Sign in Subscribe
Cabinet officials

Federal Court of Canada Dismisses Motion for Stay of Removal

Strategic Insights

— 2 min read

The Federal Court of Canada, presided over by Justice Angela Furlanetto, has dismissed a motion for a stay of removal brought by Richard Mukasa, a Ugandan citizen who has been ordered to be deported. In a decision dated June 27, 2025, the court ruled that Mukasa had not met the necessary conditions to obtain a stay of his removal, citing a lack of a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm. The court noted that Mukasa's arguments relied heavily on criticisms of previous decisions, rather than addressing the specific issues at hand. Furthermore, the court found that the evidence presented by Mukasa was insufficient to establish a real probability of irreparable harm if his removal was not stayed.

Key Takeaways:

  • The Federal Court of Canada has dismissed a motion for a stay of removal brought by Richard Mukasa, a Ugandan citizen who has been ordered to be deported.
  • The court ruled that Mukasa had not met the necessary conditions to obtain a stay of his removal, citing a lack of a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm.
  • The court found that Mukasa's arguments relied heavily on criticisms of previous decisions, rather than addressing the specific issues at hand.
  • The court noted that the Applicant had not identified the existence of a serious issue with the Decision, and that the RAD's reasons for dismissing the appeal were sufficient.
  • The court was unable to evaluate the Applicant's assertion that the RAD erred in concluding that the evidence suggested that the Applicant was able to return to work on January 13, 2025, due to the limited materials provided.
  • The Applicant's medical and psychological condition was not considered sufficient to establish irreparable harm, as he had not provided evidence establishing that he cannot obtain medical care in Uganda for the conditions identified or would be unable to obtain prescribed medicines.
  • The pendency of the Applicant's Application for Leave and Judicial Review (ALJR) does not constitute a bar to the enforcement of a valid removal order.
  • The balance of convenience favours the Minister, who has an interest in the effective and timely administration of Canada's immigration regime pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

Statistics:

  • The decision was made on June 27, 2025.
  • The Applicant, Richard Mukasa, is a Ugandan citizen who has been ordered to be deported.
  • The Applicant entered Canada on December 9, 2022, on a temporary resident visa.
  • The RAD considered the Applicant's arguments relating to the delay in obtaining the transcript from the RPD hearing and the medical information relating to the Applicant's work-based injury that occurred on January 3, 2025.
  • The Applicant has made two requests to reopen the appeal, both of which were dismissed.
  • The Applicant was given a direction to report for removal on June 10, 2025.

Sources:

  • Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) 1988 CanLII 1420 (FCA), [1988] FCJ No 587, 86 NR 302 (FCA)
  • RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311
  • Mejia v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 658 at para 18
  • Koca v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FC 473 at para 14
  • Al-JR v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1801 at paragraph 41
  • Biga v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 CanLII 8318
  • Dada v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 CanLII 110424 at para 16
  • Obaseki v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 CanLII 29300 at para 19
  • Salazar v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FC 56 at para 44

Read more