Federal Court Pauses Deportation, Citing Irreparable Harm to Wife With ADHD

(CANADA) The Federal Court has stayed the deportation of Jagjit Singh, an Indian national, after finding that his removal would cause “irreparable harm” to his Canadian wife, who lives with ADHD. Justice Avvy Yao-Yao Go ruled that Singh’s day-to-day care and stability are essential to his spouse’s health and safety, and that removing him from the home would create risks that cannot be repaired later.

While Singh’s inland spousal sponsorship is under review, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) moved to remove him. He sought a deferral; CBSA refused. The court’s order pauses enforcement, granting a stay of removal pending judicial review of the deferral refusal in court.

Evidence before the court showed that Singh helps his wife maintain daily structure, reminds her about medication, provides emotional support, and contributes financially. The judge noted that L.B. lacks other reliable family support. The couple lives with Singh’s sister, and he also helps with that household’s bills. In this context, the court found removal now would cause immediate harm to a Canadian tied to her ADHD-related impairments.

Singh arrived in 2021 on a temporary resident visa and filed a refugee claim. He married L.B., a Canadian citizen, in January 2025. After she filed an inland sponsorship for him, he withdrew his refugee case. Despite the pending permanent residence application, CBSA issued a removal order, prompting his court challenge built around the irreparable harm standard.

Court’s findings and legal stakes

Under Canadian law, a court may halt a deportation when removal would cause harm that cannot be fixed later—such as serious health, safety, or family impacts on a Canadian or permanent resident.

The judge held that the condition, and the specific support Singh provides, made his presence in the home part of his wife’s basic functioning. That made the risk immediate and weighty enough to justify a pause.

Important clarifications about the stay:
– The stay does not grant permanent residence, cancel the removal order, or decide the merits of the sponsorship.
– It only keeps Singh in Canada while the Federal Court reviews CBSA’s refusal to defer.
– If the court later upholds the refusal, removal could resume.
– If the court sets aside the refusal, CBSA may have to reconsider the deferral using the court’s guidance.

The decision prompted public debate:
– Some critics questioned whether ADHD is severe enough to prevent deportation.
– Others attacked the judge’s background rather than the legal test.
– Supporters emphasized that mental health conditions vary widely and that spouses often act as informal caregivers who manage medication, routines, and safety.

In this case, the court found the record persuasive: disruption would likely harm a Canadian immediately.

Key takeaway: Courts can and will consider daily caregiving and stability when assessing whether removal would cause irreparable harm to a Canadian family member.

Broader policy backdrop and practical impact

The ruling arrives amid broader changes to Canada’s immigration landscape:
– For 2025, the government aims for 395,000 new permanent residents, with over 40% from people already in Canada.
– Provincial Nominee Program spots were cut by 50% this year; provinces narrowed who qualifies, focusing on in-demand jobs.
– IRCC plans to make the Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot permanent by late 2025 and to open new work permits for agriculture and fish processing.
– Changes to spousal open work permits and post‑graduation work permits are planned.

These shifts raise the stakes for families like Jagjit Singh and L.B. Fewer spots and tighter criteria make timing critical. People waiting on sponsorship or other status changes can still face removal—especially if CBSA declines to defer.

The Singh ruling shows that courts will look closely at health-related harm, including ADHD, when a Canadian family member depends on the person facing deportation.

Practical lessons for affected families

For readers who may face similar situations, the court’s approach suggests concrete steps:

• Build a clear record:
  • Obtain medical letters that explain the condition in plain terms, outline treatment, and detail the caregiving tasks the sponsored spouse provides.
• Show why alternative supports won’t fill the gap:
  • Document absence or unreliability of family help or community supports.
• Demonstrate ties and stability:
  • Provide proof of financial contributions, housing arrangements, and community connections.
• Preserve communications:
  • Request a deferral in writing and keep copies of all replies and removal notices.

Warning: A sponsorship does not automatically prevent deportation. Unless a person holds valid status or a special permit, CBSA can proceed with removal while a PR application is pending.

The case timeline (concise)

1. 2021: Temporary resident entry and refugee claim filed.
2. January 2025: Marriage to a Canadian citizen.
3. Inland spousal sponsorship filed; refugee claim withdrawn.
4. CBSA issues a removal order while PR is pending.
5. CBSA denies the deferral request.
6. Federal Court application arguing irreparable harm to the spouse.
7. Court grants a stay pending judicial review.
8. Removal is paused until that review is decided.

What this may mean going forward

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, Singh’s win may prompt:
– More detailed medical and caregiving evidence in deferral files.
– More careful written reasons from removal officers.
– Lawyers to foreground health impacts earlier in deferral requests rather than waiting until the eve of removal.

Employers and schools may also be affected. If courts continue pausing removals where family health risks are proven, workers and students with pending status could have more time to finish terms, shifts, or training while cases proceed. Remember, however, that a stay is temporary and does not guarantee approval—the final outcome depends on the strength of the underlying application and the court’s ruling.

The case highlights a communications gap: many families mistakenly assume a sponsorship protects against deportation. It does not. That is why deferral requests—and the evidence behind them—matter. Health conditions like ADHD must be tied to concrete daily needs, not merely a diagnosis.

As policy evolves through 2025, IRCC may clarify how officers should weigh health and caregiving claims in deferrals. CBSA may face closer court scrutiny when files show acute risks to Canadians.

Final practical message

Whatever the final judicial review decides in Singh’s case, the guidance for households is clear:
– Document the care thoroughly.
– Show the specific risks and lack of alternative supports.
– Seek timely legal advice.

For official guidance on family sponsorship eligibility and required proof, see IRCC’s family sponsorship portal: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/family-sponsorship/spouse-partner.html