David and Sophie Barlagne with daughter Rachel. (Family photo)

A French family that has been denied permanent residence in Canada because of a child's handicap will have to wait a bit longer to know their fate.

Federal Court Judge Johanne Gauthier announced at a hearing Tuesday in Montreal that she has reserved decision on whether Immigration Canada's ruling against the Barlagne family should be reconsidered.

The two-hour hearing focused on whether David Barlagne has sufficient money to pay for his daughter's care.

Barlagne and his wife Sophie moved to Montreal from the French island of Guadeloupe five years ago with their handicapped daughter and another child. Barlagne said officials at the Canadian Embassy in Paris granted him a temporary work permit after convincing him Canada was a great location for his software development business.

He said he was also told his daughter Rachel would be welcome in Montreal. The girl, now seven years old, has cerebral palsy and requires specialized care.

Excessive burden?

But when the Barlagnes applied to stay permanently in Canada, their bid was rejected on the grounds that Rachel's care would create an excessive burden on health and social services.

Rachel's care would cost the system $5,259 per year, said the Barlagnes' lawyer, Stéphane Minson.

Barlagne has maintained he is willing to pay for his daughter's care.

A federal government lawyer argued Tuesday that the financial documents Barlagne submitted don't prove he has the means to do that. Government lawyer Michele Joubert said immigration officials weren't satisfied that Barlagne had the money to pay for his daughter's care, which includes regular speech therapy and physiotherapy.

"I have provided all the information that was required in my file," Barlagne said after Tuesday's hearing. He said he didn't want to say more, now that the decision on whether to reopen his immigration case rests with Judge Gauthier.

Lawyer sees wider issue

Minson said there is a bigger issue at stake — one that goes beyond the factual arguments of the Federal Court case.

'This is a kid. And I would like to hear from the government that they protect the kids, wherever they come from.'—Family lawyer Stéphane Minson

"It was just a debate regarding cost," the family lawyer said. "This is a kid. And I would like to hear from the government that they protect the kids, wherever they come from," he said. "This is what I'm expecting — not debating with numbers whether or not she is costly."

Minson argued at the hearing that the immigration agent handling Barlagne's case did not adequately consider the entrepreneur's financial capacity.

Minson said that if the court decides to reopen Barlagne's case, it will go to a new immigration officer, but there is no guarantee the family won't be turned down again, for the identical reason. He said the family might have to appeal to the immigration minister to be allowed to stay on humanitarian grounds.

Minson said the immigration agency ignored a 2005 Supreme Court decision that immigrants should be allowed to stay in Canada if they can guarantee they can pay the costs of an illness or disability.

Lawyers representing the federal government retorted that Barlagne submitted vague details about revenues from his business and had no evidence of Canadian bank accounts or savings.