Background
Mohamad Kassar arrived from Lebanon in 1991 and remained a Canadian permanent resident until a criminal conviction caused him to lose that status. In 2018, he was convicted of trafficking fentanyl after agreeing to transport fentanyl and hydromorphone pills for payment, and he received a 45-month prison sentence. A deportation order followed in December 2019. He was released on parole in June 2021 and complied with his parole conditions.
Kassar applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds in April 2025 and later sought a temporary resident permit. An immigration officer refused the permit on June 10, 2026, concluding that his establishment in Canada, family relationships, medical conditions, and conditions in Lebanon did not provide compelling reasons outweighing the risks associated with his inadmissibility for serious criminality. Kassar sought judicial review and moved to stay his removal to Lebanon, scheduled for September 3, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court dismissed the stay motion. Although the minister conceded, and the Court assumed without deciding, that Kassar had raised at least one serious issue concerning the permit refusal, Kassar failed to prove irreparable harm. The evidence showed that his grandchildren would remain primarily cared for by their parents, and the loss of his support, though difficult, was an inherent consequence of removal rather than a demonstrated threat to their life, security, or safety.
Kassar also failed to provide specific, probative evidence that he could not obtain his medications in Lebanon or from outside the country. General evidence about Lebanon’s healthcare difficulties and evidence of possible deterioration did not establish real, definite, and unavoidable harm. Nor would removal make his humanitarian application or judicial review proceeding moot. Because the test for a stay is conjunctive, that failure was dispositive; the Court additionally found that the balance of convenience favoured enforcing the valid deportation order, particularly given Kassar’s serious criminality.
Key Takeaways
- A stay applicant must satisfy all three requirements: a serious issue, irreparable harm, and a favourable balance of convenience.
- Family disruption ordinarily associated with removal is insufficient without specific evidence of serious jeopardy to a family member’s life, security, or safety.
- General concerns about foreign healthcare do not establish irreparable harm without concrete evidence that necessary treatment or medication will be unavailable.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the demanding, evidence-based standard for obtaining a stay of removal. Medical vulnerability, close family relationships, and pending immigration proceedings do not alone suffice; applicants must demonstrate with detailed and particularized evidence that removal will cause unavoidable harm that cannot later be remedied.
It also confirms that pending humanitarian or temporary-resident-permit proceedings generally do not create remedial injustice when they can continue after removal, while the public interest in prompt enforcement of immigration law weighs heavily where serious criminality is involved.