Case snapshot
At a glance
- Case
- Can a Removal Order Be Stayed in Canada? Ontario Immigration Law
- Court / Tribunal
- FC
- Date
- September 15, 2026
- Area of law
- Immigration Law
- Key issue
- Whether the applicant met the three-part RJR-MacDonald test — serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience — to obtain a stay of a removal order pending judicial review.
- Outcome
- The Federal Court dismissed the motion for a stay of removal, finding the applicant failed to establish a serious issue for judicial review and did not provide sufficiently precise evidence of irreparable harm.
- Why it matters
- This decision is a clear reminder that a stay of removal is an extraordinary remedy and that vague or speculative evidence — including brief psychological letters — will not meet the legal threshold courts require.
Legal principle
The rule from this case
To pause a removal order while a judicial review is pending, an applicant must satisfy all three parts of the RJR-MacDonald test. First, the underlying judicial review application must raise a serious issue — meaning it must be more than trivial or vexatious. Second, the applicant must show that removal would cause irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated later. Third, the balance of convenience must favour granting the stay. Courts treat a stay of removal as an extraordinary discretionary remedy. On the irreparable harm branch, vague assertions or brief professional letters that lack specific detail will not meet the required threshold. The applicant must produce credible, non-speculative evidence showing a strong probability of serious harm if removed. A general fear tied to personal circumstances — such as a family dispute or job loss — that does not meet the definitions of a refugee or protected person under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act will not satisfy this branch.
Important limits
What this does not mean
This decision does not mean that stays of removal are never granted, or that psychological evidence can never support an irreparable harm argument. Courts regularly accept detailed, precise professional evidence that explains the specific and serious consequences removal would cause. The problem here was a lack of that precision, not the type of evidence itself. The decision also does not change the law on what counts as a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation. It simply confirms that generalized risks — such as widespread violence in a country — do not qualify as personal risk under the established legal framework, and that an applicant's judicial review must raise a genuine legal question, not merely ask the court to re-weigh evidence that a decision-maker has already considered.
What Does It Take to Stop a Removal Order in Canada?
A stay of removal is a court order that pauses the government’s ability to remove someone from Canada while a legal challenge is underway. It is not automatic, and courts grant it only when a person clears a demanding three-part legal test. A recent Federal Court decision, Tanau c. Canada (Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté), 2026 CanLII 95857 (CF) (CanLII), illustrates exactly where these motions can fall short.
If you or someone you know is facing removal, understanding this test is the first step. Our Ontario immigration lawyers work with clients navigating removal proceedings and judicial review applications.
What Is the RJR-MacDonald Test for a Stay of Removal?
The RJR-MacDonald test is the legal framework Canadian courts use to decide whether to pause a government action while a case is being decided. For immigration removal orders, an applicant must satisfy all three branches: a serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience — and failing any one branch is enough to have the motion dismissed.
The serious issue branch asks whether the underlying judicial review raises a question that is more than trivial or vexatious. The irreparable harm branch asks whether removal would cause harm so serious that it cannot be fixed later — for example, by returning to Canada after winning the judicial review. The balance of convenience weighs the harm to the applicant against the public interest in enforcing immigration law.
What Counts as a “Serious Issue” in an Immigration Judicial Review?
A serious issue exists when the judicial review application raises a genuine legal question — not just a disagreement with how a decision-maker weighed the evidence. In this case, the court applied the principle from Adekola and found that the applicant’s challenge was essentially asking the court to re-evaluate the evidence rather than identify a legal error. That is not enough.
Under the Vavilov framework, courts reviewing administrative decisions look for reasonableness — whether the decision-maker’s reasoning was logical and justified. Simply arguing that a different conclusion was possible does not raise a serious issue. The application must point to a genuine flaw in the decision’s reasoning or a legal error.
Why Did the Psychological Evidence Fail to Prove Irreparable Harm?
Irreparable harm requires credible, specific, and non-speculative evidence showing a strong probability of serious harm upon removal. In this case, the applicant submitted a crisis intervention letter and an email from a psychologist, but the court found these documents lacked the precision needed to meet the legal threshold.
A brief letter that describes general distress or a professional’s concern without detailed, case-specific analysis of what removal would concretely cause does not satisfy the standard set out in cases like Thuraisingam, Glooscap, and Erhire. This does not mean psychological evidence is useless — it means it must be thorough, specific, and directly tied to the consequences of removal.
Can a Fear of a Family Member or Job Loss Support a Stay?
Generally, no — not on its own. The applicant in this case raised concerns tied to a fear of a family member and the prospect of losing employment. The court found these did not establish a personal future risk that would qualify under sections 96 or 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
Section 96 protects Convention refugees facing persecution based on grounds like race, religion, or political opinion. Section 97(1) protects people facing torture or a risk to life. Generalized risks — such as violence that affects a broad population — are excluded from protection under the Prophète line of cases. A personal dispute or economic hardship, without more, does not reach this threshold.
What Happens After a Stay Motion Is Refused?
When a stay is refused, the removal order can proceed. This does not necessarily end the underlying judicial review application, but the person may be removed before that application is heard. If the judicial review is ultimately successful, the person may have a right to return, but that process takes time and involves significant uncertainty.
For people in this situation, timing is critical. If you are facing a removal order and believe there are grounds to challenge the underlying decision, speaking with a lawyer as early as possible gives you the best chance to gather the right evidence and make the strongest arguments. Our judicial review team can help assess whether your situation supports a motion to stay.
Questions and Records to Discuss with a Lawyer
- What specific evidence do you have about the risk or harm you would face if removed, and how recent and detailed is it?
- Has a qualified professional prepared a report — not just a brief letter — that explains the specific consequences of your removal?
- Does your judicial review application identify a legal error in the decision, or does it mainly argue the decision-maker reached the wrong conclusion?
- What is the timeline for your removal, and when was your judicial review application filed?
- Are there any country condition documents or personal evidence that specifically address your situation rather than general risks in your home country?
If you are facing a removal order or have questions about a judicial review application, the team at UL Lawyers is available to discuss your circumstances. Reach out through our contact page to start the conversation. We serve clients across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, including those seeking immigration help in Hamilton and surrounding communities.
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.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
A stay of removal is temporary and typically lasts until the underlying judicial review application is decided by the Federal Court. If the judicial review is dismissed, the stay ends and removal can proceed.
Courts require credible, specific, and non-speculative evidence — such as a detailed professional report — showing a strong probability of serious harm if you are removed. Vague letters or general statements of distress are usually not enough.
Yes, you can bring a motion to stay removal while you seek judicial review of a refused refugee claim, but you must satisfy all three parts of the RJR-MacDonald test. Many motions fail because applicants cannot show a serious issue or irreparable harm on the evidence available.