In medical examination, my 11 month old son is not able to speak the proper words. And doctor give us one week time to take a video in which he speak proper words...
Frankly speaking, he is not able to speak a lot, but not proper word. Is it create any adverse effect in medical examination of my son?
Your quick and genuine reply is appreciated
A38(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states:
Health Grounds
• 38(1) A foreign national is inadmissible on health grounds if their health condition
(a) is likely to be a danger to public health;
(b) is likely to be a danger to public safety; or
(c) might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services.
If the applicant suffers from any medical condition, which is likely to place excessive demand on health and social services, will render the applicant medically inadmissible.
Section 1 of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations(IRPR) defines “excessive demand” as
- a demand on health services or social services for which the anticipated costs would likely exceed average Canadian per capita health services and social services costs over a period of five consecutive years immediately following the most recent medical examination required under paragraph 16(2)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), unless there is evidence that significant costs are likely to be incurred beyond that period, in which case the period is no more than 10 consecutive years; or
- a demand on health services or social services that would add to existing waiting lists and would increase the rate of mortality and morbidity in Canada as a result of an inability to provide timely services to Canadian citizens or permanent residents.
6.3.1 Excessive demand on Health services
Section R1 defines “health services” as any health services for which the majority of funds are contributed by governments, including the services of family physicians, medical specialists, nurses, chiropractors and physiotherapists, laboratory services and the supply of pharmaceutical or hospital care. The case law has developed separate requirements for excessive demand on health services and excessive demand on social services. Since most health services are publicly funded, without any cost-recovery mechanism, the courts have held that an applicant’s willingness or ability to pay is not a relevant factor. In
Deol v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2002 FCA 271, the Federal Court of Appeal said:
“The Minister has no power to admit a person as a permanent resident on the condition that the person either does not make a claim on the health insurance plans in the provinces or promises to reimburse the costs of any services required.”
However, in
Companioni v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2009 FC 1315 and later cases, the Federal Court allowed some flexibility in assessing the applicant’s ability to defray the costs of outpatient medication, such as HIV antiretroviral therapy. Therefore, medical officers have to make an individualized assessment of the medical file, the required outpatient medication, the availability of private insurance and the ability to opt out of publicly funded drug plans in the province or territory where the applicant intends to reside.
6.3.2 Excessive demand on Health services
Section R1 defines “social services” as any social services, such as home care, specialized residence and residential services, special education services, social and vocational rehabilitation services, personal support services and the provision of devices related to those services,
- that are intended to assist a person in functioning physically, emotionally, socially, psychologically or vocationally; and
- for which the majority of the funding, including funding that provides direct or indirect financial support to an assisted person, is contributed by governments, either directly or through publicly-funded agencies.
In light of the Supreme Court decision in
Hilewitz v. Canada (M.C.I.), De Jong v. Canada (M.C.I.) 2005 SCC 57, and subsequently the Federal Court of Appeal decision in
Colaco v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2007 FCA 282, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) officers must consider all evidence presented by an applicant before making a decision of inadmissibility due to excessive demand on social services. The judgments apply to
all categories of immigrants.
In
Hilewitz and
De Jong, the Supreme Court determined that all applicants are entitled to an assessment of the probabledemand their disability or impairment might place on social services. The applicant is required to provide the officer with information of sufficient quality and detail to permit an assessment of the probable need for social services. In addition, the applicant may provide evidence of ability and intent to reduce the cost and impact on Canadian social services, and this would have to be considered in making a decision.
