Book a Consultation

Selected Cases

Experience Across Complex Immigration Matters

Every immigration case involves its own circumstances, challenges, and legal considerations. The selected cases below highlight examples of matters in which we have represented clients before the Federal Court and the Immigration Appeal Division.

Motrichko v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 516

Dean Szikinger and Lorne Waldman represented the applicant in a successful judicial review of a decision refusing her application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Background

The applicant was a 60-year-old citizen of Israel who had been living with her daughter and three grandchildren in Canada. She had played an important caregiving role in the family for many years, including helping to raise her eldest granddaughter, who had been diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes at a young age.

The applicant requested an exemption from the usual requirement to apply for permanent residence from outside Canada. Her application relied on several humanitarian and compassionate considerations, including her establishment in Canada, the family’s emotional and practical interdependence, the best interests of her grandchildren, and the limited support available to her outside Canada.

An immigration officer refused the application. Although the officer acknowledged the applicant’s close relationship with her family, the officer concluded that the grandchildren’s parents could continue caring for them and that the applicant could maintain contact with the family from abroad.

The Legal Challenge

On judicial review, counsel argued that the officer had failed to conduct a meaningful assessment of the best interests of the children affected by the decision.

The officer had focused largely on whether the grandchildren would continue to receive the basic necessities of life without their grandmother. However, this did not address the central question: how each grandchild would be affected, both emotionally and practically, by the applicant’s departure from Canada.

It was also argued that the officer had not properly considered the applicant’s substantial caregiving role, the effect of her departure on the family’s work and school schedules, or the particular needs of her eldest granddaughter arising from her medical condition.

Federal Court’s Decision

The Federal Court agreed that the officer’s analysis was overly generalized and did not satisfy the legal requirements for assessing the best interests of children.

The Court emphasized that it was not enough to determine that the children would “manage or survive” without their grandmother. The officer was required to identify and examine the interests of each affected child with careful attention to the evidence.

The Court found that the officer had failed to meaningfully consider the emotional and practical consequences of the applicant’s removal. This included the effect on the eldest granddaughter, who remained dependent because of her medical condition and limitations, despite having reached adulthood.

Result: The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, set aside the refusal, and returned the humanitarian and compassionate application to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada for redetermination by a different officer.

Why This Case Matters

This decision confirms that a best-interests analysis cannot be limited to whether children will continue to have food, shelter, and parental care. Immigration officers must carefully examine the full practical, emotional, medical, and family consequences of a decision for each affected child.

It also demonstrates the importance of presenting detailed evidence about the role an extended family member plays in a child’s life, particularly where the family depends on that person for caregiving, emotional support, or assistance with medical needs.

Astudillo v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 CanLII 140699 (CA IRB).

Dean Szikinger represented a permanent resident whose appeal of a deportation order had been declared abandoned after his former lawyer failed to submit the required disclosure by the Immigration Appeal Division’s deadline. An initial application to reopen the appeal was refused.

After being retained, Dean Szikinger commenced Federal Court judicial review proceedings and brought a second application to reopen the appeal, supported by new evidence concerning the former lawyer’s failure to meet their professional responsibilities.

The Immigration Appeal Division accepted that the client had always intended to pursue his appeal and that the missed deadline resulted solely from the negligence of his former counsel.

Result: The Tribunal found that this amounted to a breach of natural justice and allowed the application, restoring the client’s opportunity to proceed with his removal-order appeal. 

Amin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 CanLII 84290 (CA IRB).

Dean Szikinger represented a Canadian citizen whose application to sponsor his wife for permanent residence had been refused because immigration authorities questioned whether the marriage was genuine. The Immigration Appeal Division initially dismissed the appeal, relying on perceived inconsistencies in the couple’s testimony and gaps in their knowledge of one another. 

The case was successfully challenged by Counsel Sumeya Mulla on judicial review before the Federal Court and was returned to the Immigration Appeal Division for reconsideration by a different panel.

Dean Szikinger represented the client at the new appeal hearing before the Immigration Appeal Division. 

Result: Following the rehearing, the appeal was allowed, overturning the refusal and permitting the spousal sponsorship application to continue.

Supena v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2014 CanLII 95422 (CA IRB)

Dean Szikinger represented a permanent resident who had been issued a removal order for misrepresentation after failing to disclose a child in his application for permanent residence. The legal validity of the removal order was not disputed. Instead, we asked the Immigration Appeal Division to exercise its humanitarian and compassionate jurisdiction and allow the client to retain his permanent resident status. 

Although the IAD found the misrepresentation to be serious, it also considered the client’s lengthy establishment in Canada, steady employment, ownership of a home, strong family and community support, and the financial and emotional impact that removal would have on his children in Canada and the Philippines. The IAD concluded that the humanitarian and compassionate considerations, particularly the interests of the children affected, were sufficient to warrant special relief.

Result: The appeal was allowed, the removal order was set aside, and the client retained his permanent resident status.

Sidhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 CanLII 98692 (CA IRB)

Dean Szikinger represented a Canadian permanent resident whose sponsorship application for his spouse had been refused by a visa officer on the basis that the marriage was not genuine and was entered into primarily for immigration purposes.

At the Immigration Appeal Division hearing, both the sponsor and applicant provided detailed testimony addressing the concerns raised by the visa officer. Following the evidence presented at the hearing, Minister’s counsel consented to the appeal being allowed.

Result: The Immigration Appeal Division allowed the appeal, set aside the refusal, and directed IRCC to continue processing the permanent residence application.

Narula v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1423

Dean Szikinger, Lorne Waldman, and Steven Blakey represented a 72-year-old grandmother whose application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was refused. Her three sons and their families lived in Canada, and she played an important caregiving role in the lives of her grandchildren. The application relied in part on expert psychiatric evidence concerning the family’s interdependence and the emotional consequences of separating her from her children and grandchildren. 

The Federal Court found that the immigration officer failed to meaningfully engage with the expert evidence concerning the impact of separation. The Court also found that the officer appeared to apply an improperly elevated standard when assessing the best interests of the children by focusing on whether the grandchildren were totally dependent on their grandmother or unable to function without her, rather than properly identifying and assessing their best interests.

Result: The judicial review was allowed, the refusal was set aside, and the humanitarian and compassionate application was returned to a different officer for redetermination, with permission to submit new evidence and additional submissions.

Gill v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 807

Dean Szikinger represented an applicant whose temporary resident visa application was refused because the visa officer was not satisfied that he would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay. The officer cited concerns regarding his finances, family ties in Canada, ties outside Canada, and the stated purpose of his visit. 

The Federal Court found that the officer failed to meaningfully address important evidence showing that the applicant co-owned a business, had personal funds and other assets, and had significant family, property, and economic ties in India. The Court concluded that the officer’s reasons did not adequately explain why the applicant’s financial circumstances were insufficient or why his ties to Canada outweighed his substantial ties to India.

Result: The judicial review was granted, the visa refusal was set aside, and the temporary resident visa application was returned to a different officer for reconsideration.

Duruaku v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2014 CanLII 100151 (CA IRB)

Dean Szikinger represented a permanent resident who was issued a removal order after an immigration officer determined that he had not met Canada’s permanent resident residency obligation. Although the Immigration Appeal Division found the removal order legally valid, the client sought discretionary relief based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations. 

The evidence showed that the client’s residency shortfall was approximately 100 to 130 days. He had spent several years in Canada, paid Canadian taxes, maintained financial assets in Canada, and was a licensed pharmacist providing important professional services to rural and remote communities. The IAD also considered his family responsibilities, the financial support he provided to his children and extended family, and the interests of his children.

Following the client’s testimony, counsel for the Minister joined in recommending that the appeal be allowed. The IAD concluded that the humanitarian and compassionate considerations were sufficient to justify special relief.

Result: The appeal was allowed, the removal order was set aside, and the client retained his permanent resident status.

Siddiqui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 683

Dean Szikinger represented a 66-year-old retired applicant from Pakistan whose temporary resident visa application was refused because the visa officer was not satisfied that he would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay. An earlier refusal had already been set aside by consent and returned for redetermination, but the application was refused again. 

The Federal Court found that the second decision contained significant errors in the assessment of the applicant’s family and economic ties to Pakistan. The officer improperly speculated about why the applicant and his wife had applied for visas separately, failed to recognize evidence identifying a woman in Pakistan as the applicant’s sister, and overlooked evidence that the applicant owned residential property in Pakistan.

The Court concluded that these errors affected the officer’s assessment of the very “push factors” relied upon to refuse the application and undermined the reasonableness of the decision as a whole.

Result: The judicial review was granted, the refusal was set aside, and the temporary resident visa application was returned to a different officer for redetermination.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Each immigration matter is determined on its own facts and evidence.