[Pity poor Canada. We have one of the highest acceptance rates for people who sneak into Canada and claim “refugee” status. Nevertheless, occasionally a particular egregious scammer or liar is denied. In steps our federal court, packed with judicial activists and social justice warriors may of them appointed by Justin Trudeau. Case in point is Ezzat Fahs, “an 81-year-old Lebanese man with dementia who obtained refugee status in Canada “on the basis of threats from terrorist organizations” in his homeland, then lost it for returning to Lebanon five times to visit his sick and dying siblings and to attend their funerals, has won another shot at staying in this country.” That should be it: he returned five times to the land he claimed he fled as a “refugee”? Nonsense. His claim is bogus. Oh, yes, he’s suffering from dementia to boot. What a prize for the Canadian taxpayer. Then, in steps Federal Court Justice Lobat Sadrehashemi. I’ll bet she wasn’t born in Cape Breton (Iran, actually). He decides that faker Fahs may be legit after all and has sent the case back for a review.]
Man who lost refugee status gets new chance
Returned to Lebanon on five occasions
An 81-year-old Lebanese man with dementia who obtained refugee status in Canada “on the basis of threats from terrorist organizations” in his homeland, then lost it for returning to Lebanon five times to visit his sick and dying siblings and to attend their funerals, has won another shot at staying in this country.
Ezzat Fahs, who holds Lebanese citizenship, obtained refugee protection in Canada about 14 years ago, according to a recent Federal Court decision regarding his case.
“Since he obtained permanent resident status in 2017, Mr. Fahs returned to Lebanon on five occasions,” said the June 11 decision out of Ottawa.
Immigration Minister Lena Diab “brought an application for cessation of his Convention Refugee status” to Canada’s Refugee Protection Division (RPD), which allowed it, and found Fahs “voluntarily reavailed himself of the protection of Lebanon,” said the decision.
“Ultimately, the RPD found that the three elements of the cessation test were met: Mr. Fahs acted voluntarily, intended to re-avail himself of Lebanon’s protection and actually obtained such protection,” said the decision.
Fahs started showing “early signs of dementia” in 2012, according to his doctor.
“The RPD found that the medical evidence did not establish that Mr. Fahs was unaware of the consequences of his decision to travel to Lebanon because of his medical condition. The RPD also found that Mr. Fahs took minimal safety precautions that did not demonstrate that he was living in hiding while in Lebanon.”
It acknowledged that Fahs “travelled by car with a family member directly from the airport to his family’s home in the south of Lebanon and that he would cover his face with a scarf,” said the decision.
It concluded “the totality of the evidence before it demonstrates that while (Fahs) may have been making minimal efforts to conceal his identity, they do not amount to him being in hiding.”
That analysis contains “two significant problems,” wrote Federal Court Justice Lobat Sadrehashemi, who ordered the decision to be reviewed.
“First, the RPD required that Mr. Fahs demonstrate that the efforts he took amounted to living in hiding. This is not the requirement,” said the judge.
“Similarly, the RPD erred by requiring (Fahs) to have been ‘in hiding’ during (his) travels.”
The “relevant consideration,” Sadrehashemi said, is whether he took any precautionary measures while in Lebanon.
The RPD failed, “to consider the impact of the totality of the evidence about the precautionary measures taken by Mr. Fahs and instead focused on the binary question of whether these actions amounted to living in hiding,” said the judge. “This is a sufficient basis on which to set aside the decision.” (National Post, June 18, 2026)