Federal Court Grants Stay of Removal Due to High Suicide Risk
- Citation
- 2025 FC 1898
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-22576-25
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Pak v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1898
The Applicant, with a lengthy and complex immigration history including multiple failed risk assessments, was scheduled for removal to South Korea. He sought a stay of removal, arguing that a CBSA officer unreasonably refused to defer his removal based on his deteriorating mental health and a pending H&C application.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court granted a temporary stay of removal. The Court found that while the legal challenge to the officer's decision was weak, the clear and convincing evidence of a high risk of suicide constituted irreparable harm, which outweighed the public interest in enforcing the removal order.
Key Quote from the Court
In the end, looking at the RJR-MacDonald/Toth test holistically, this is a situation where the strength in one factor (i.e., irreparable harm) balances out the weakness in another (i.e., serious issue).
Expert Takeaways
-
Strength in One Factor Can Overcome Weakness in Another This case is a crucial example of the flexibility of the stay test. Even when the legal arguments for the underlying judicial review are weak ('a very low probability of success'), overwhelming evidence of irreparable harm, such as a medically-supported risk to life, can be sufficient to secure a stay.
-
Evidence of Irreparable Harm Must Be Concrete The Court granted the stay because the risk of suicide was established by 'clear, convincing, and non-speculative evidence' from a medical professional. Vague claims of hardship or mental distress tied to removal are often insufficient; concrete, new evidence is key.
-
A Stay of Removal is a Temporary Reprieve, Not a Final Solution The judge issued a stern warning that a stay is not a 'carte blanche' to remain in Canada indefinitely. The Applicant was explicitly told to use the time to either obtain legal status or make concrete arrangements for medical care in his country of origin for his eventual removal.
-
CBSA Must Properly Assess New Risks While CBSA's discretion to defer removal is narrow, the Court found it arguable that the officer's assessment of the new risk of suicide-particularly the sudden unavailability of the applicant's psychiatrist-was 'somewhat limited.' This created the 'serious issue' needed for the first part of the stay test, albeit barely.
There is a deadline on this
That is the window to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review at the Federal Court, counted from the day you were notified of the decision. An extension can be requested, but it is granted at the Court's discretion - it is not automatic.
Check my deadlineDoes this ruling apply to your situation?
Tick whatever is true for you. Nothing is sent anywhere - this stays in your browser.
That combination is worth a proper look. It does not mean you have a case - only a lawyer reading your actual documents can say that - but it does mean the question is worth asking before your filing window closes.
Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and subject to change. For advice specific to your situation, please schedule a consultation with a qualified legal professional.
Your window to challenge is closing.
Judicial review of an IRCC refusal is time-sensitive. Book a consultation before your deadline.
No obligation - we review your documents and tell you if a Federal Court application is realistic.
Questions people ask after reading a case like this
Does this mean my own case will succeed?
No. Every application is decided on its own record. A reported decision shows how the Federal Court has reasoned about a particular kind of error - it does not predict the result of a different file. What it can tell you is whether the problem in your refusal is the kind of problem the Court has been willing to intervene on.
How long do I have to challenge a refusal?
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act you generally have 15 days to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review if the decision was made inside Canada, and 60 days if it was made outside Canada, counted from when you were notified. The Court can extend that period, but an extension is discretionary - it is not automatic.
What actually happens at the Federal Court?
Judicial review has two stages. You file the application and a written record, and a judge decides on paper whether to grant leave - permission for the case to proceed. If leave is granted, there is a hearing. The Court does not re-decide your immigration application; it decides whether the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. If you succeed, the file is normally sent back to be decided again by a different officer.
Do I have to be in Canada to bring an application?
No. Applicants outside Canada regularly bring judicial review applications, which is why the longer 60-day deadline exists for decisions made abroad. Applicants are not normally required to attend in person.
What happens in the free 15-minute review?
You explain what was refused or delayed and when you were notified. We tell you whether your filing window is still open, which issues in the decision look arguable, and what the realistic options are - including reapplying instead of litigating, where that is the better route. There is no obligation to retain us afterwards.
More Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) rulings
Federal Court: Winning Judicial Review Doesn't Guarantee Legal Costs
Court: Officers Can't Demand 'Exact' Details While Ignoring Real Refugee Risk
Federal Court: Refusal Based on "Insufficient Evidence" is a Credibility Finding
Federal Court Overturns PRRA Refusal for Relying on Outdated Country Information
Written by
Ali Dadkhah
Ali Dadkhah is a litigator whose practice is dedicated to challenging government decisions at the Federal Court of Canada. He specializes in judicial review, providing a crucial avenue for recourse for individuals and businesses who have faced unfair or unreasonable administrative outcomes. Bilingual legal support in English and Persian (Farsi)