 
IAD.34 .01 (20 20.06) 
Disponible en français  Immigration and  
Refugee Board of Canada  
 
Immigration Appeal Division  
 Commission de l’immigration  
et du statut de réfugié du Canada  
 
Section d’appel de l’immigration  
 
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI : VB9 -09673  
Client ID No. / No ID client : 2592 -7799  
 
Reasons and Decision  Motifs et décision  
 
SPONSORSHIP APPEAL  
 
 
Appellant (s) XXXXXXXXXXX  Appelant(e)(s)  
and   
 et 
Respondent  Minister of Citizenship and Immigration  Intimé(e)  
  
  
Date(s) of Hearing  October  29,  2020  
 
 Date(s) de l’audience  
   
Place of Hearing  Heard by videoconference  Lieu de l’audience  
  
  
Date of Decision  January 28, 2021  
 Date de la décision  
   
Panel  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
 Tribunal  
   
Counsel for the  
Appellant (s) XXXXXXX . Larlee  Conseil(s) de 
l’appelant(e) / des 
appelant(e)(s)  
   
Designated Representative(s)  N/A  Représentant(e)(s) 
désigné(e)(s)  
  
 
  
Counsel for the Minister  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Conseil du ministre  
 
2021 CanLII 18863 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI : VB9 -09673  
 
 
 
1 
 REASONS FOR DECISION  
 
 
OVERVIEW  
 
[1] XXXXXXXXXXX (the “ Appellant ”) submitted an application to sponsor his son KXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (the “ Applicant ”) for permanent residence on January 31, 2018. The Applicant  was 24 years old at 
the time the application was submitted and  had been residing in Canada since 2015 on a study permit. 
The  sole issue on appeal is whether or not the Applicant  is a member of the family class as it is defined 
in Section  117(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the “ Regulations ”)1 as the 
Appellant ’s dependent child . 
 
[2] More specifically, the Appellant  argues that the Applicant  meets the criteria set out in Section  
2(b)(ii) of the Regulations  as a biological child of the Appellant  who:  
 
(ii) is 22 years of age or older and has depended substantially on the financial support of 
the parent since before attaining the age of 22 yea rs and is unable to be financially self -
supporting due to a physical or mental condition.  
 
[3] The Applicant  is diagnosed with Attention Deficit  Hyperactivity  Disorder  (ADHD ), high 
functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD” - alternatively referred to as “Asperger’s Syndrome ”), 
and Tourette’s Disorder. It is clear that the Applicant  has relied on the financial support of his father 
throughout his life. The Appellant  has adduced two extensive expert medical reports, one from a 
psychologist2, and another from  a psychiatrist3, that concur that the Applicant  cannot obtain full -time 
employment or support himself financially due to his mental health condition. Taking into consideration 
these unrebutted reports together with the other evidence before me including t he testimony of the 
Appellant  and Applicant , and evidence of the Applicant ’s struggles in his interpersonal interactions at 
post -secondary institutions, I find that the Appellant  has established that he meets the criteria set out in 
Section 2(b)(ii) of the Regulations , and I am allowing the appeal.  
 
 
2021 CanLII 18863 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI : VB9 -09673  
 
 
 
2 
 DECISION  
 
[4] I find that the Appellant  has established that the Applicant  is a member of the family class as a 
biological child who  has depended substantially on the financial support of the Appellant  since before 
attaining the age of 22 years and is unable to be financially self -supporting due to a physical or mental 
condition . The appeal is allowed.  
 
 
BACKGROUND  
 
[5] The Appellant  immigrated to Canada from Hong Kong with his spouse and four children in 
1990, and thereafter began to split his time between Hong Kong and Canada. While in Hong Kong, he 
began a relationship with the Applicant ’s mother. The Applicant  was born in Hong Kon g in 1995. The 
relationship between the Applicant’s parents ended in approximately 1997 but the Appellant  provided an 
apartment and financial support for the Applicant  and his mother, as well as a live -in caregiver who 
became the primary caregiver for the Applicant . The Appellant  visited the  Applicant  regularly.  
 
[6] The Applicant  had difficulties interacting with his peers and encountered behavioural problems 
from the time he began school in Hong Kong. The Appellant  responded by sending the Applicant  to 
boarding school in the United Kingdom  (UK) . A chartered education psychologist assessed the 
Applicant  in 2006, and diagnosed him  with ADHD, with a likely diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome. He 
came under the care of a psychiatrist in Hong Kong in 2008 an d began to take medications to help 
control his ADHD.4 The Applicant  adjusted better to a school for children with autism and he graduated 
from high school in 2014 with good enough grades that he was admitted to the University of 
Portsmouth. However, he wa s given another full psychological assessment in 2015 and as a result of his 
problems adjusting to university at which time his dual diagnosis of ADHD and ASD was confirmed.5 
 
[7] The Appellant  divorced his first wife in 1998 and re -married in 1999. He had two  children with 
his second wife. The Appellant  became a Canadian citizen in 2004 but did not apply to sponsor his 
second wife and the two children from that marriage until 2015. They were landed in Canada as 
2021 CanLII 18863 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI : VB9 -09673  
 
 
 
3 
 permanent residents in May 2016. At the time the Appellant  submitted the application to sponsor his 
second wife and children, the Applicant  was already over the age of nineteen , which was the cut -off age 
for inclusion as a dependent at that time,  and he was not included in the Appellant’s sponsorship 
application. Instead, the Appellant  helped the Applicant  enter Canada on a study permit in August 2015.  
 
[8] The Appellant  attended a college in the lower mainland for two years. He obtained good grades 
and had no significant conduct problems. However, he was  expelled for stalking a female student soon 
after transferring to Simon Fraser University. He then studied at Coquitlam College for another year and 
transferred to  University of  British Columbia  (UBC ) Okanagan. He accumulated several misconduct 
complaints in relation to conflicts with a female professor, other students and staff at the university, and 
has been suspended from attending further classes.6 Since his suspension, he has begun taking courses at 
an online college, and come under the care of a psychologist and psychiatrist in Canada. The Appellant  
hopes to resume his studies at UBC and complete a degree, although he has no interest in working and is 
content to continue relying on his father’s fi nancial support.  
 
[9] It was not until after the Applicant ’s suspension from UBC , in the course of discussions  with 
counsel about renewing the Applicant ’s study permit , that the Appellant  became aware of the possibility 
that the Applicant  could be sponsored for permanent residence as a financially dependent biological 
child who has depended substantially on the financial support of the parent since before attaining the age 
of 22 years and is unable to be financially self -supporting due to a physical or mental condition.  
 
 
ANALYSIS  
 
Legal Test  
 
[10]  The Federal Court established in XXXXXXX that the definition of “dependent child” as set out in 
b(ii) of the Regulations  is a disjunctive test that requires: 1) that the child in question has depended 
substantially on the financial support of a parent since the age of 22, and 2) that he is – at the time the 
determination is made – unable to be financially self -supporting du e to a physical or mental condition. 
2021 CanLII 18863 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI : VB9 -09673  
 
 
 
4 
 In other words, while substantive financial dependency must be continuous, it need not be established 
that the child has continuously been unable to support him or herself due to a physical or mental 
condition.  
 
Visa O ffice Decision  
 
[11]  The evidence before the visa office was not as clear and compelling as the evidence put before 
me on appeal. The evidence put before the visa office established that the Applicant  had a dual diagnosis 
of ADHD and ASD, and that these disorders impacted the Applicant’s  cognitive abilities, and 
“inappropriate behaviour and relationship issues with peers and university staff.”8 However, the 
comprehensive 2015 assessment does not establ ish that the Applicant  would be unable to adjust to a 
university setting or perform academically in such a setting. Indeed, the assessment makes several 
suggestions to help the Applicant  manage and regulate his behaviour in such a way that he c ould  avoid 
some of the problems that arose while attending the University of Portsmouth.  
 
[12]  I understand why the visa office would be skeptical about the extent of the Appl icant’s 
disabilities, given that he has graduated high school, and been admitted to numerous post -secondary 
institutions. While he has had considerable difficulties at the university level, he has had lengthy periods 
of stability at Canadian colleges with some degree of academic success. Additionally, while the 
Applicant  never disclosed having worked in the application forms, a resume was submitted with the 
application that indicated that the Applicant  had worked for both his father and mother . If the Applicant  
had worked in the past, it would have been reasonable to infer that he could work at the tim e the 
application was assessed. However, I am satisfied that this resume was improperly submitted with the 
application, and that the Applicant  has never worked.  
 
[13]  The Applicant  has the intellectual, linguistic  and physical ability to perform a wide variety of 
work. However, his lack of social and interpersonal relationship skills, and verbally aggressive conflicts 
with other individuals including persons in positions of authority have hampered his ability to co mplete 
his post -secondary studies and would hamper his ability to find employment. Absent the type of 
professional analysis of what underlies these social difficulties and conduct issues that were provided in 
2021 CanLII 18863 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI : VB9 -09673  
 
 
 
5 
 support of this appeal, I cannot fault the visa  office for finding that there was insufficient evidence to 
establish that the Applicant  is unable to support himself financially due to a physical or mental 
condition.  
 
Immigration History  
 
[14]  While Minister’s counsel did not delve into the same concerns rai sed by the visa office about the 
timing of the Appellant ’s application to sponsor the Applicant , I find it appropriate to comment briefly 
on this issue. I find that the Appellant  and Applicant  were forthright and honest about their family 
history throughou t the application process and in their appeal. I do not draw a negative inference from 
the failure of the Appellant  to sponsor the Applicant  before the age of 19, or before the age of 22. What 
is most important,  and material is that the Appellant  has been financially supporting the Applicant  for 
his entire life. While it is clear that the Applicant  has been dealing with mental health conditions 
throughout his life, and that these conditions have posed significant social and educational challenges 
for him, I accept that the Appellant ’s family situation has always been and continues to be complicated, 
and that he had hopes that the Applicant  would be able to complete a university degree and one day 
support himself. I do not draw a negative inference from the Appellant ’s continuing hope that this may 
still come to pass.  
 
Financial Dependence  
 
[15]  I am satisfied that the Applicant  has always been financially dependent on the Appellant . The 
Appellant ’s financial support of the Applicant  has continued since he came to Canada and has not 
ceased since the Applicant  turned 22 on August 3 1, 2017. I am satisfied, having heard all the evidence 
that the Applicant  has never applied for a job, never earned income through employment or any other 
means, and has no intention to do so in the future. He is entirely reliant on his father’s financial support 
and  exercises a minimal degree of autonomy in how he spends his allowance after his father has paid for 
his accommodations, tuition and most other es sential costs of living.  
 
2021 CanLII 18863 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI : VB9 -09673  
 
 
 
6 
 [16]  Minister’s counsel rightfully points out that the Appellant ’s provision of financial support of the 
Applicant  until the complete their university education and become self -supporting is consistent with 
what he has provided all of  his children. However, I do not find that this fact is of any particular 
relevance under either prong of the disjunctive legal test that I need to apply. The reason for the 
Appellant’s financial support is not material; what is material is that the Applic ant has continuously 
depended on the Appellant’s financial support from since before he turned 22 years old.  
 
Applicant ’s Mental Condition  
 
[17]  I understand the reluctance of Minister’s counsel to concede that the Applicant  is unable to 
support himself due to his mental condition. As she submits, many individuals with significant 
disabilities are able to support themselves through employment. Advocates for those with disabilities 
often strive for individuals with physical an d mental challenges to became as self -supporting and self -
sufficient as possible. The Applicant , on the other hand, is a man with considerable economic privilege 
and seemingly few intellectual or physical obstacles. The Applicant  lives by himself in a cond ominium 
paid for by his father, together with most other necessities. He receives a regular allowance with which 
he pays for his own groceries and meal costs, as well as his phone bill, the cost of caring for his dog and 
other incidental expenses.  
 
[18]  Clearly , the Appellant  does have some ability to care for himself, carry out basic responsibilities, 
and manage some social interaction, although he generally strives to avoid social interaction. The 
Applicant  has no intention to ever work. He is described by the  medical professionals who treat him as 
“elitist”. He enjoys having a wealthy father and flaunts his wealth. His misconduct at UBC involve d 
calling a food court worker a “scumbag.” I also note that in addition to having issues with people in 
positions of a uthority, many of the Applicant ’s behavioural issues and attitudes also have a misogynistic 
tinge. Many of the Applicant ’s attitudes are troubling, and these attitudes are not endemic to having 
ADHD or ASD. On the other hand, it is difficult to separate th e Applicant ’s attitudes, anti -social 
tendencies, and misconduct from his mental condition, and it is my understanding that the Applicant  is 
getting cognitive behaviour therapy to help change some of these negative attitudes and beliefs.  
 
2021 CanLII 18863 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI : VB9 -09673  
 
 
 
7 
 [19]  I find that the m edical experts that provided reports for the purpose of this appeal gave full 
consideration to other possible explanations for the Applicant ’s attitudes and dependence on his father 
before coming to their concluding opinions that the Applicant  cannot and w ill never be able to support 
himself through employment as a result of his mental condition. While fully acknowledging some of the 
most negative aspects of the Applicant ’s personality as “egocentric, grandiose and attention -getting”, his 
psychologist, Dr. XXX, came to the opinion that the Applicant  is not narcissistic or otherwise personality 
disordered, does not have obsessive -compulsive disorder (OCD), and does not have an antisocial 
personality disorder.9 As treatment for the Applicant ’s disorders had al l been pharmacologically -
focussed up to Dr. XXX’s assessment in June 2020, Dr. XXX encouraged intense psychological treatment 
including cognitive behavioural therapy, which the Applicant  has willingly undergone in Dr. XXX’s care 
since then. Dr. XXX also re ferred the Applicant  to psychiatric care with Dr. XXXXXX.  
 
[20]  Ultimately, I give considerable weight to the medical reports of both Dr. XXX and Dr. XXXXXX. 
Both doctors are experts with considerable experience in conducting such assessments, and both doctors  
spent considerable time with the App licant  before preparing their reports. I find their reports 
comprehensive, objective and reliable. Both Dr. XXX and Dr. XXXXXX stated in their reports that the 
Applicant  was among the most difficult and complex patients  that they had ever had to interview and 
assess over the course of their lengthy and distinguished careers, and both came to the same clear and 
unambiguous conclusion that the Applicant  is unable to support himself through work as a result of his 
mental co ndition. In the words of Dr. XXXXXX, the Applicant  “…is…one of the most mentally disordered 
individuals I have encountered in 40 years of clinical practice. The prospect of him existing 
independently financially or socially is completely untenable.”10 
 
[21]  I find the medical reports to be highly persuasive. The authors were available for cross -
examination,  but Minister’s counsel chose not to question them. No contrary medical evidence was 
provided by the Minister. While there were some minor inconsistencies in some of the testimony and the 
content of the report to Dr. XXX, I find that the information upon which the two medical reports were 
based to be comprehensive and accurate, and that nothing that arose in testimony or in the other 
evidence before me impug ned or rebutted any of the facts that gave rise to the opinions expressed in the 
reports, let alone undermine their professional opinions.  
2021 CanLII 18863 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI : VB9 -09673  
 
 
 
8 
 [22]  I find that the Appellant  has established on a balance of probabilities that the Applicant  is unable 
to be financiall y self -supporting due to his mental condition. As he has also been financially dependent 
on the Appellant  since the age of 22, he is a dependent child as defined in s. 2(b)(ii) of the Regulations .  
 
 
CONCLUSION  
 
[23]  The Applicant  is the Appellant ’s dependent child and is a member of the family class as a 
biological child who  has depended substantially on the financial support of the Appellant since before 
attaining the age of 22 years and is unable to be financially self -supporting due to a physical or mental 
condition . The appeal is allowed  
 
  
2021 CanLII 18863 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI : VB9 -09673  
 
 
 
9 
 NOTICE OF DECISION  
 
 
The appeal is allowed. The officer’s decision to refuse a permanent resident visa is set aside, and an 
officer must continue to process the application in accordance with the reasons of the Immigration Appeal 
Division.  
 
 
 (signed)  “XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ” 
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
   
  January 28, 2021  
  Date  
 
  
Judicial Review – Under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , you may make an application to the 
Federal Court for judicial review of this decision, with leave of that Court. You may wish to get advice from counsel as soon 
as possible, since there are time limits for this application.  
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002 –227.  
2 Exhibit A -2 pp. 1 -30.  
3 Exhibit A -4. 
4 Exhibit A -1 pp. 1 -4. 
5 Exhibit A -1 pp. 7 -34.  
6 Exhibit A -1 pp. 41 -69; pp. 75 -89.  
7 XXXXXX v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2005 FC 1522.  
8 Exhibit A -1 pp. 7 -34 (at p. 10).  
9 Exhibit A -2 pp. 1 -30 (at pp. 23 -24).  
10 Exhibit A -4 p. 5.                                                             
2021 CanLII 18863 (CA IRB)

