Last week, a federal judge reopened the deportation case of the Bellissimo family, offering a glimmer of hope after their seven-year battle to remain in Canada.
“When I got the call from our lawyer, I couldn’t stop crying,” said Maria Bellissimo, sitting at her kitchen table in Hamilton, Ontario. “After so many rejections, someone finally listened.”
The Bellissimos arrived from Naples in 2017 on visitor visas. They applied for permanent residency on humanitarian and compassionate grounds after their youngest son, now 12, was diagnosed with a rare neurological condition that requires specialized care unavailable in their home region of Italy.
Justice Sandra Wilkinson of the Federal Court ruled that immigration officials failed to adequately consider the best interests of the child when rejecting the family’s application last year. She ordered Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to reassess the case with a different officer.
“The decision-maker gave only cursory consideration to the child’s medical needs and support system established in Canada,” Justice Wilkinson wrote in her 28-page decision. “This falls short of the thorough and empathetic analysis required.”
I reviewed court documents showing the family’s previous application included letters from three specialists at McMaster Children’s Hospital who confirmed interrupting the boy’s treatment could cause significant regression in his condition.
Canadian immigration law requires officers to consider humanitarian factors, including the best interests of any children affected. However, the process leaves considerable discretion to individual decision-makers, according to immigration lawyer Chantal Desloges.
“These cases often come down to how thoroughly an officer weighs competing factors,” Desloges explained. “The humanitarian and compassionate grounds application is essentially asking Canada to make an exception to normal immigration rules.”
Data from IRCC shows that about 60% of humanitarian and compassionate applications were rejected in 2023, with processing times averaging 31 months.
The Bellissimo case highlights ongoing tensions in Canada’s immigration system between strict enforcement of regulations and flexibility for exceptional circumstances. Last year, the Canada Border Services Agency conducted over 9,100 removals, the highest number since before the pandemic.
Francesco Bellissimo, 46, found work as an auto mechanic in Hamilton, while Maria, 43, became a personal support worker at a long-term care facility during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their older children, now 19 and 17, have integrated into Canadian schools and speak fluent English.
“My oldest daughter got accepted to Mohawk College for nursing,” Francesco said. “Now she might actually get to go.”
The family’s lawyer, Michael Greene, emphasized that the court’s decision doesn’t guarantee they can stay permanently. “This gives them another chance at a fair assessment, but the outcome remains uncertain,” he cautioned.
The court ruling criticized immigration officials for dismissing evidence of the family’s integration and their youngest son’s established medical support network. Justice Wilkinson noted that the decision-maker acknowledged the child’s condition but failed to meaningfully analyze how deportation would affect his health and development.
Several community organizations have rallied behind the family. The Hamilton Community Legal Clinic helped prepare documentation, while the local Italian-Canadian community organized fundraisers to cover legal costs exceeding $30,000.
“This family represents exactly the kind of people Canada should welcome,” said Father Marco Testa of St. Anthony’s Church, where the Bellissimos attend services. “They work hard, contribute to our community, and ask only for compassion for their child’s medical needs.”
While the case proceeds, the family remains under a temporary stay of removal. IRCC has 90 days to reassess their application with a different officer who must follow the court’s guidance to thoroughly consider all humanitarian factors.
Immigration policy experts note that such cases illustrate the challenges in balancing enforcement priorities with humanitarian considerations.
“The system is designed to be selective,” explained Dr. Audrey Macklin, professor of law at the University of Toronto. “But it must also recognize genuine humanitarian circumstances where deportation would cause disproportionate hardship.”
For now, the Bellissimos continue their daily routines while awaiting a decision that will determine their future. Their youngest son attends therapy sessions three times weekly, while the parents work opposite shifts to ensure childcare.
“We just want what all parents want – the best care for our children,” Maria said. “Canada has become our home. We only hope we can stay.”
