Hilewitz v Canada Case Brief

Mr. Hilewitz had a son known as Gavin, who was the victim suffering from improper interpretation of Section 19(1) (a) (ii) of the Immigration Act of Canada. 1 The applicant, Hilewitz had applied for a Canadian permanent residence, in other words he sought to get the citizenship of Canada by registration. This case brief will be majorly discussing on the decisions and analysis of the Court of Canada in determining this sensitive matter, and whether the court in its ratio recidendi was legally correct to hold the position they did for disabled persons like Gavin. Summary of the Case Background to the case The main parties to this case are Mr. The Supreme Court held that the Visa officers were wrong in making such a decision and therefore the applicants’ prayers were granted and the daughter admitted to private schools which did not rely on the public funded special education.

Facts Mr. David Hilewitz was a South African citizen, and a family man. Sometimes in 2005, Hilewitz decided to acquire a permanent resident in Canada and had to move with his family. However, he had a son known as Gavin, who was intellectually disabled. The court considered that a disabled immigrant like Gavin was not going to excessively use the social services of the disabled persons in Canada since the parents were willing to grant him a private school and guaranteed to find him a job. Therefore, the medical officer involved who reported of his disability gave a wrong report that cannot fall under the meaning of Section 19(1)(a)(ii) of the Immigration Act. The court also relied on the case of De Jong v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2005 SCC 57.