A stay of removal in Canada is a legal order that temporarily pauses your removal from the country while a legal challenge to the underlying decision moves forward. Our team files motions for stays of removal at the Federal Court and pursues appeals at the Immigration Appeal Division to halt deportations while we challenge the decisions that led to them.
If you have received a Direction to Report from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), or you fear that removal is imminent, the window to act is short. Our lawyers at Kingwell Immigration Law can step in immediately to identify the right legal route and prepare the motion or appeal that puts your removal on hold.
Because only licensed lawyers (not paralegals or immigration consultants) can appear at the Federal Court on a stay motion, our team is positioned to act on your behalf the moment a removal order is enforceable.
Speak to our Canada deportation lawyer today.
When the CBSA issues a Direction to Report, our team moves quickly to assess every available legal avenue for halting the removal. Daniel Kingwell, founder of Kingwell Immigration Law and a Certified Specialist in Citizenship and Immigration Law (Law Society of Ontario), has over 20 years of experience appearing before the Federal Court and the Immigration Appeal Division on urgent stay motions and removal appeals.
We do not take a one-size-fits-all approach. Each removal case turns on a different combination of facts, including the underlying decision being challenged, the country conditions in the country of removal, family ties in Canada, medical considerations, and the procedural posture of any pending applications.
We build the motion record around the specific risks and circumstances that the court needs to see. A key differentiator for our firm is our Federal Court litigation capability, which many immigration practitioners cannot offer, and which often determines whether you remain in Canada or are placed on a flight.
💡 Additional reading: reasons for a removal order in Canada
A stay of removal pauses the enforcement of your removal order for a defined period or until a specific event occurs. It is not a permanent solution, and it does not resolve the immigration matter that triggered the removal in the first place.
A stay has the following practical effects:
A stay does not, however, do the following:
Our lawyers will explain what a stay would mean in your particular case, including how it interacts with your status, your pending applications, and your travel.
There are two primary ways to obtain a stay of removal in Canada:
Which route applies depends on your status, the type of decision being challenged, and where that challenge is being heard.
A statutory stay is an automatic pause on removal that arises by operation of law, without requiring a motion or hearing. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations set out the circumstances in which this happens.
Section 231 of the Regulations provides an automatic stay where the subject of a removal order files an application for leave for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) within the prescribed deadline. Section 232 provides an automatic stay where a person has been notified of their eligibility to apply for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment.
Not every challenge triggers a statutory stay. An unsuccessful PRRA applicant, for example, does not benefit from an automatic stay simply by filing a judicial review of the negative PRRA decision, and in those cases, a judicial stay must be sought.
A judicial stay is a discretionary order granted by the Federal Court on a motion. Unlike a statutory stay, it does not arise automatically; you have to file a motion, build a record, and persuade a judge that removal should be paused.
This is the route most often used when an underlying judicial review is pending against a refusal of a PRRA, a humanitarian and compassionate application, a deferral request, or a refugee claim. The motion is typically filed when removal is imminent, often after a Direction to Report has been issued, and the Federal Court hears these motions on an urgent basis, sometimes within a matter of days.
Permanent residents who appeal a removal order to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) may have the appeal allowed, dismissed, or stayed. When the IAD orders a stay, the removal order remains in place but is not enforced for a specified period, usually with conditions attached.
At the end of the stay period, the IAD reconsiders the appeal and decides whether to allow it, dismiss it, or extend the stay. This route is most common for permanent residents facing removal for failing to meet their residency obligation, or for criminal inadmissibility that does not amount to serious criminality under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Our team will identify which of these routes applies in your case, and where more than one is available, we will advise on the most appropriate option and the order in which to pursue it.
When the Federal Court decides a motion for a judicial stay of removal, it applies a three-part test established in Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988). All three parts must be satisfied for a stay to be granted, and the Federal Court has published practice notes confirming that the burden is on the applicant to establish each part.
The three parts of the test are as follows:
Each element has to be supported by evidence: affidavits, country-condition documentation, medical records, and any other materials that make the harm concrete rather than speculative. Our lawyers know what the Federal Court expects to see on each branch of the test, and we build the motion record accordingly.
Once the CBSA serves a Direction to Report for removal, the timeline tightens immediately. A judicial stay motion has to be filed, served, and ready for hearing before the removal date.
There is no fixed statutory deadline for the stay motion, but the Federal Court expects motions to be filed as soon as the applicant becomes aware of the removal date. The Court will schedule a hearing, often by video conference, on an expedited basis.
Judicial review deadlines for the underlying decision are also short. Section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires an application for leave and judicial review to be filed within 15 days for a decision made in Canada, or 60 days for a decision made outside Canada, so the stay motion is frequently filed alongside the application for leave rather than after it.
Our team is set up to move on this timeline. Once you reach out to us, we can begin assembling the motion record immediately and coordinate with the Federal Court registry to have your matter heard before the scheduled removal date.
When the Immigration Appeal Division grants a stay, and sometimes when the Federal Court does, conditions are usually attached. These conditions are designed to ensure that the person remains accountable to immigration authorities and does not pose a risk to the public while the stay is in effect.
Common conditions include the following:
Our lawyers will walk through any conditions attached to your stay and represent you if the Minister later applies to lift the stay on the basis of an alleged breach.
A stay of removal does not last indefinitely. What happens when it ends depends on which type of stay was granted and the outcome of the underlying matter.
For a Federal Court judicial stay, the stay generally ends when the underlying judicial review is decided. If the review succeeds, the original decision is set aside and sent back for redetermination; if it is dismissed, the stay lifts and the CBSA can resume removal arrangements.
For an Immigration Appeal Division stay, the IAD reconsiders the appeal at the end of the stay period. The IAD can extend the stay, allow the appeal (which cancels the removal order), or dismiss the appeal (which means removal can proceed).
The period during which a stay is in effect is rarely passive. Our team uses that window to strengthen the underlying case, gather further evidence, and prepare for the hearing that will determine the longer-term outcome.
| Feature | Statutory stay | Judicial stay (Federal Court) | IAD stay |
| How it arises | Automatically by regulation | Court order on motion | Tribunal order on appeal |
| Who decides | Operates by law | Federal Court judge | IAD member |
| Triggering event | Filing of certain appeals or applications within deadline | Successful motion under the Toth test | Appeal allowed in part with stay |
| Conditions attached | Generally none | Sometimes | Almost always |
| Duration | Until underlying matter is decided | Until underlying matter is decided or fixed end date | Fixed period, then reconsidered |
| Available to PRs facing residency-obligation breach | No | Limited | Yes |
| Available to PRRA refusals | No | Yes, with motion | No |
Our Federal Court track record reflects the kind of cases that often sit behind a stay motion: refusals of PRRA applications, refused refugee claims, and IAD appeals that turn on credibility, procedural fairness, or country-condition evidence. The strength of these underlying challenges is also what supports the serious issue and irreparable harm elements of a stay motion.
In A.M. v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2019 FC 270), our team represented a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment applicant from Iran. He maintained that he was at risk in Iran for attending political demonstrations.
IRCC refused his application, finding that he had not provided sufficient evidence of risk. We appealed to the Federal Court and the decision was overturned, the Court agreeing that the officer had improperly rejected new evidence of ongoing danger, and the Court ordered IRCC to reconsider the PRRA application.
In A.H. v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2020 FC 530), our team represented sponsors in an overseas sponsorship of a conjugal partner from Saudi Arabia. IRCC refused the application on the basis that they did not meet the requirements of conjugal partnership, and the Immigration Appeal Division rejected their appeal.
We represented them on appeal to the Federal Court, and the judge overturned the decision, agreeing that the officer and IAD had improperly considered their individual and relationship histories. Their PR application was returned to IRCC for processing.
In Yasmin v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2018 FC 265), our team represented a Convention refugee from Bangladesh. She applied for permanent residence as a protected person, however IRCC refused the application upon finding that she had failed to disclose another identity in the United States.
We successfully appealed the decision to the Federal Court on the basis that IRCC had not provided her with evidence of a fingerprint match in breach of procedural fairness.
This is the type of Federal Court work our team brings to a stay motion: identifying procedural unfairness, surfacing evidence that decision-makers have ignored, and presenting it in a record the Court can act on.
💡 Additional reading: how to stop a removal order in Canada
A stay of removal is one tool among several for halting or delaying a removal. Depending on the facts, the better legal route may involve a deferral request to the CBSA, a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment, a humanitarian and compassionate application, or a fresh appeal of an earlier decision.
A deferral request, for example, can sometimes be made directly to the CBSA Inland Enforcement officer responsible for the file. This is a faster process than a Federal Court motion, but it is also more limited in scope, with deferrals typically granted only for very specific reasons, such as a pending PRRA, a serious short-term medical issue, or a child finishing a school term.
If a deferral is refused, the refusal itself can be challenged at the Federal Court, and a stay motion can be filed in connection with that judicial review. Our lawyers will assess every route open to you and recommend the combination most likely to result in you remaining in Canada.
💡 Additional reading: types of removal orders
If a Direction to Report has arrived, or you believe your removal is imminent, Kingwell Immigration Law is positioned to step in immediately. Our lawyers will assess the underlying decision, identify the strongest legal grounds for a stay, prepare the motion record, and represent you at the Federal Court or the Immigration Appeal Division.
Call us at 416.988.8853 or book a consultation with our team to discuss your situation.
Yes. The CBSA can detain a person subject to removal where there are concerns about flight risk or identity, and detention does not pause a stay motion. Kingwell Immigration Law regularly files urgent motions for detained clients, since detention reviews and stay motions can proceed in parallel.
The Federal Court charges a $50 filing fee for the underlying application for leave and judicial review under the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules. Legal fees vary depending on the complexity of the motion record and hearing, and Kingwell Immigration Law discusses these transparently at retainer.
Yes. The Minister of Public Safety can apply to the Federal Court or the Immigration Appeal Division to lift a stay if there is a material change in circumstances, such as a new criminal conviction, a breach of stay conditions, or fresh evidence affecting the underlying decision.
No. A stay of removal applies only to the individual named in the motion or appeal, not automatically to family members. Spouses, children, and other relatives with their own status or pending applications are governed by their own legal circumstances and may need separate steps to remain in Canada.
Once a stay is granted, you are no longer required to comply with the Direction to Report, and the CBSA is legally bound by the stay. Missing the scheduled removal date in those circumstances is not a breach of any law, and your lawyer will handle any further communications.
