Quick Answer: Can You Stop a Removal Order in Canada?

When CBSA Knocks: Understanding Your Removal Date

Receiving a direction to report from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) — a document that sets a date and location for your departure from Canada — can feel like everything is out of your hands. It is not.

If you are in Ontario or anywhere in Canada and a removal date has been set, there are real legal steps available to you. This guide explains the two most important ones: asking CBSA to postpone your removal through a deferral request, and, if that fails, asking the Federal Court of Canada to pause your removal through a stay motion.

Both options are time-sensitive. The sooner you speak with an immigration lawyer in Toronto, the more options remain available to you.

Pick Your Path: Which Situation Applies to You?

Your immigration status determines your legal route. Here are the four most common scenarios — find yours to understand where to focus your energy.

What Is a Stay of Removal?

Under section 48 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), a removal order must be enforced “as soon as is reasonably practicable” once it takes effect. This means CBSA is legally required to carry out removals — it cannot simply choose to wait indefinitely. A stay motion asks the Federal Court to temporarily override that obligation while your case is reviewed.

A stay motion can only be brought together with an application for leave and judicial review — a formal request asking the Federal Court to examine whether an immigration decision was made correctly. The two applications are filed at the same time and are legally connected. One cannot exist without the other.

Three Types of Removal Orders — and What Each One Means

Knowing which type you have received matters. It affects both the urgency of your situation and the legal options available to you. Permanent residents who receive a removal order may have the right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division — but this right has significant exceptions under section 64 of the IRPA. A permanent resident found inadmissible on grounds of security, serious criminality (where a sentence of two or more years was imposed), or organized criminality does not have an IAD appeal right and must pursue the Federal Court route instead.

Step-by-Step: From Direction to Report to Federal Court

If you have received a direction to report, your lawyer will typically work through these five steps — often within a matter of days.

1. 1
   Receive your direction to report

   A direction to report is a CBSA document that sets a specific date and location for your removal from Canada. The moment you receive it, the countdown begins. Keep it safe — your lawyer will need to review it immediately.

2. 2
   Contact a lawyer immediately

   Only a licensed lawyer — not an immigration consultant, not a paralegal, and not the applicant themselves — may represent you before the Federal Court of Canada. This is a requirement under the Federal Courts Act and the rules of the Law Society of Ontario. Many immigration lawyers in Toronto and the GTA offer urgent consultations for enforcement matters.

3. 3
   File a written CBSA deferral request

   Before going to court, your lawyer will typically write to your CBSA removals officer requesting a deferral (postponement of your removal date). This letter sets out your circumstances and asks CBSA to delay while a pending immigration matter is resolved. The Federal Court generally expects applicants to have tried this administrative step first.
   
   CBSA removals officers have limited discretion to grant a deferral. Case law permits them to consider factors such as a medical emergency, a child's best interests in the very short term, or imminent travel disruptions. They are not required to defer simply because a sponsorship or humanitarian application is pending.

4. 4
   If deferral is refused, apply for judicial review

   If CBSA refuses your deferral request — or does not respond — your lawyer can apply for judicial review of that decision at the Federal Court under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. This is a formal challenge asking a judge to examine whether CBSA made its decision properly.

5. 5
   Simultaneously bring the emergency stay motion

   Filed at the same time as the judicial review application, the stay motion asks a Federal Court judge to pause your removal while the review proceeds. The motion is typically argued before a judge by telephone or videoconference — sometimes within hours of a scheduled removal date. The judge hears arguments from both your lawyer and a government lawyer before deciding.

The Three-Part Test: How the Federal Court Decides

Part One: Is There a Serious Issue?

The underlying judicial review application must raise an issue that is not frivolous or vexatious — meaning it raises a legitimate legal question worth examining. This is a relatively accessible bar in most cases. However, where the decision being reviewed is a CBSA deferral refusal, courts may apply a stricter standard and ask whether you are likely to succeed, not just whether the issue is arguable (Wang v Canada (MCI), 2001 FCT 148). Your lawyer needs to frame this branch carefully based on which decision is being challenged.

Part Two: Would You Suffer Irreparable Harm?

Irreparable harm means harm that cannot be undone or adequately compensated after the fact. Courts have accepted removal to a country where a person faces persecution or serious harm, separation from Canadian-citizen children, unavailability abroad of life-sustaining medical treatment, and nullification of an in-Canada application as potential evidence supporting this branch — though none automatically guarantees a stay. Each factor must be supported by specific, credible evidence tied to your personal circumstances.

Part Three: Where Does the Balance Lie?

The Court weighs your interests against Canada's interest in enforcing its immigration laws. Canadian courts have consistently held that the integrity of the immigration system is a significant public interest. Factors that typically weigh against an applicant include a prior criminal record in Canada, prior violations of immigration conditions, a history of removal orders not complied with, and previous failed applications. If your history has been complicated, your lawyer should address it directly — courts do not look favourably on omissions.

Timing Is Everything: Filing Deadlines and the 9 p.m. Rule

The Federal Court has made clear that last-minute filings require a satisfactory explanation. If a judge is not persuaded that the delay was justified, the Court may refuse to hear the motion at all, regardless of its merits. Delays in finding a lawyer, or assuming that CBSA will cancel the removal, are not acceptable explanations.

The practical consequence is straightforward: the moment you receive your direction to report, treat it as the start of an urgent, time-limited process. Every day you wait reduces the options available to your legal team.

Common Mistakes That Get Stay Motions Refused

These are the most common errors that cause Federal Court judges to refuse or decline to hear a stay motion. Avoiding them depends almost entirely on acting early and retaining experienced legal help.

• Waiting too long to call a lawyer. A motion filed the night before removal faces the Court's 9 p.m. threshold and carries strict ex parte rules. Earlier action means a more thorough record and stronger arguments.
• Skipping the CBSA deferral request. Courts generally expect applicants to try administrative remedies before approaching the Federal Court. Bypassing the deferral step — without a valid explanation — can weaken your position from the start.
• Filing a stay motion without an active judicial review application. A stay motion has no legal foundation unless an application for leave and judicial review is already before the Federal Court. The two must be filed together.
• Relying on generic or boilerplate arguments. The Federal Court has explicitly flagged that vague submissions that do not connect to your specific facts carry little weight. Every argument must address your personal circumstances in relation to the three-part test.
• Failing to disclose negative history in your file. In ex parte motions especially, omitting prior negative rulings, criminal history, or immigration violations violates the duty of full and frank disclosure. A stay obtained through incomplete disclosure can be set aside.
• Using an immigration consultant instead of a lawyer. Only a licensed lawyer may appear before the Federal Court of Canada. Immigration consultants — even those registered with the CICC — are not permitted to represent clients in Federal Court proceedings.
• Assuming compassionate circumstances alone will persuade the Court. The Federal Court applies the three-part legal test, not a general compassion assessment. Personal circumstances must be anchored to one of the three legal branches — particularly irreparable harm — and supported by evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions

Act Quickly — Time Is Your Most Limited Resource

About the author

Qasim Ali

Principal Lawyer · Nihang Law Professional Corporation · Toronto & Scarborough, Ontario · Law Society of Ontario

Qasim Ali is the Principal Lawyer at Nihang Law Professional Corporation, serving clients across Toronto, Scarborough, and the broader Greater Toronto Area. He provides full-service legal representation across immigration, real estate, family law, criminal law, civil litigation, employment law, wills and estates, and business law.

Nihang Law is particularly recognized for its depth in immigration and real estate law — a combination that serves newcomers and growing families navigating both legal systems simultaneously.

Learn more about Qasim Ali →

Sources & References

• Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), SC 2001, c 27 — ss. 48, 64 — laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
• Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7 — s. 18.1 — laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
• Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 — Rule 362(1) — laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
• RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG), [1994] 1 SCR 311 — scc-csc.lexum.com
• Wang v Canada (MCI), 2001 FCT 148 — canlii.org
• CBSA — Removals guidance — cbsa-asfc.gc.ca
• Government of Canada — Types of removal orders — canada.ca
• Federal Court of Canada — Stays of Removal guidance — fct-cf.ca
• Legal Aid Ontario — Stay Motions — legalaid.on.ca