Can a Deportation Be Stopped Before a Judicial Review in Canada?

Can a Deportation Order Be Paused While You Wait for a Court Decision?

Yes — but only if you meet a demanding three-part legal test. A removal order does not automatically stop just because you have filed an application for judicial review. You must bring a separate motion asking the Federal Court to grant a stay, and you must satisfy the court on all three required elements.

The Federal Court’s decision in Luyimbazi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 101859 (FC) (CanLII), is a useful illustration of how that test plays out in practice — particularly when a refugee claim has been dismissed as “manifestly unfounded.”

What Is the Legal Test for a Stay of Removal in Canada?

The test comes from a long-standing case called Toth v Canada and has three parts that must all be satisfied. First, the applicant must show there is a “serious issue” — meaning the judicial review application is not frivolous or vexatious. Second, the applicant must demonstrate “irreparable harm” — that removal before the court decides the matter would cause damage that cannot be undone. Third, the balance of convenience must favour granting the stay, weighing the applicant’s personal situation against the government’s duty to enforce removal orders.

All three parts are conjunctive. Courts are clear: if any single element is not established, the stay motion fails. This is why preparation and evidence matter enormously at this stage.

What Does “Manifestly Unfounded” Mean for a Refugee Claim?

A “manifestly unfounded” finding under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is one of the most serious outcomes at the Refugee Protection Division. It signals that the decision-maker considered the claim to be clearly fraudulent — not merely unsuccessful, but fundamentally lacking in credibility or basis.

In this case, the applicant challenged whether that label was properly applied. The court found that concerns about interpreter reliability during the hearing, along with how certain documents were assessed, raised genuine questions about the fairness of the process. That was enough to clear the “serious issue” threshold — not to win the judicial review, but to show it deserved a proper hearing.

What Counts as Irreparable Harm Before a Judicial Review?

Irreparable harm means more than inconvenience or disruption — it means harm that cannot be adequately compensated or reversed after the fact. In removal cases, the clearest form of irreparable harm is when deportation would make the judicial review pointless.

The court relied on the principle established in Matthew v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration): if a person is removed before their application is decided, the proceeding may become effectively moot. Combined with evidence of personal risk in the country of removal under section 97 of the IRPA, the court found irreparable harm was made out. This is a critical point — risk of harm in the destination country is central to this analysis, not just procedural inconvenience.

How Does the Balance of Convenience Work in Removal Cases?

The balance of convenience asks the court to weigh the harm to the applicant if the stay is refused against the harm to the public interest if it is granted. The government’s interest is real: section 48(2) of the IRPA imposes a legal duty to enforce removal orders as soon as practicable.

Here, the court found that the personal risks the applicant faced if removed outweighed the enforcement interest. This does not mean the government’s position was dismissed — it means the specific facts tipped the scale. Each case turns on its own evidence, and courts treat this as a genuine balancing exercise, not a formality.

Does Filing a Judicial Review Automatically Stop Your Removal?

No — this is one of the most common misunderstandings in immigration law. Filing an application for leave and judicial review does not pause a removal order. You must separately and urgently bring a stay motion, and you must do so before your scheduled removal date.

Timing is critical. If removal happens before the stay is heard, the court may have nothing left to decide. Our Ontario immigration lawyers regularly assist clients who need to act quickly when a removal date is imminent.

What If Your Refugee Claim Was Refused on Credibility Grounds?

A credibility-based refusal — including a “manifestly unfounded” finding — does not automatically close the door to judicial review. Courts will examine whether the decision-maker applied the right legal standard, whether procedural fairness was respected, and whether the reasoning holds up to scrutiny.

Issues like interpreter quality during a hearing are taken seriously. If there are genuine concerns about how the hearing was conducted, those concerns may support a serious issue argument. Anyone in this situation should explore their options with a lawyer who handles judicial review applications before assuming all avenues are exhausted.

Questions and Records to Discuss with a Lawyer

• What is your scheduled removal date, and how much time remains to bring a stay motion?
• Do you have documentation of any problems during your refugee hearing, such as interpreter difficulties or disputed documents?
• What evidence exists of personal risk or harm in the country to which you would be removed?
• Has your judicial review application already been filed, and has leave been sought?
• Are there any other pending applications — such as a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment or Humanitarian and Compassionate application — that may be relevant to your situation?

If you are facing removal and have questions about your options, you are welcome to reach out to UL Lawyers through /connect to discuss your specific circumstances.

---

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.