Case snapshot
At a glance
- Case
- Can a Call From a Foreign High Commission Stop a Removal From Canada?
- Court / Tribunal
- FC
- Citation
- 2026 CanLII 108993 (FC) ↗
- Date
- October 16, 2026
- Area of law
- Immigration Law
- Key issue
- Whether the Federal Court should stay a removal to Sri Lanka scheduled for October 27, 2026, pending the applicant's application for leave and judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment dated May 12, 2026.
- Outcome
- The stay motion was dismissed. The Court found a serious issue, but held that the applicant had not shown irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the Minister.
- Why it matters
- The order shows that new evidence filed on a stay motion must point to a real, personal risk. Evidence that a returnee may be questioned for another reason, such as how they travelled, will not establish irreparable harm on its own.
Legal principle
The rule from this case
A stay of removal requires a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm if the person is removed, and a balance of convenience in the applicant's favour. The test is conjunctive, so failing any part is fatal. Irreparable harm must be shown by clear, convincing and non-speculative evidence at a convincing level of particularity, demonstrating a real probability of unavoidable harm; possibilities, assumptions and hypotheticals are not enough. The Court also repeated that a pending judicial review does not, on its own, amount to irreparable harm, and that a risk already assessed and rejected cannot be raised again without more. Because a stay interferes with the duty in section 48 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to enforce removal orders as soon as possible, it is an exceptional remedy.
Important limits
What this does not mean
This order does not decide whether the PRRA decision was right. The Court found the applicant raised a serious issue about the officer's approach, and the judicial review itself was not decided. The motion failed on the evidence of harm filed for the stay. It also does not mean that Tamil applicants, or contact from a foreign government, can never support a stay. The Court relied on the specific record: the call concerned a diplomatic passport, the applicant had no criminal record, and the country evidence before the Court indicated that authorities focus on high-profile political figures, activists, former LTTE cadres and militant diaspora.
What Does It Take to Get a Stay of Removal in Canada?
A stay of removal is an exceptional court order that pauses a removal while a legal challenge is pending. To obtain one, an applicant must satisfy all three parts of a legal test: a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm if the stay is refused, and a balance of convenience that favours granting the stay. Failing any one part means the motion is dismissed.
Justice Régimbald of the Federal Court applied this framework in Subramaniyam v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 CanLII 108993 (FC), a case involving a Tamil applicant who sought to pause his removal to Sri Lanka while he pursued a judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA).
What Is a PRRA and Why Does It Matter?
A PRRA — Pre-Removal Risk Assessment — is a process that allows people facing removal from Canada to ask an officer to assess whether they face risks such as persecution, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment if returned to their home country. A negative PRRA decision means the officer found the risks did not meet the legal threshold, and removal can proceed.
If someone believes the PRRA officer made a legal error, they can apply for judicial review at the Federal Court. But applying for judicial review does not automatically stop removal — that requires a separate stay motion, which is where this case focused.
Did the Court Find Any Legal Problems With the PRRA Decision?
Yes — the court found a serious issue existed, which is the first part of the test. The applicant argued that the PRRA officer applied the wrong legal standard by requiring risk evidence to be both personalized and forward-looking, and that the officer’s written reasons were not intelligible and contained veiled credibility findings. The court accepted that these arguments raised a genuine legal question worth examining on judicial review.
Finding a serious issue, however, is only the beginning. The threshold for this part of the test is relatively low — it is not a full assessment of whether the applicant will ultimately succeed. The harder parts of the test are irreparable harm and the balance of convenience.
What Is Irreparable Harm and Why Was It Not Proven Here?
On a stay motion, irreparable harm means a serious likelihood of jeopardy to life, security or safety, beyond the normal consequences of removal, before the judicial review is decided. The evidence must be clear, convincing and non-speculative.
The Court first noted two settled points. Being removed before a judicial review is decided is not, on its own, irreparable harm. And a risk already assessed and rejected by the PRRA officer cannot be raised again without more.
The applicant did file something new. On August 12, 2026, he received a phone call from the Sri Lanka High Commission in Ottawa asking whether he had left Sri Lanka on a diplomatic passport. He said yes, and was told to be prepared to answer questions about it on arrival. He argued this showed he would be detained and mistreated as a Tamil man perceived to support the LTTE.
Justice Régimbald disagreed. The applicant’s own country evidence indicated that returnees may be questioned about forged documents and could face a fine, but are unlikely to face further consequences unless they have a criminal record or are suspected of terrorism. The applicant had no criminal record, and the PRRA officer had found he was not an LTTE member or supporter with a profile the authorities target. The Court accepted he might be questioned on return, but found that appeared to relate to the diplomatic passport, not his ethnicity or a perceived LTTE link. The rest of his harm arguments amounted to possibilities and speculation.
How Did the Balance of Convenience Play Out?
The balance of convenience asks whose interests are more seriously affected — the applicant’s if the stay is refused, or the public’s if it is granted. Having found no irreparable harm, the court weighed the applicant’s situation against the Minister’s statutory duty under section 48 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to enforce removal orders “as soon as possible.”
The court found the balance favoured the Minister. The integrity, fairness and public confidence in Canada’s immigration and refugee protection system supported allowing the removal to proceed.
Why Is a Stay of Removal Considered an Exceptional Remedy?
A stay of removal is described as an exceptional remedy because it directly interferes with a statutory obligation. Section 48 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires that removal orders be enforced as soon as possible once they are enforceable. Courts treat this obligation seriously, which is why the tripartite test is applied rigorously and why all three parts must be satisfied.
For anyone facing removal, this means that even a strong legal argument about errors in a PRRA decision may not be enough on its own. The evidence supporting irreparable harm must be concrete and specific, not general or speculative. Our Ontario immigration lawyers regularly assist clients in understanding what evidence is needed and how to present it effectively.
What Should Someone Facing Removal Take From This Order?
In this case the removal date was October 27, 2026, and the stay order was released on October 16, 2026. A stay motion is decided on the evidence filed with it, so evidence of personal, forward-looking risk needs to be gathered and explained before the motion is heard. Evidence that only shows a person may be questioned on return, for a reason unrelated to the risk they fear, is unlikely to be enough.
If you have received a negative PRRA or a removal date, our judicial review practice can review your options.
Questions and Records to Discuss With a Lawyer
- What evidence do you have of personal risk in your country of origin, beyond general country conditions?
- Have there been any recent events — communications, incidents, or threats — that could be relevant to a risk assessment?
- What were the specific reasons given in the PRRA decision, and do they appear to address your particular circumstances?
- Has a removal date been set, and if so, when?
- Has anyone, including a foreign embassy or high commission, contacted you about your travel documents or return, and what exactly was said?
If you have questions about a removal order, a PRRA decision, or a potential stay application, you are welcome to reach out to UL Lawyers through /connect to discuss your specific situation.
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
No. In this order the Federal Court repeated that a pending application for leave and judicial review does not by itself entitle a person to stay in Canada, create a statutory stay, or amount to irreparable harm. A separate stay motion is needed, and it must meet all three parts of the test.
Not without more. The Court said an allegation of risk that has been assessed and rejected cannot simply be raised again to justify a stay. Here the applicant filed new evidence, a phone call from the Sri Lanka High Commission, but the Court found it did not show the kind of risk needed.
The caller asked about the applicant's use of a diplomatic passport to leave Sri Lanka. The Court accepted he might be questioned on return, but found that questioning appeared to relate to the passport, for which the applicant's own country evidence indicated a possible fine, and not to his Tamil ethnicity or a perceived LTTE link. He had no criminal record, and the PRRA officer had found his profile was not one the authorities target.