Federal Court Rejects Stay of Removal Motion

Date: 20260106 Docket: IMM-27982-25 Citation: 2026 FC 8 Ottawa, Ontario, January 6, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF [NAME] Respondent

ORDER AND

REASONS I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME], brings a motion for a stay of his removal from Canada, scheduled to take place on January 7, 2026. [ 2 ] The Applicant requests that this Court stay his removal pending the determination of the underlying application for leave and judicial review of a negative decision, made by an Inland Enforcement Officer (the “Officer” ) of the Canadian Border Services Agency ( “[NAME]” ), dated December 29, 2025, of the Applicant’s request for a deferral of his removal from Canada. [ 3 ] For the reasons that follow, this motion is dismissed. I find that the Applicant has not met the tri-partite test required for a stay of removal.

II. Facts and Underlying Decisions [ 4 ] The Applicant is a 47-year-old citizen of Jamaica. [ 5 ] On December 12, 1995, as a dependent of his mother, he became a permanent resident of Canada. [ 6 ] In the three decades during which the Applicant lived in Canada, he had four children with one woman, all of whom are now between the ages of 19 and 26, and he has been in a common law relationship with another woman since 2019. [ 7 ] Importantly, however, the Applicant’s years in Canada also involved a lengthy criminal history. [ 8 ] Starting on April 4, 2001, the Applicant was convicted of an attempted robbery contrary to section 463(a) of the Criminal Code , RSC, 1985, c C-46 (“ Criminal Code ”). [ 9 ] This conviction led to a removal order, which was issued against the Applicant on August 7, 2001. The Applicant appealed this order and, from May 30, 2003 to October 24, 2008, the Applicant’s removal was stayed. [ 10 ] On February 17, 2009, the Applicant submitted a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment ( “PRRA” ). In a decision dated March 26, 2009, an officer of the [NAME] refused the Applicant’s PRRA application. [ 11 ] On April 30, 2010, the removal order against the Applicant was again stayed. This stay was granted on several conditions, including that the Applicant inform the [NAME] and Immigration Appeal Division of any change in his address, provide a copy of his passport or travel documents to the [NAME], and that he refrain from committing any criminal offence. [ 12 ] From 2003 to 2014, the Applicant was charged with various offences, including possession of substances, which were all withdrawn, two charges of assault, one of which was withdrawn, and several instances of possession for the purpose of trafficking. [ 13 ] On October 6, 2015, the Applicant was most recently convicted of possession of a schedule one substance. [ 14 ] In 2016, the Applicant was charged for dangerous operation, which was later withdrawn. In 2017, he was charged for the possession of a substance for the purpose of trafficking, which was stayed. [ 15 ] From January 2019 to March 2021, removal interviews were scheduled for the Applicant, where he failed to provide his travel documents. During this time, the Applicant also failed to notify the [NAME] of changes in his address and phone number. [ 16 ] In August 2025, the removal order against the Applicant became enforceable. On November 28, 2025, the Applicant was served with a direction to report for removal. [ 17 ] In a letter dated November 28, 2025, the Applicant requested a deferral of his removal based on the ongoing country conditions in Jamaica, which include the damage from Hurricane Melissa and an outbreak of leptospirosis, along with his long-term establishment in Canada, lack of support system in Jamaica, and pending application for permanent residency based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. [ 18 ] In a decision dated December 29, 2025, the [NAME] refused to defer the Applicant’s removal.

III. Analysis [ 19 ] A stay is an extraordinary remedy, requiring the Applicant to show special and compelling circumstances warranting judicial intervention ( [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2023 [NAME] 82086 at para 13). [ 20 ] The tri-partite test for the granting of a stay is well established: [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 86 NR 302 (FCA) ( “ [NAME] ” ); Manitoba (A.G.) v [COMPANY] . , 1987 [NAME] 79 (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 110 ( “ [COMPANY] ” ); [COMPANY]. v Canada (Attorney General) , 1994 [NAME] 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311 ( “ [NAME] ” ); R v [NAME] , 2018 SCC 5 ([NAME]), [2018] 1 SCR 196. [ 21 ] The [NAME] test is conjunctive, in that granting a stay of removal requires the applicant to establish: (i) a serious issue raised by the underlying application for judicial review; (ii) irreparable harm that would result from removal; and (iii) the balance of convenience favouring granting the stay. A. Serious Issue [ 22 ] In [NAME] , the Supreme Court of Canada established that the first stage of the test should be determined on an extremely limited review of the merits ( [NAME] at 314). [ADDRESS] must also bear in mind that the discretion to defer the removal of a person subject to an enforceable removal order is limited. The standard of review of an enforcement officer’s decision is that of reasonableness ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of [NAME]) , 2009 FCA 81 ([NAME]), [2010] 2 FCR 311 at para 67) ( “ [NAME] ” ). [ 23 ] A request for a stay based on an underlying decision refusing to defer removal requires an applicant to meet an elevated standard with respect to the first [NAME] requirement of a serious issue for trial, pursuant to [NAME]. [ 24 ] On this first prong of the tri-partite test, the Applicant submits that the Officer failed to engage meaningfully with the country conditions showing an outbreak of leptospirosis and the Applicant’s lack of immunity and community in Jamaica due to living in Canada for an extended period. The Applicant further maintains that he submitted an application for permanent residency based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds but that the Officer over-emphasized this application in the decision. The Applicant’s position is that the Officer failed to consider these reasons in light of the narrow and limited time period he requested for a deferral of removal until March 15, 2026. [ 25 ] I disagree. As the Respondent noted during the hearing, the Applicant failed to provide any evidence on the record of his personalized risk in Jamaica. The Officer already noted that the Applicant did not submit any medical documents showing a reduced immunity or susceptibility to leptospirosis. Instead, the Applicant provided only articles showing general conditions in Jamaica. It is well established that general country conditions, without something that proves a personal risk, are insufficient to establish a serious issue ( [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2021 FC 1463 at para 40; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 [NAME] 78579 at paras 24, 32 (FC)). The Officer’s consideration of Jamaica’s country conditions does not raise a serious issue, especially as he noted that Canada has not chosen to suspend removals to Jamaica even after the hurricane. [ 26 ] I further find that the Applicant’s submissions regarding his application for permanent residency on humanitarian and compassionate grounds appear to be confused. The Applicant first states that the request for deferral was based on country conditions and on a “pending humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application” but then goes on to state that, by assessing this factor, the Officer failed to assess the determinative issue. This apparently contradictory submission cannot form the basis of a serious issue. [ 27 ] The Applicant’s submission on the length of the deferral of removal requested is also unclear. At the hearing, the Applicant submitted that the deferral was requested until March 15, 2026, in order to allow conditions in Jamaica to stabilize. However, in the Applicant’s request for a deferral, he asks for the removal to be after March 15, 2026, in order to monitor the country conditions in Jamaica. I agree with the Respondent that this request is more akin to an indefinite request than a limited deferral. Therefore, I find no serious issue with the fact that the Officer did not address the length of the Applicant’s request for a deferral. [ 28 ] This alone is sufficient to dismiss the Applicant’s motion, but I find it necessary to also canvass the deficiencies throughout the Applicant’s submissions. B. Irreparable Harm [ 29 ] At the second stage of the test, applicants are required to demonstrate that irreparable harm will result if relief is not granted. Irreparable harm does not refer to the magnitude of the harm; rather, it is a harm that cannot be cured or quantified in monetary terms ( [NAME] at 341). [ADDRESS] must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the harm is not speculative and is supported by credible evidence that shows a serious likelihood of harm ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 [NAME] 68768 at para 23 ). [ 30 ] The Applicant again submits that he will face irreparable harm due to his long establishment in Canada and the country conditions in Jamaica, particularly the outbreak of leptospirosis. Despite presenting no documents to substantiate his health vulnerabilities, the Applicant further submits that he is dependent on the [NAME] and is well established in Canada. [ 31 ] As noted above, the Applicant has not presented any clear and convincing evidence that he will face irreparable harm if the removal is not stayed. Indeed, he has not presented any particularized evidence that he faces health challenges or that, despite the impacts of Hurricane Melissa on the country, Jamaica does not currently have the requisite health facilities. [ 32 ] In regard to the loss of the Applicant’s long establishment in Canada, this is one of the inherent consequences of a removal proceeding. Thus, it cannot constitute irreparable harm ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2000 [NAME] 15140 at para 21 (FC)). In my view, had the Applicant previously valued his establishment in Canada, he would have respected Canadian laws. C. Balance of Convenience [ 33 ] The third stage of the test requires an assessment of the balance of convenience—a determination to identify which party will suffer the greater harm from the granting or refusal of the interlocutory injunction, pending a decision on the merits ( [NAME] at 342; [COMPANY] at 129). [ 34 ] The Applicant submits that a temporary delay in his removal would prevent him from facing potential—and in my view speculative—health impacts. He maintains that a stay is justified as it has been ten years since he was last convicted of a criminal offence. [ 35 ] I disagree. For a decade and a half, the Applicant flouted Canada’s laws and established a pattern of criminal behaviour. Due to the Applicant’s criminal convictions, a removal order was issued against him in 2001. Since then, the Applicant has been charged and convicted under several provisions of the Criminal Code , with the most recent conviction in 2015 and the most recent criminal charge, which was stayed, in 2017. The Applicant has not provided an explanation or any indication of a plan to change this criminal pattern, instead he merely suggests that time has past since the most recent criminal conviction. [ 36 ] Despite the Applicant’s disreputable behaviour, the Applicant has been afforded amble opportunity to change course and contribute to [COMPANY]. Several of his criminal charges have been stayed, his removal order was stayed multiple times, he submitted a PRRA application, and he submitted a request for a deferral of removal. The risks he faces upon removal have been thoroughly assessed. [ 37 ] A stay of removal is extraordinary and equitable relief ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (FCA) , 2006 FCA 215 at para 10; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 831). Given that the Applicant has not shown a change in his criminal disposition, and he has failed to show any irreparable harm or serious issue arising from his removal to Jamaica, I find that the public interest requires the expeditious removal of foreign nationals, such as the Applicant, who are both inadmissible and pose a threat to [COMPANY] ( Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27, s 48(2)). [ 38 ] Ultimately, the Applicant failed to meet the tri-partite test required for a stay of removal. His motion is, therefore, dismissed.

ORDER in IMM-27982-25 THIS COURT ORDERS that this motion for a stay of the Applicant’s removal to Jamaica is dismissed. “[NAME].” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-27982-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF [NAME] OF HEARING: BY VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: January 6, 2026

ORDER AND

REASONS: AHMED J. DATED: jANUARY 6, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitors Mississauga, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent