The Federal Court of Canada can provide interlocutory stays, including staying removal. There is a three-stage test to be applied when considering an application for an interlocutory injunction. A court must determine that there is a serious issue or question to be tried, that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were to be refused, and that the balance of convenience (assessed by examining which of the parties will suffer the greater harm from granting or refusing the injunction) rests with the applicant. As well, it is important to note that a stay of removal is an equitable remedy that is typically only available to an individual who has not committed an inequity. Overall Guidance In Slepcsik v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FCA 137, the Federal Court of Appeal wrote: [1] For the vast and overwhelming majority of those who are returned to their country of citizenship, removal from Canada is immensely stressful, anxiety-provoking, deeply sad, and heartbreaking. One loses their job or abandons their studies, and all health and social benefits cease. It involves enforced separation from loved ones and friends, along with being torn from the stability and comfort one may have known while in Canada. To think otherwise would … Read More
Staying Removal at the IAD
People issued removal orders often want to know how long they can stay in Canada before they have to leave, and if there is a chance to defer removal.
Applying for a Stay of Removal in Superior Court
Generally, if an applicant in Canada whose request to the Canada Border Services Agency to defer removal is unsuccessful, and the individual then wants to obtain a judicial stay of removal, the appropriate forum is the Federal Court of Canada. In Anthonipillai v. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2013 ONSC 1231, the appellant unsuccessfully sought a stay of removal in Federal Court. He then took the rather novel approaching of trying again in Ontario Superior Court (the “ONSJ“). In dismissing the application, the ONSJ noted that the Supreme Court of Canada has declared that Canada’s Parliament has created a “comprehensive scheme for the review of immigration matters, with the Federal Court as an effective and appropriate forum.” Justice Goldstein also found that Federal Court judges are better equipped than provincial court justices to deal with the complex area of immigration law, as Federal Court judges deal with immigration issues on a daily basis. As such, unless an applicant raises a constitutional matter, the Federal Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue remedies regarding the decisions of visa and border officers. Even where there is a constitutional issue, a provincial or superior court is unlikely to rule favourably with an … Read More