Federal Court Sets Aside H&C Refusal for Failure to Properly Assess Child’s Disability and Risk Factors

Case Spotlight: Hayles v Canada (MCI), 2026 FC 119

Written by Partner Joycna Kang

In Hayles v Canada (MCI), 2026 FC 119, the Federal Court allowed a judicial review of a refused humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application, finding the officer’s decision unreasonable for failing to meaningfully engage with key evidence concerning a minor child.

The applicants, a mother and her 17-year-old son from Jamaica, sought permanent residence under section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. They relied on establishment in Canada, adverse country conditions, and the best interests of the child (BIOC) – particularly the minor applicant’s learning disability.

The officer acknowledged some positive establishment factors but ultimately refused the application, finding that the hardship in Jamaica did not rise to the level warranting exceptional relief, and that the minor applicant could adapt to life in Jamaica with family support.

The Court disagreed with how that conclusion was reached.

Most significantly, the Court found that the officer failed to meaningfully address:

1. The Minor Applicant’s Learning Disability

   
   

   The H&C application included repeated references to the minor applicant’s speech impediment and learning-related disability, along with evidence that he benefited from specialized supports in Canada that would not be available in Jamaica. The reasons were silent on this issue. The Court held that failing to grapple with this central submission rendered the decision unreasonable.

   
   

2. Failure to Conduct a Global Assessment

   
   

   The Court emphasized that H&C decisions require a cumulative and contextual assessment of all relevant factors. The minor applicant – a young Black male with a disability – argued that he would face heightened vulnerability to gang recruitment and violence in St. Catherine, Jamaica, an area with high homicide rates. The officer reduced this to a general statement that the applicants “fear crime in Jamaica,” without engaging with the intersection of age, race, disability, and local country conditions.

   
   

3. Unintelligible BIOC Analysis

   
   

   A portion of the BIOC analysis referred to “her” and “she” when discussing a male child, creating confusion about which child was being assessed. While perfection is not required, reasons must allow the reader to understand the rationale. Here, the Court found they did not.

   
   

Key Takeaways

Disabilities must be explicitly analyzed. If medical or learning needs are central to the application, the officer must meaningfully address them.

Intersectionality matters. Age, race, disability, gender, and country conditions must be assessed cumulatively, not in isolation.

BIOC analysis must be individualized and intelligible.

Overstaying can weigh negatively, but it cannot eclipse the full H&C analysis.

For H&C applicants, this decision reinforces that officers must conduct a truly global and responsive assessment of the child’s circumstances.