Can Ontario Courts Review a Removal Deferral Refusal? ONCA 2026

Can Ontario’s Superior Court Review a Minister’s Refusal to Defer Removal?

Yes — Ontario’s Superior Court has jurisdiction to review a minister’s refusal to defer removal, even when that refusal is rooted in Crown prerogative power and touches on foreign affairs. The Court of Appeal confirmed this in Sharif v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 ONCA 476 (CanLII), a significant ruling for anyone facing removal from Canada who has also pursued an international human rights complaint.

This does not mean every removal will be stopped. But it does mean the door to Ontario courts is open — and that matters enormously for people in vulnerable situations.

What Is a UNHRC Interim Measures Request and Does It Stop Removal?

A UNHRC interim measures request does not automatically stop removal from Canada. The UN Human Rights Committee can ask Canada to pause a removal while it considers a complaint under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — but that request is not legally binding under Canadian law.

The court confirmed that the Optional Protocol has not been incorporated into Canadian domestic legislation. This means the Minister is not legally required to comply with the request, and — importantly — is not required to give written reasons for declining to do so. While international human rights instruments can inform how Canadian decision-makers approach a case, they do not override domestic law.

Is a Government Decision About Removal Justiciable in Ontario?

Yes, when a removal decision directly and profoundly affects an individual’s personal safety, it is justiciable — meaning a court can properly examine it. The Court of Appeal applied a sliding-scale approach: decisions involving broad foreign policy or high-level political choices attract less judicial scrutiny, while decisions that land directly on a specific person’s rights and safety are more amenable to review.

In this case, the risks associated with removal — including documented psychiatric concerns and safety considerations — were serious enough that the court treated the Minister’s decision as something courts could meaningfully assess. The mere fact that a decision touches on international relations does not put it beyond judicial reach.

Was the Minister Required to Give Reasons for the Refusal?

No — the court found there is no duty, statutory or at common law, for the Minister to provide reasons for declining to act on a UNHRC interim measures request. The court considered the principles in Vavilov and Baker on responsive justification, but concluded that neither the legislative framework nor the circumstances here created an obligation to explain the refusal in writing.

This is a meaningful limitation for individuals in this situation. Without reasons, it is harder to identify and challenge the basis for a refusal. If you are in this position, getting legal advice early — before removal is imminent — is critical. Our Ontario immigration lawyers can help you understand what procedural options remain available.

Was the Refusal to Defer Removal Reasonable Under Canadian Law?

Yes, in this particular case the refusal was found to be reasonable. The record before the decision-maker included a Danger Opinion — a formal finding under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that the person poses a danger to the public — along with the individual’s own submissions to the UN, including psychiatric material.

Section 115(2)(a) of IRPA creates a domestic exception to the principle of non-refoulement. Even where a person would normally be protected from removal to a country where they face risk, that protection can be overridden if the person has been found to be a danger to the public in Canada. The court upheld this exception as consistent with the Supreme Court’s earlier guidance in Suresh.

What Does This Mean for People Facing Removal Who Have Filed International Complaints?

Filing a complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee is not a substitute for pursuing remedies in Canadian courts. An international complaint may inform the domestic legal process, but it will not automatically pause removal, and the government is not required to wait for the international process to conclude.

If you are facing removal and have concerns about safety in the destination country, the most effective path is to pursue available remedies in Canadian courts — including judicial review — as early as possible. Our team handles judicial review applications for clients across Ontario and can advise on timing and strategy.

Practical Takeaways for People Facing Removal from Canada

• A UN human rights complaint alone will not stop your removal. You need concurrent legal action in Canadian courts to seek a stay.
• Act early. Courts and decision-makers have more options available before removal is imminent. Last-minute applications face higher hurdles.
• A Danger Opinion significantly changes your legal position. If one has been issued against you, the normal non-refoulement protections may not apply, and you need specialized legal advice immediately.
• You are not entitled to written reasons for a refusal to defer removal in this context — but the underlying decision can still be challenged if it is unreasonable on the record.
• Document your personal risks thoroughly. Medical, psychiatric, and country-condition evidence all played a role in this case and can strengthen a judicial review application.

If you are in the Hamilton or Burlington area and need urgent immigration advice, our Burlington immigration law team is available for consultations.

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 and needs to understand their legal options, speak with our immigration lawyers today.

---

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.