Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The following facts were recited in the reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Appellant is a citizen of South Africa where he has been very successful in business. His assets are valued at about $5 million. After interviewing the Appellant, the visa officer was satisfied that he qualified for admission to Canada as an investor. The visa officer refused the application, however, because she was of the opinion that the Appellant’s younger son, G, who was born with minimal brain damage and is developmentally delayed, was medically inadmissible. A medical officer concluded that G. would require a variety of social services including special schooling, vocational training, and ongoing training to help him to carry out the activities of daily living and to attain his potential. In addition, his parents would require respite care. These requirements, the medical officer concluded, were far in excess of the social services required by an average Canadian resident of his age. Accordingly, since G’s admission to Canada might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demands on social services, he was inadmissible under subparagraph 19(1)(a)(ii) of the Immigration Act and the Appellant’s applications for visas were denied.

The Appellant was invited to respond to “the description of [G’s] medical conditions with new medical evidence of your own”, before a final decision was made. In his response, the Appellant did not deny that G would require a range of social services that others would not. However, he stated that this would not impose any demand on publicly provided social services because he was financially able and willing to send G to a private school. The Appellant supported his statements of intention, not only by referring to his wealth, but also by stating that he had never had resort to publicly provided social services for G in South Africa, although they were available.

Nonetheless, the Appellant’s response did not persuade a second medical officer to give a different opinion. A third medical officer was shown the file and was also of the opinion that G was medically inadmissible on the ground that his condition would cause excessive demands on social services in Canada. Accordingly, in a letter dated September 15, 2000, the visa officer informed the Appellant that, for these reasons, his application for a permanent residence visa was denied.

In the letter conveying her decision, the visa officer, having found the Appellant to be credible and likely to make a significant economic contribution to Canada, recommended that a Minister’s permit be issued to him so that he could enter and remain on a temporary basis, but without access to the social services available only to permanent residents.

On judicial review, the applications judge set aside the visa officer’s decision to refuse to issue a visa. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed.