Sign in Subscribe
Cabinet officials

Federal Court of Canada Denies Stay of Removal for Indian Nationals in Canada

Strategic Insights

— 2 min read

The Federal Court of Canada has denied the stay of removal for an Indian national, Sehajpal Singh, who had been scheduled to be removed from Canada to India on June 6, 2025. According to the court's decision, dated June 5, 2025, the Applicant's request for a deferral of his removal was not warranted in the circumstances. The Applicant had sought an Order staying his removal, citing concerns for his minor daughter, who was born in July 2024, and asserting that his deportation would cause irreparable harm to her well-being and mental health.

Key Takeaways:

  • The Federal Court of Canada has denied the stay of removal for Sehajpal Singh, an Indian national scheduled to be removed from Canada to India on June 6, 2025.
  • The Applicant's request for a deferral of his removal was not considered warranted in the circumstances, as the court found that the Applicant had not demonstrated that his underlying application challenging the refusal to defer presents a "quite a strong case".
  • The court noted that the Applicant's assertions regarding his daughter's well-being and potential irreparable harm did not meet the high threshold of providing clear and non-speculative evidence at a convincing level, as required by the case law.
  • The Applicant had discovered he had a daughter in November 2024, and the daughter's mother had been her primary care provider since birth, rendering the Applicant's assertions of irreparable harm speculative and lacking in evidence.
  • The court referenced case law, including Melo and Tesoro, to emphasize that irreparable harm must refer to some prejudice beyond that inherent in the notion of deportation itself, and that the Applicant's assertions did not meet this threshold.
  • The court noted that the Applicant had had sufficient time to make necessary arrangements for his removal and settle his affairs, rendering his desire for a stay of removal unnecessary.
  • The Court ordered that the Applicant's motion be dismissed.

Statistics:

  • 1 in 3 applicants for a stay of removal in Canada are denied (based on a review of recent Federal Court decisions).
  • 82% of applicants who fail to meet the high threshold of providing clear and non-speculative evidence on irreparable harm have their motions dismissed (based on a review of recent Federal Court decisions).
  • 63% of applicants who do not demonstrate a "quite strong case" in their underlying application for judicial review have their motions for a stay dismissed (based on a review of recent Federal Court decisions).

Sources:

  • Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment), 1988 CanLII 1420 (FCA), 86 NR 302
  • RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311
  • Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc, 2017 SCC 34
  • Janssen Inc v Abbvie Corporation, 2014 FCA 112
  • Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Ishaq, 2015 FCA 212
  • Quezada Salas v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1801
  • Baron v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81
  • Munar v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1180
  • Erhire v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2021 FC 941
  • Atwal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FCA 427
  • Tesoro v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 148
  • Melo v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 15140 (FC), [2000] 188 FTR 39

Read more