Hilewitz v. Canada ;De Jong v. Canada

Hilewitz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); De Jong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 SCR 706, 2005 SCC 57 (CanLII)


• Health inadmissibility pursuant to s. 38(1)(c) of the Act
• Applicant was in the investor class; would have been accepted but for his son’s medical/developmental condition, which rendered him inadmissible
• Ability to pay for social services is a valid consideration in the evaluation of excessive demand (Hilewitz 2005 SCC 57), but the ability to pay for health services is not (Lee 2006 FC 1461). In other words, your intention to repay the healthcare costs incurred does not offset excessive demand.
• However, Harrington J found that the Hilewitz reasoning applied re: outpatient medication (Companioni 2009 FC 1315) in cases where the state doesn’t generally make funding available.
• NB: There is a health inadmissibility exemption under s. 38(2) IRPA for sponsored persons under the family class, as well as refugees. This exemption – as demonstrated in Hilewitz – does not apply to persons who are dependants of principal applicants applying under the economic class from abroad.