The Federal Court denied a removal stay in a refugee appeal case after finding that the applicant’s challenge to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision was plainly out of time. In Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1246, Justice Lafrenière also found that the applicant had not shown irreparable harm ahead of his scheduled October 16, 2026 removal.
RAD appeal was dismissed for lack of perfection
The applicant, a citizen of India, made a refugee claim after arriving in Canada in June 2024. On January 22, 2026, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected the claim. For its Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) analysis, the RPD assumed the applicant’s allegations were true and found that Mumbai was a viable IFA.
A different lawyer filed a request to extend the time to file a notice of appeal with the RAD. The RAD granted that request on February 24, 2026 and set March 16 as the deadline for the appellant’s record. No record or further extension request was filed, and the RAD dismissed the appeal for lack of perfection on March 25, 2026.
The applicant later applied to reopen the appeal, but the RAD dismissed that request on August 7, 2026. A judicial review of the reopening refusal was filed separately. On September 17, 2026, the applicant filed the judicial review at issue in this case, challenging the March 25 RAD dismissal and seeking an extension of time if required.
Court found no serious issue on the late filing
Because the underlying application for leave and judicial review was plainly late, the Court held that the applicant had to show a serious issue concerning his request for an extension of time. The Court considered continuing intention, some merit, prejudice, a reasonable explanation for the delay, and the overall interests of justice.
The applicant said he became aware of the RAD decision only on September 8, 2026. He attributed the delay to former counsel and to an intermediary who had interpreted between him and counsel. Justice Lafrenière found the explanation improbable and not credible on the record before the Court.
The Court found that the RAD decision had been served on the applicant’s counsel through the My Case portal on March 25, 2026. It held that the applicant was bound by counsel’s receipt of the decision and that allegations that counsel did not pass it on did not establish a defect in the RAD’s service or turn timely service into non-service.
The Court also found that the applicant’s materials did not clearly establish a continuing intention to pursue this judicial review throughout the delay. Instead, he had elected to seek to reopen the appeal before the RAD. The Court therefore found no merit in the extension request.
Previously assessed risk did not show irreparable harm
The Court also considered the applicant’s argument that removal would cause irreparable harm. A stay of removal requires an applicant to establish a serious issue, irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favours a stay; the Court noted that the test is conjunctive.
At the hearing, counsel conceded there was no direct evidence from the applicant that he would face a risk to life or safety in India if removed. The risk evidence relied upon in the stay motion had already been before the RPD, which had assumed the allegations were true but found a viable IFA in Mumbai.
Justice Lafrenière held that the applicant had not presented a new and unassessed risk. The Court found that repeating risk evidence previously considered in the refugee process could not, without more, establish irreparable harm on this stay motion. It also rejected the submission that removal would deny the applicant a meaningful remedy because his RAD appeal had not been heard.
Motion and leave application dismissed
The Federal Court dismissed the motion to stay execution of the removal order. In light of its finding that the underlying application for leave and judicial review was untimely, the Court also dismissed the application for leave.
The decision addresses the particular record before the Court. Its practical significance is that, in this case, the Court treated service of the RAD decision on counsel as effective service and found that allegations about communication with counsel or an intermediary did not justify the substantial delay. It also confirms that a stay motion is not an opportunity to relitigate risk evidence already assessed in the refugee process without new and unassessed evidence.
Source: Federal Court Decisions