision-maker for redetermination; and No serious question of general importance is certified. "Lobat Sadrehashemi" Judge

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-7538-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: IKPONMWONSA EWEKA v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: April 2, 2025 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: SADREHASHEMI J. DATED: April 25, 2025 APPEARANCES: Gökhan Toy For The Applicant Gregory George For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Lewis & Associates Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61

Case cited

Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817

Case cited

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65

Case cited

Chinwuba v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 679

Case cited

Uwaifo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 679

Case cited

Iroka v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1316

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.