The appellant challenged the refusal of humanitarian and compassionate relief under s. 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act after unsuccessful refugee and risk-assessment proceedings.
The majority held that the officer unreasonably constrained discretion by treating 'unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship' as rigid legal thresholds rather than descriptive guidance.
The reasons emphasized holistic assessment, including mental health evidence, discrimination risk evidence, and the best interests of a directly affected child.
The appeal was allowed, the officer’s decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.
A dissent would have upheld the refusal as reasonable under a stringent but flexible exceptional-relief framework.
