In April 2026, the Federal Court of Canada issued 220 decisions. Of these, thirty-two (32) decisions involved applications for stays of removal. Of those, seven (7) decisions provided detailed reasons concerning the court’s decision-making:

• Alam v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 CanLII 37457 (FC)
• Douglas v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 CanLII 36265 (FC)
• Ekeigwe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CanLII 37460 (FC)
• He v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 517 (CanLII)
• Ibarra Valenzuela v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 CanLII 37468 (FC)
• Shonubi v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 CanLII 29484 (FC)
• Thuraisinkam v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 443

Of the seven (7) decisions with reasons:

Result	Number	Decisions
Applicant successful	3	Thuraisinkam, Shonubi, Ekeigwe
Applicant unsuccessful	4	Alam, Douglas, He, Ibarra Valenzuela

Stays of Removal: What the Federal Court Emphasized in April 2026

A stay of removal is an emergency order that temporarily prevents the Canada Border Services Agency from removing a person from Canada. These motions are urgent, fact-specific, and difficult to win. The April 2026 decisions confirm that the Court continues to apply a strict three-part test. The Applicant must demonstrate three things: (1) that the underlying application for judicial review raises a “serious question to be tried;” (2) that the Applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is refused; and (3) that the balance of convenience (i.e., the assessment of which party would suffer greater harm from the granting or refusal of a stay pending a decision on the merits of the judicial review application) favors granting a stay.

The practical lesson is straightforward: a stay is not granted simply because removal is difficult, disruptive, or emotionally painful. The Court looks for concrete evidence of short-term harm that cannot be repaired later.

1. The Court requires specific, concrete evidence

Several unsuccessful cases failed because the evidence was too general or speculative.

In Alam, the applicant relied on instability in Bangladesh, personal affairs, a possible divorce, and a family visit. The Court held that generalized country instability and ordinary consequences of removal did not establish irreparable harm. The officer had reasonably treated the risk allegations as speculative and had addressed the applicant’s personal circumstances.

In He, the applicant raised concerns about mental health, addiction relapse, disability, detention, and country conditions in China. The Court accepted that there was at least a serious issue in the underlying PRRA challenge but dismissed the stay because irreparable harm was not proven with clear, convincing, non-speculative evidence. The Court stressed that possible harm, generalized country evidence, and less favorable medical care abroad are not enough.

The takeaway for advisors is that removal cases depend heavily on documentation. Medical letters, psychological reports, country evidence, family evidence, and risk evidence must be detailed, current, and connected to the individual’s specific circumstances.

2. Pending sponsorship applications usually do not stop removal

The April cases also confirm that a pending spousal sponsorship application, by itself, usually does not prevent removal.

In Douglas, the applicant relied on a pending inland spousal sponsorship application. The Court dismissed the stay. The officer had acknowledged that separation from the applicant’s wife would be painful, but the record did not show particularized hardship or interdependence beyond the normal emotional hardship caused by removal. The Court also noted that a pending spousal application is not, on its own, an impediment to removal.

The practical point is important: families should not assume that filing a sponsorship application automatically protects against removal. If removal is imminent, the evidence must show why separation would cause serious, specific, and irreparable harm.

3. Children and short-term family needs can matter

The successful decision in Shonubi shows the other side of the family-unity issue. There, the applicant had a Canadian-citizen spouse, a five-month-old child, and a pending sponsorship application. The stay was granted because the Court had evidence that the applicant’s wife was facing surgery and would be unable to lift more than 15 pounds for six weeks. That meant she could not lift the infant child. The Court found a serious issue in the officer’s treatment of the child’s short-term best interests and accepted that the family faced irreparable harm.

The distinction is practical. A general statement that removal will separate a family is usually not enough. A specific, documented caregiving need affecting an infant or vulnerable family member may be enough.

4. Risk must be properly assessed where the evidence is new or central

The strongest applicant-side decisions involved risk evidence that had not been meaningfully addressed.

In Thuraisinkam, the Court granted a stay to a Sri Lankan Tamil applicant who had arrived in Canada aboard the M/V Sun Sea. The Court found that the applicant had raised a strong case that his risk had never been properly assessed, particularly the risk arising from Sri Lankan authorities’ perception that M/V Sun Sea passengers were associated with the LTTE. The Court emphasized that potential torture or ill-treatment must be carefully assessed before removal.

In Ekeigwe, the applicant was a Nigerian cybersecurity and digital-auditing professional. The Court granted the stay because the PRRA officer appeared to misunderstand the applicant’s ongoing professional profile and visibility. That error mattered because his profile was central to whether he could safely relocate within Nigeria.

The broader lesson is that the Court is more receptive where the applicant can show that a real risk issue was not actually assessed or that the officer misunderstood a central fact.

5. Prior non-compliance can seriously hurt the case

The decisions also show that “clean hands” matter.

In Ibarra Valenzuela, the applicant had remained outside the immigration system for many years and came to the authorities’ attention only after an arrest. He argued about the risk in Mexico as a gay man living with HIV. The Court dismissed the stay, finding that he had not shown a sufficiently strong case, had not provided concrete evidence of changed country conditions, and had not established irreparable harm. His lengthy evasion of immigration authorities weighed heavily against him on the balance of convenience.

In He, the Court also considered the applicant’s long period without status, serious criminality, and history of non-compliance. Although personal challenges and addiction were acknowledged, the balance of convenience favored enforcement.

The practical lesson is that delays, missed interviews, warrants, and years of non-compliance can become central issues. Applicants facing removal should regularize their situation and seek legal advice early rather than waiting until a removal date is set.

6. Medical issues must be urgent, particularized, and well-supported

Medical evidence appeared in several cases, but it was only decisive where it showed a specific short-term harm.

In Shonubi, medical evidence showed that the applicant’s wife could not physically care for their infant after surgery without assistance. That was enough to support irreparable harm.

By contrast, in He and Ibarra Valenzuela, concerns about health care, relapse, treatment, or follow-up appointments were not enough without concrete evidence that removal would create an immediate, serious, and unavoidable harm.

For professional advisors, this means medical letters should not be generic. They should explain the diagnosis, treatment plan, urgency, consequences of interruption, whether travel is medically contraindicated, and why care cannot reasonably be accessed in the destination country.