Dhillon v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

canada, canadian, case law, court opinion, canlii, fct, 2026canlii90364, 2026 canlii 90364 (fc), 2026, canlii, 90364, (fc), imm-24237-26, 2026, citizenship and immigration, removals, deferral of removal, stay pending application for leave and for judicial review of refusal to defer removal, removal from canada to india scheduled imminently, enforcement officer decision challenged, motion heard by teleconference, stay motion dismissed, removal to proceed, style of cause amended, no costs, procedure, injunctions and stays, tripartite test (toth), whether applicant met serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience, test described as not “watertight compartments”, overall question whether relief “just and equitable” (google inc v equustek solutions inc), applicant failed all three prongs, stay motion dismissed, administrative law, judicial review, reasonableness, standard of review on underlying application for leave and for judicial review (vavilov, mason), higher serious issue threshold for refusal to defer removal (wang, baron, shpati), whether applicant showed a strong case and likelihood of success, lack of serious issue found, motion dismissed, evidence, irreparable harm, evidentiary threshold, whether clear, convincing and non, speculative evidence showed serious likelihood of jeopardy to life, security, or safety if removed (okojie, montenegro), insufficient evidence to meet irreparable harm standard, irreparable harm not established, stay motion dismissed, citizenship and immigration, removals, enforcement of removal orders, whether balance of convenience favoured the respondent, considering public interest in enforcing removal orders “as soon as possible” under immigration and refugee protection act, s. 48(2), harm weighed between parties, balance of convenience found for respondent, stay motion dismissed, removal to proceed