Federal Court of Canada Grants Stay of Removal to Ugandan Immigrant

Strategic Insights -

The Federal Court of Canada has issued a significant decision, granting a stay of removal to a Ugandan immigrant, Daniel Mazinga, who was facing deportation on September 3, 2025. The court's oral decision, delivered by Justice Battista on September 2, 2025, was made after considering Mazinga's motion for a stay of removal and his application for judicial review of the Senior Immigration Officer's decision refusing his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). The court found that Mazinga had demonstrated a serious issue with the underlying decision and that he would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted.

Key Takeaways:

  • The court applied the three-part test for a stay of removal, considering whether the application for judicial review raised a serious question to be tried, whether the party would suffer irreparable harm if the stay were refused, and whether the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.
  • The court found that Mazinga had demonstrated a serious issue with the underlying decision, including the treatment of supporting affidavit evidence and the findings regarding state protection.
  • The court was satisfied that Mazinga would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted, as after removal to Uganda, he would no longer meet the definition of a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
  • The court found that the balance of convenience favoured Mazinga, as his interest in staying removal from Canada outweighed the Respondent's interest in expeditiously effecting a removal order.
  • The court granted the motion, staying the removal scheduled for September 3, 2025, pending the disposition of the underlying application for leave and judicial review.

Statistics:

  • 3: the number of parts to the test for a stay of removal, as per RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General) (1994) SCC 58.
  • 1: the number of serious issues with the underlying decision demonstrated by Mazinga, including the treatment of supporting affidavit evidence and the findings regarding state protection.
  • 1: the number of forms of irreparable harm that Mazinga would suffer if the stay was not granted, including a lack of effective remedy in his application for judicial review.
  • 1: the number of times the balance of convenience favoured the Applicant, as the court was satisfied that Mazinga's interest in staying removal from Canada outweighed the Respondent's interest in expeditiously effecting a removal order.

Sources:

  • Federal Court of Canada, [2025] FCJ No 1237 (2025).
  • Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27.
  • RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311.
  • Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1988 CanLII 1420 (FCA), [1988] FCJ No 587 (FCA).
  • Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc, 2017 SCC 34 at paras 1, 25.