Can a Deportation Be Stayed Pending Judicial Review in Canada?

What Is a Stay of Removal and How Does It Work?

A stay of removal is a court order that temporarily pauses a deportation while a legal challenge is being decided. Without a stay, immigration authorities can carry out a removal order even if a judicial review application has been filed — filing the application alone does not automatically stop the deportation clock. A stay gives the Federal Court time to hear the underlying legal challenge before the person is physically removed from Canada.

In Magyar-Turo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 77679 (FC), the Federal Court considered exactly this situation: whether removal should be paused while a judicial review proceeded. The court’s analysis provides a clear illustration of how Canadian courts approach these urgent, high-stakes motions.

What Legal Test Must Be Met to Get a Stay of Removal?

To obtain a stay of removal, an applicant must satisfy all three parts of a well-established legal test. First, the underlying judicial review must raise a serious issue — not a frivolous or clearly hopeless argument, but a genuine legal question worth examining. Second, the applicant must show that they would suffer irreparable harm if removed before the review is decided. Third, the balance of convenience must favour granting the stay, meaning the harm to the applicant from being removed outweighs any inconvenience to the government from delaying the removal.

These three elements are assessed together. A particularly compelling showing on one factor can strengthen the overall case, even if another factor is closer to the line. Courts do not apply the test mechanically — they look at the full picture of what is at stake.

What Counts as Irreparable Harm in a Deportation Case?

Irreparable harm means harm that cannot be adequately compensated or undone after the fact. In the removal context, the clearest example is physical removal itself: once a person has been deported, reversing that removal — even after a successful judicial review — is practically very difficult. A person may lose employment, housing, family relationships, and access to legal proceedings in Canada, all of which are difficult or impossible to restore.

Vague or general fears are not enough. Courts expect applicants to point to specific, concrete risks tied to their personal circumstances. This might include risks upon return to a country of origin, the disruption of established family life in Canada, or the collapse of a pending legal process that depends on the applicant’s presence here.

What Does ‘Balance of Convenience’ Mean in This Context?

The balance of convenience asks which side would suffer more if the court gets the decision wrong. If a stay is wrongly refused and the person is deported, the harm may be permanent and severe. If a stay is wrongly granted and the person remains in Canada a little longer, the government’s interest in enforcing removal orders is delayed — but the situation can ultimately be corrected once the judicial review is decided.

In most removal cases involving genuine legal questions, this asymmetry tends to favour the applicant. Canadian courts have consistently recognized that the consequences of an erroneous deportation are far harder to fix than the consequences of a brief delay in enforcement.

Does Filing a Judicial Review Automatically Stop a Deportation?

No — filing a judicial review application does not automatically pause a removal order. This is one of the most important and misunderstood points in Canadian immigration law. An applicant must bring a separate, urgent motion for a stay of removal and convince the court to grant it. If no stay is sought, or if the motion is dismissed, immigration authorities can proceed with removal even while the judicial review is pending.

This means timing is critical. Stay motions are often heard on very short notice, sometimes within days of a scheduled removal. Anyone facing imminent deportation who believes their removal order is legally flawed should seek legal advice immediately — delays can be fatal to the ability to bring a stay motion at all.

Practical Takeaways for People Facing Removal from Canada

• Filing a judicial review is not enough on its own. You must also bring a separate stay motion to pause your removal while the review proceeds.
• Act immediately. Stay motions are time-sensitive and courts expect them to be brought as soon as a removal date is known. Waiting even a few days can close the window.
• Evidence matters. You need specific, concrete evidence of irreparable harm — not just a general fear of returning to your country. Gather documentation early.
• All three parts of the test must be addressed. A strong argument on one element does not excuse a weak showing on another. Prepare submissions on the serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.
• A stay is temporary. Winning a stay buys time for the judicial review — it does not resolve your immigration status. Understand what comes next and plan accordingly.

Our Ontario immigration lawyers can advise you on whether a stay motion is appropriate in your situation and help you move quickly when time is short. If you are in the Hamilton or Burlington area and facing an urgent removal matter, our team is familiar with the Federal Court process and the tight timelines involved. You can also learn more about the judicial review process and how it intersects with stay motions.

UL Lawyers offers a free initial consultation from our Burlington office and serves clients across Ontario. If you or someone you know is facing removal from Canada, reach out to our immigration law team to discuss your options before time runs out.

---

This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.