ORDER

UPON MOTION by the Applicants for emergency relief heard before the Court on February 25, 2026, for a stay of the enforcement of the Applicants’ removal from Canada to India scheduled for March 04, 2026 [Removal Order], until such time as a final decision is rendered on the Applicants’ pending Application for Leave and for Judicial Review [ALJR] of a negative decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) [Decision] dated October 16, 2025;

AND UPON considering the tripartite test established in Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 86 NR 302, 6 Imm LR (2d) 123 (FCA) [Toth], and in R v Canadian Broadcasting Corp, 2018 SCC 5 at para 12, which test guides this Court in determining whether the stay should be granted and requires that the applicants establish all three elements: (i) that there is a serious issue to be tried in the underlying ALJR; (ii) that the applicants would suffer irreparable harm by reason of their removal pending the final disposition of their ALJR; and (iii) that the balance of convenience lies in the applicants’ favour;

AND UPON further noting that the Court has recognized that these are not “watertight compartments” and that the strength of one prong may in certain situations overcome any weaknesses in the other (see, for instance, Matthew v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 924, at para 14), and that the overall question remains “whether granting the injunction would be just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case” (Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc, 2017 SCC 34, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 824, at para 1);

AND UPON considering that when assessing the strength of an applicant’s case on the merits of their underlying ALJR, for the purposes of determining whether a serious issue has been raised, the standard of review that applies is the deferential standard of reasonableness as described in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 and Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21;

AND UPON noting that in most cases, the threshold to establish a serious issue is relatively low, nonetheless, an applicant must establish a serious issue in the underlying decision, meaning an issue that is not frivolous or vexatious and has some chance of succeeding on the judicial review of that decision (see Gateway City Church v Canada (National Revenue), 2013 FCA 126 at para 11 and Glooscap Heritage Society v Canada (National Revenue), 2012 FCA 255 at para 25);

AND UPON noting that with respect to the second part of the Toth test, the onus also rests on the Applicants to establish with clear, convincing and non-speculative evidence that they will suffer irreparable harm, in that they face a serious likelihood of jeopardy to their lives, security, or safety should they have to leave Canada (Okojie v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 880 at para 113; Montenegro v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2016 FC 609 at para 12);

AND UPON considering the balance of convenience and the harm likely to be suffered by each party, including the public interest in carrying out enforceable Removal Orders “as soon as possible” as required by section 48(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA];

AND UPON considering the materials placed before this Court, and having traversed all oral argument provided by counsel in support of their respective positions on this motion, I find the Applicants have not satisfied the three-pronged Toth test, and as a result, this Motion will be dismissed for the following reasons:

I. Serious Issue

1. No serious issue has been raised in the RPD Decision, which was reasonable in my view. No errors of fact or law have been made out.

II. Irreparable Harm

2. No irreparable harm has been shown, other than the normal hardships of removal. The Applicants concede that there will be no harm to them other than the ordinary hardships associated with removal – but rather that there will be to their Canadian-born children due to a medical condition for one of them. However, they have failed to produce any medical evidence relating to the alleged condition, which appears to be a heart murmur according to their oral submissions. Their oral evidence, without more, does not meet the standards for irreparable harm set out above.

III. Balance of Convenience

3. The balance lies with the Respondent in this case.

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

1. The Applicants motion for a stay of removal is dismissed.

2. No costs are awarded.