Can a Medical Condition Stop Deportation in Ontario?

Can a chronic illness stop your removal from Canada?

A chronic illness alone is not enough to pause a Canadian removal order. The Federal Court made this clear in Oko-Oboh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 113244 (FC) (CanLII), when Justice Andrew D. Little dismissed a stay of removal motion brought by a person managing diabetes and a shoulder condition.

The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, was scheduled to be removed on October 27, 2026. He had asked an officer to defer his removal so he could complete an orthopedic assessment of his shoulder, and the officer refused on October 23, 2026. He then asked the Federal Court to stay his removal while it considered his application for leave and judicial review of that deferral refusal. The motion was heard by videoconference on October 26, 2026.

If you or someone you know is facing removal and relies on ongoing medical care, understanding what courts actually require is essential.

What is a stay of removal and how do you get one?

A stay of removal is a court order that temporarily pauses enforcement of a removal order while a legal challenge is decided. To obtain one, the person seeking the stay must satisfy a three-part test drawn from Toth v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) and RJR-MacDonald Inc. v Canada (Attorney General):

1. There must be a serious issue with the underlying immigration decision.
2. The person must face irreparable harm if removed before the issue is resolved.
3. The balance of convenience — weighing the harm to the individual against the public interest — must favour granting the stay.

All three parts must be satisfied. Failing any one of them means the motion is dismissed.

What counts as irreparable harm in a removal case?

Irreparable harm means harm that cannot be undone or adequately compensated after the fact — not simply hardship or disruption. In this case, the court found that the applicant’s diabetes and shoulder condition were chronic but not an emergency, and he alleged no risk to his life, security or safety. The deferral was sought for an orthopedic assessment, not a procedure for a diagnosed life-threatening condition; no appointment had been scheduled and there was no evidence of a timeframe for it. The court gave little or no weight to the physician’s letters, and noted there was no evidence that the applicant could not get an orthopedic assessment in Nigeria. References to past anxiety and depression were not supported by medical opinion evidence.

The court’s reasoning was straightforward: describing a condition as chronic does not, by itself, establish that removal will cause harm that is truly irreparable. A “lost medical opportunity” argument — the idea that removal will interrupt or reduce access to treatment — requires concrete evidence, not a general assumption that healthcare abroad will be inadequate.

Does the public interest affect a stay of removal motion?

Yes, and significantly. Even where some harm to the applicant exists, the court must weigh that against the public interest in enforcing removal orders. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, subsection 48(2), removal orders must be enforced as soon as reasonably practicable.

The court in this case treated the integrity of the immigration system and public confidence in it as legitimate factors. The applicant had a history of criminal convictions in Canada and had re-entered Canada without authorization in 2022, and the court found that the balance of harms favoured the public interest in enforcing the removal order.

How does the court review the underlying immigration decision?

The first stage of the test asks whether the underlying application for leave and judicial review raises a serious issue. Usually that only means the application is not frivolous or vexatious. But where the decision under review is an officer’s refusal to defer removal, the court takes a closer look at the merits and asks whether the applicant is likely to succeed or has “quite a strong case”, citing Slepcsik v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FCA 137 and Baron v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81.

In this case, the court did not need to decide whether the deferral refusal raised a serious issue, because the applicant failed the irreparable harm and balance of harms stages. Because the test is conjunctive, failing any one stage ends the motion. Our Ontario immigration lawyers regularly advise clients on what evidence is needed at each stage of this process.

What evidence do you need to support a medical stay of removal?

Evidence matters enormously. General statements about a medical condition or vague concerns about healthcare quality in another country are unlikely to be enough. Courts look for:

• Medical documentation confirming the nature and severity of the condition
• Evidence that specific treatment is unavailable or inaccessible in the country of removal
• A clear connection between removal and a concrete, irreversible harm to health

Without that kind of specific, individualized evidence, a “lost medical opportunity” argument will face an uphill battle. If you are considering a stay of removal motion, speaking with a lawyer who handles judicial review applications can help you assess what evidence you would need to gather.

Questions and records to discuss with a lawyer

• What medical records do you have documenting your diagnosis, treatment history, and prognosis?
• Has a physician provided a written opinion about what would happen to your health if treatment were interrupted?
• Is there country condition evidence about the availability of your specific treatment in your country of origin?
• What stage is your underlying immigration application or judicial review at, and what timelines apply?
• Have you received a formal removal date, and how much time remains before enforcement?

If you have questions about a removal order or a stay of removal motion, the team at UL Lawyers is available to discuss your circumstances — reach out through /connect.

---

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.