Compassion in Practice: How We Argued Medical Grounds in a Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) Application
The Story Behind the Application
Our clients were a young couple from the Philippines who arrived in Canada as visitors. During their stay, they welcomed a baby boy who, shortly after birth, was diagnosed with Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy (HIE) — a serious brain injury caused by oxygen deprivation during delivery. This condition can result in permanent neurological damage, requiring lifelong therapy and specialized medical supervision.
From the beginning, the parents faced an impossible situation. Returning to their home country would mean losing access to the doctors, therapists, and programs that keep their child stable and progressing. The specialized pediatric care available in Canada simply does not exist in their region of the Philippines — and what limited services are available are prohibitively expensive.
Framing the Legal Argument
Our submission focused on Section 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which empowers immigration officers to grant permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds when justified by compelling personal circumstances.
We emphasized three key legal principles:
Best Interests of the Child — Following Baker v. Canada ([1999] 2 S.C.R. 817) and Kanthasamy v. Canada (2015 SCC 61), officers must be “alert, alive and sensitive” to how an immigration decision affects a child. The Supreme Court has made clear that children should rarely, if ever, bear hardship resulting from their parents’ immigration situation.
The Chirwa Test — Originating from Chirwa v. Canada (1970 I.A.B.D. No. 1), this standard asks whether a family’s circumstances “excite in a reasonable person in a civilized community a desire to relieve their misfortunes.” This test captures the essence of humanitarian relief — compassion beyond strict hardship analysis.
Canada’s Legal and Moral Obligations — We referenced Section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality without discrimination based on disability; the Canada Health Act, which seeks to ensure access to medical care without barriers; and international commitments such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, both of which require Canada to protect the health and welfare of children with disabilities.
The Medical Foundation of the Case
Our evidence showed that the child’s treatment in Canada included neurological monitoring, occupational and physical therapy, and early-intervention programming — all essential to preventing further developmental delays. In contrast, medical reports and country-condition research on the Philippines demonstrated that access to pediatric neurology and rehabilitative care is extremely limited and often available only through private institutions at very high cost.
Returning to the Philippines would have meant losing not only continuity of care but also the safety net of Canada’s universal health system. The parents’ inability to afford or access equivalent treatment abroad would have placed the child’s life and long-term development at serious risk.
Establishment and Support in Canada
We also highlighted the family’s deep establishment in Canada — their residence within a stable extended-family household, active involvement in their local church, strong community ties, and evidence of employment. Letters of support from relatives, friends, and their parish priest reinforced that the family was fully integrated, responsible, and contributing to Canadian society.
The Heart of the Submission
Ultimately, our argument was simple yet profound:
To remove this family would not only endanger a medically fragile child but also contradict the compassionate intent of Canadian law.
We reminded the decision-maker that compassion is not a weakness — it is the guiding principle of Section 25(1). Granting permanent residence in this case would allow the child to continue life-saving treatment and give the family the stability they need to care for him.
What This Case Represents
This application illustrates how medical and humanitarian factors can intersect powerfully under Canadian immigration law. It also reflects the broader purpose of H&C provisions — to ensure that the law remains human, flexible, and responsive to real-life hardship.
At ARIC, we believe that the measure of a fair immigration system lies in its capacity to protect the most vulnerable — especially children whose futures depend on our empathy and sense of justice.
