Six disciplines. One accountable team. Every client is matched with the right lawyer for their matter.
From courtroom litigation to Fractional GC retainers to international market entry.
Founded on the conviction that the quality of your legal representation should have nothing to do with the size of your retainer.
Two-way referrals, co-counsel access, CPD sessions, mentorship and exclusive events.
Legal updates, firm news, webinar invitations, and award announcements.
Four GTA locations. Walk-in consultations. Weekend appointments.
Free calculators, downloadable guides, and legal checklists, built by our lawyers for real Ontario situations.
Section 25 of IRPA grants the Minister discretion to exempt individuals from ordinary immigration requirements where humanitarian and compassionate considerations warrant it. Our team builds compelling H&C; applications grounded in law and evidence.
Book My 15-Minute Assessment →Advocating for those whose circumstances call for compassion beyond the strict letter of the law.
An H&C application under section 25(1) of IRPA asks the Minister of Immigration to exercise discretion and grant you permanent resident status or exempt you from specific IRPA requirements based on the particular circumstances of your case. It is a discretionary remedy that recognizes that strict application of immigration rules can produce unjust outcomes.
Tell us briefly what is going on. A lawyer reviews every enquiry and replies within 24 hours on business days.
A lawyer replies within 24 hours on business days. Urgent? Call +1 416 333 6200, answered 24/7. Submitting this form does not create a solicitor-client relationship.
Section 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) authorizes the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to grant permanent resident status or exempt a foreign national from any applicable criteria or obligations of IRPA if the Minister is satisfied that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate (H&C;) considerations. This discretionary power serves as a safety valve within the immigration system, recognizing that rigid application of immigration rules can produce results that are unjust in individual cases.
The Supreme Court of Canada in Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61, fundamentally reshaped H&C; jurisprudence by holding that the hardship threshold applied in earlier cases was unduly restrictive. The Court clarified that H&C; decision-makers should consider and weigh all relevant factors, including hardship, and that the assessment is not limited to a checklist approach. The overarching question is whether the facts give rise to considerations that "would excite a reasonable [person] in a civilized community a desire to relieve the misfortune of another."
H&C; applications are filed with IRCC and are decided by senior immigration officers exercising delegated ministerial authority. The decision is highly discretionary and fact-specific. Our lawyers prepare comprehensive H&C; applications that present a complete picture of the applicant's circumstances, supported by extensive documentary evidence, expert opinions, and personal statements. Where an H&C; application is refused, we advise on judicial review to the Federal Court.
Section 25(1) of IRPA expressly requires that the best interests of a child directly affected by the decision be taken into account. This obligation reflects Canada's commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and was given constitutional weight by the Supreme Court in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817, which held that the best interests of the child must be "well identified and defined" and examined "with a great deal of attention" in H&C; decisions.
Our H&C; applications addressing the best interests of the child include evidence of: the child's age, stage of development, and needs; the child's ties to Canada, including school enrolment, friendships, and community activities; the impact of the parent's removal on the child's emotional and psychological well-being; the conditions the child would face in the parent's country of origin, including access to education, healthcare, and safety; and the child's views and preferences, where age-appropriate.
The Federal Court has repeatedly held that a mere acknowledgment of the best interests of the child without substantive analysis is insufficient. In Kolosovs v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 165, the Court emphasized that the officer must demonstrate how the child's best interests were weighed against other factors. We ensure that our H&C; submissions compel the decision-maker to engage meaningfully with the evidence of a child's best interests.
Establishment in Canada is a central factor in H&C; applications. Decision-makers consider the applicant's length of residence in Canada, employment history, financial self-sufficiency, community involvement, language proficiency, and integration into Canadian society. Our lawyers compile evidence including employment records, tax returns, letters from employers and colleagues, volunteer certificates, language test results, lease agreements, and community reference letters to demonstrate deep and genuine establishment.
Hardship upon return to the country of origin is assessed in light of the specific conditions the applicant would face. Following Kanthasamy, hardship need not be "unusual and undeserved" or "disproportionate",these terms are guides, not rigid prerequisites. Relevant factors include: adverse country conditions such as conflict, instability, or discrimination; lack of family or social support in the country of origin; medical conditions that cannot be adequately treated there; risk of gender-based violence or persecution; and loss of established livelihood and community in Canada.
We support hardship claims with country condition evidence from authoritative sources including the UNHCR, the U.S. Department of State, the IRB's National Documentation Packages, Human Rights Watch, and in-country lawyers. Medical hardship claims are supported by reports from treating physicians and specialists addressing the unavailability or inadequacy of treatment in the country of origin. Psychological assessments documenting the impact of return on the applicant's mental health are prepared by qualified professionals engaged by our firm.
Mîra v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 603 In this Federal Court judicial review, Jia Junaid of Lexaltico LLP successfully challenged the Refugee Appeal Division’s decision to exclude the applicants from refugee protection under Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention.
Justice McHaffie found the RAD’s decision unreasonable on two grounds: the RAD improperly excluded new evidence about corruption within Romania’s National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA), and the RAD’s exclusion analysis relied on foreign convictions without meaningfully grappling with the applicants’ credible evidence that the charges were politically fabricated.
The application for judicial review was allowed. The Federal Court set aside the decision and remitted the appeal to a differently constituted panel, which is the relief sought on judicial review: the exclusion finding no longer stands and the appeal is heard afresh.
Article 1F(b) exclusions are hard to displace, and harder still where the conviction comes from a European Union member state with a functioning court system. The argument required persuading the Court that evidence of corruption inside the prosecuting authority was relevant and had been wrongly shut out, and that a conviction from such a state could not simply be taken at face value.
What made the exclusion unusual. The Minister raised Article 1F(b) in 2020 and then withdrew that intervention in October 2023 after reviewing the evidence. The Refugee Protection Division found our client generally credible and not excluded. The Refugee Appeal Division then raised exclusion on its own motion and excluded her, without the Minister intervening. The finding under review was one the Minister had already abandoned.
On the exclusion itself, the Division reasoned that a conviction from Romania could be relied on because it is a country where the rule of law prevails, citing Arevalo Pineda for that proposition but not the passages of the same decision requiring an objective assessment of the claimant’s own evidence and satisfaction that the issuing authority itself respects the rule of law. The Court held that reliance on authority stripped of its qualifying context does not meet the standard, and observed that no assessment of the issuing authority was ever carried out. Read the full decision on CanLII.
This result demonstrates Lexaltico’s commitment to thorough preparation, evidence-driven advocacy, and holding administrative decision-makers to the standard of reasonableness the law requires.
Our lawyers offer a 15-minute initial assessment for most matters. Call, email, or book online. Do not sign anything before speaking with us.
55 University Ave, Suite 1100
Toronto, ON M5J 2H7
2 Sheppard Ave East, Suite 303, Toronto, ON M2N 5Y7
Monday to Friday: 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM
Evenings & weekends by appointment
Related Judicial Reviews Pages & Guides
No obligation, no cost for the first conversation. We will tell you honestly whether we can help.
A lawyer replies within 24 hours on business days. Urgent? Call +1 416 333 6200, answered 24/7. Submitting this form does not create a solicitor-client relationship.
Contacting us does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Please do not send confidential information until we have confirmed we can act for you. We aim to reply within one business day. Sending this form does not meet any court deadline or limitation period.
If you or a child are in immediate danger, call 911. This form is not an emergency service and is read during business hours. Assaulted Women’s Helpline 1-866-863-0511, Talk4Healing 1-855-554-4325, both open around the clock.
Lexaltico LLP
How Lexaltico LLP handles personal information, under PIPEDA and Ontario law.
When you use a form on this site, email us or telephone us, we collect what you choose to send: your name, email address, telephone number and a description of the situation. Nothing on this site requires you to give more than that.
We collect non identifying technical information when you browse: IP address, browser type, pages viewed and time spent. It is used to understand how the site is used and to improve it. It is not used to identify you.
We do not collect sensitive personal information through this website. Detailed personal and legal information is collected only after a solicitor client relationship exists, through the channels set up for that purpose.
What you send is used to reply to you, to run a conflict check, to assess whether the firm can assist, and, if a retainer follows, to carry out the work.
We do not use your personal information for marketing without your express consent, and we do not sell, rent or trade it. If you consent to receive anything from us, every message carries a way to stop, as required by Canada’s Anti Spam Legislation.
Information given to us in the course of a legal matter is protected by solicitor client privilege. We do not disclose privileged information without your consent, except where the law or a court order requires it.
Non privileged contact information may be shared with the providers who help us run the firm and this website, and with people engaged on your matter such as translators, agents and court reporters. All of them are under confidentiality obligations.
Information submitted through a form travels through third party services in order to reach us by email, and may be processed or stored outside Canada, where it can be subject to the laws of that place. Submitting a form is your consent to that transfer. If you would rather not, telephone us instead.
This site uses cookies to understand how it is used. Advertising cookies are set only if you press Accept. If you press Decline, measurement is switched off for you entirely, nothing further is sent, and anything already stored on your device is cleared. The site works either way.
You can change your answer at any time by clearing this site’s cookies in your browser, which brings the question back.
Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5 you may ask what personal information we hold about you, ask us to correct anything inaccurate, and withdraw consent to our use of it, subject to legal and contractual limits. We reply within thirty days or explain why we need longer.
Client files are kept for the period the law and the Law Society require, ordinarily seven years after a matter closes, which reflects limitation periods and the possibility of later proceedings. After that they are securely destroyed or anonymised. You may ask for earlier deletion, subject to those obligations.
If you contact us and no retainer follows, what you sent is retained only as long as our conflict records require, then destroyed.
Privacy Officer, Lexaltico LLP
55 University Avenue, Suite 1100, Toronto, Ontario M5J 2H7
privacy@lexaltico.com
+1 416 333 6200
If you are not satisfied with our answer you may complain to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
Short, and written to be read rather than scrolled past.
This site publishes several hundred pages about Ontario law. They are written carefully, they cite statutes and cases by name, and they are reviewed. None of that makes them advice about your matter. Law is applied to facts, and we do not know yours.
The difference is practical rather than technical. A page explaining that spousal support is usually indefinite after a twenty year marriage is accurate as a general statement and may be wrong about you, because of a domestic contract you signed, a period of separation you have forgotten, or an income that is not what a tax return says it is.
Law also changes. Pages carry a review date where one is relevant. A page reviewed last year may not reflect an amendment made since, and a page about a subject currently before an appellate court may be overtaken between your reading it and your acting on it.
A conflict check must be completed. We act for a great many people and businesses, and we cannot act against a current client or use what we learned from a former one. That check happens before anything else and occasionally means we have to decline.
We must confirm in writing that we are prepared to act. Not every matter is one we can take, and saying so early is better than taking a file we cannot properly serve.
A retainer agreement must be signed. It sets out what we are doing, what we are not doing, who is responsible for what, and how fees work. Until it is signed no relationship exists, whatever has been discussed.
Information sent through a form, or by email, before a retainer is signed is not covered by solicitor client privilege. That is not a policy we chose. It follows from there being no solicitor client relationship for the privilege to attach to.
It can also create a problem for you. If you send us detailed information about a dispute and we are later approached by the other side, what you sent may affect whether we can act for either of you.
So tell us the shape of the problem and leave out the detail: the area of law, roughly when it arose, and whether anything is urgent. That is enough for us to say whether we can help. The documents come after the retainer.
Case results described anywhere on this site are real and are described accurately, and they are specific to their own facts. A settlement at three times the original offer happened because of that employer, that contract and that person’s history. It says nothing about what your matter is worth.
Client reviews are the views of the people who wrote them. We do not offer anything in return for a review, we do not write them, and we do not ask only the clients we expect to be positive.
Calculators on this site produce estimates from the figures you enter. They apply published formulas and they cannot know about the facts that most often change the answer.
The content of this site belongs to Lexaltico LLP or its licensors. You are welcome to read it, print it and quote it with attribution. You may not republish it as your own.
We link to statutes, regulations, court decisions and government pages because a reader should be able to check us. We do not control those sites and are not responsible for them, and a link is not an endorsement.
To the fullest extent the law permits, Lexaltico LLP is not liable for any loss arising from your use of, or reliance on, anything published on this website.
These terms are governed by the law of Ontario and the federal law of Canada that applies in Ontario. Lawyers and licensed professionals at the firm are regulated by the Law Society of Ontario, and marketing on this site is intended to comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Every limit on what this website tells you, and every thing it does not do, in one place rather than in small print at the bottom of each page.
Four limits, and they matter in this order.
Everything published on this website is general information. It is not legal advice, it does not take account of the facts of any particular situation, and reading it does not create a solicitor client relationship. Do not act, or decide not to act, on anything here without speaking to a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your own circumstances.
These pages describe the law of Ontario, and of Alberta only where a page says so expressly. They do not describe the law of any other province, territory or country. Law that looks similar across jurisdictions frequently is not.
Each page states the law as at the review date shown on it. Legislation is amended and case law develops. A page accurate when written may no longer be.
These pages describe how a rule usually works. That is not the same as how it applies to your facts. The exceptions are where most real matters live, and a page written for a general reader cannot tell you whether you are inside a rule or inside its exception.
If you or a child are in immediate danger, call 911.
This website is not an emergency service. Enquiries sent through a form here are read during business hours and a reply may take up to one business day.
Open at all hours:
Assaulted Women’s Helpline 1-866-863-0511
Talk4Healing 1-855-554-4325
Kids Help Phone 1-800-668-6868
Using this website, submitting a form, sending an email or speaking to us on the telephone does not make us your lawyers. That relationship arises only when the firm has confirmed in writing that it has agreed to act, a conflict search has been completed, and a retainer has been signed.
Do not send confidential or sensitive information through this website or by email until we have confirmed in writing that we can act for you. Information sent before that point is not treated as confidential and may prevent us from acting for you, or for someone else, in a connected matter.
We aim to reply within one business day. Contacting us does not guarantee a reply within any particular period, does not oblige the firm to act, and does not stop, extend or satisfy any limitation period, filing date or court deadline.
Our line is answered 24 hours a day, every day of the year. Outside office hours calls are taken by our intake service, who record your details and pass them to the firm. A lawyer responds during the next business day, or sooner if the matter is urgent. Answering the telephone is not the same as giving legal advice, and no relationship arises from that call.
Lexaltico LLP is regulated by the Law Society of Ontario under the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8. All lawyers practising in Ontario through the firm are members in good standing.
Alberta matters are handled by lawyers licensed with, and in good standing with, the Law Society of Alberta. A lawyer licensed in Ontario is not thereby licensed in Alberta, and the reverse is also true.
Immigration consulting is provided by Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultants in good standing with the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants under the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act, S.C. 2019, c. 29, s. 292.
Not everyone at the firm is a lawyer.
Each page and biography states which applies. Ask at the outset who will handle your matter and under which licence.
We serve clients in thirteen languages. Every page of this website is written and published in English. Where anything is provided in another language, the English version governs in the event of a difference. If you need an interpreter, tell us when you book and we will arrange one.
The complimentary 15 minute initial assessment is a brief introductory conversation. It does not include a review of your documents and does not constitute legal advice.
The firm charges a fee for substantive consultations, including in civil litigation, criminal defence and immigration matters. The firm may waive that fee at its discretion. Any fee is disclosed in advance and credited in full toward your account if you retain the firm.
Where we refer a matter to another firm, including through LexKonnect, we comply with Rule 3.6-6.1 of the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Any referral fee is set out in the Law Society’s standard referral agreement, signed by you before the referral proceeds, and no fee is payable to us unless and until the receiving firm has been paid for its work. You are never obliged to accept a referral and are free to retain any firm you choose. No referral arrangement affects the independent professional judgment of any lawyer at this firm.
They produce estimates from what you type and cannot know the rest. They do not account for the terms of your contract, statutory exceptions, or the discretion a court will apply. Do not make a decision on a number produced by a calculator.
Any outcome described happened on its own facts, before its own decision maker, under the law as it stood at the time. Past results do not predict or guarantee the result of any other case.
Reviews shown here are written by third parties and published on platforms we do not control. Each describes one person’s experience of one matter. They are not a promise, a prediction or a guarantee about any other matter.
This site links to regulators, courts, government sources, professional associations and social platforms, all operated by others. We do not control them, we are not responsible for their content or accuracy, and a link is not an endorsement.
Failure to start a proceeding within the applicable limitation period may permanently bar your claim. In Ontario the general period is two years from discovery under the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B. Shorter periods apply to many claims. Seek advice promptly. Nothing on this website extends a limitation period.
We aim to meet the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and WCAG 2.1 Level AA. If any part of this site prevents you from reaching us, telephone +1 416 333 6200 or write to hello@lexaltico.com and we will provide the information in another format, at no charge.
Content on this website is © Lexaltico LLP. It may be read and printed for personal reference. It may not be reproduced, republished or used commercially without written permission.