Statement on the Federal Court’s Decision Regarding Public Interest Standing in the Medical Inadmissibility Challenge

We are deeply disappointed by the Federal Court’s decision dismissing the HIV Legal Network’s application (“motion”) for public interest standing in the constitutional challenge to Canada’s medical inadmissibility regime.

In February 2024, the HIV Legal Network joined RA, an international student living with HIV, in challenging section 38(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) – the “excessive demand” provision that allows Canada to deny people entry or stay because they or a family member have a disability or health condition. We argued the provisions violated section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality and freedom from discrimination to everyone in Canada. RA’s study permit renewal was refused on this basis, derailing his education and causing significant financial and emotional harm. As a public interest applicant, our aim was to make sure the government could no longer tell people they are “too costly” to belong.

The “excessive demand” provision rests on a flawed and stigmatizing assumption that people with disabilities or chronic health needs are an economic burden. In practice, it excludes people who contribute to Canada’s social, cultural, and economic life, and it forces many more into years of delay, financial strain, and stigma as they attempt to prove to the government that they are not an “excessive demand.” Meanwhile, no clear evidence shows that this provision produces any meaningful cost savings.

In September 2024, following a request by the government, the Federal Court struck the Legal Network as a public interest party – not because we failed to meet the legal test for public interest standing (i.e., a serious justiciable issue, a genuine interest, and a reasonable and effective means of bringing the challenge), but because the Court held that we could only add ourselves through a formal motion for public interest standing. In July 2025, we brought that motion, explaining why our participation was essential:

This challenge has broad implications. Section 38(1)(c) of IRPA causes significant harm to people with disabilities and health conditions, perpetuates stigma, and imposes barriers that undermine substantive equality.
We bring deep expertise. With decades of experience in HIV-related research, community engagement, and legal advocacy – including on immigration and medical inadmissibility – we are uniquely positioned to illuminate the systemic impacts of the “excessive demand” regime and contribute expert evidence that an individual litigant could not marshal alone.
Public interest participation is crucial for access to justice. Many people directly affected by discriminatory immigration laws cannot bear the burden of a lengthy constitutional challenge. Our role was to ensure the case proceeded on a full evidentiary record and that marginalized communities’ voices were represented.

In its November 2025 decision, the Federal Court declined to consider our motion on its merits. Instead, it held that the question of public interest standing had already been “decided” when the Legal Network was removed in September 2024, and that our renewed motion was barred by issue estoppel (a rule that prevents a court from reconsidering an issue it believes has already been finally decided). As a result, the merits of our public interest standing were never evaluated.

The outcome is troubling. Excluding a long-standing human-rights organization from litigation that directly concerns the communities we serve – without ever assessing why it should be included – undermines access to justice and weakens government accountability. Public interest participation is vital in cases where the people most affected face significant barriers to bringing constitutional litigation on their own.

RA’s ability to continue the Charter challenge is already in jeopardy. His circumstances have changed significantly since the case began, largely because the “excessive demand” finding pushed him to seek refugee protection. The government has already signaled that it will argue he can no longer continue the case because the provision no longer affects him as refugee claimants are exempt from s. 38(1)(c) of IRPA.

The HIV Legal Network remains firmly committed to ending the “excessive demand” regime and advancing the rights of people living with HIV and others harmed by discriminatory laws. We are actively assessing next steps and will continue to update our partners and communities as this work moves forward.