{"id":15244,"date":"2026-04-01T10:00:13","date_gmt":"2026-04-01T14:00:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cila.co\/?p=15244"},"modified":"2026-04-06T17:07:50","modified_gmt":"2026-04-06T21:07:50","slug":"risks-of-suicide-and-deferrals-stays-of-removal-from-canada-le-risque-de-suicide-et-les-reports-sursis-de-renvoi-du-canada","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cila.co\/fr\/risks-of-suicide-and-deferrals-stays-of-removal-from-canada-le-risque-de-suicide-et-les-reports-sursis-de-renvoi-du-canada\/","title":{"rendered":"Risks of Suicide and Deferrals\/Stays of Removal from Canada (Le risque de suicide et les reports\/sursis de renvoi du Canada)"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Justin Jian-Yi <\/span>Toh, Barrister & Solicitor.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

La version fran\u00e7aise suit.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Canadian law recognizes that many people facing removal from Canada genuinely experience mental health challenges that can place their lives in danger. As Justice Fuhrer stated in Alayaki<\/em>:<\/p>\n

the prospect of imminent removal may worsen an individual\u2019s psychological state and trigger a suicide attempt<\/em>[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

Fortunately, the bulk of Federal Court case law acknowledges suicide as a form of irreparable harm beyond the normal consequences of removal, and accepts that a risk of suicide may justify pausing removal (i.e., staying removal) until the individual\u2019s safety is no longer under threat.[2]<\/a> Of course, there must be reliable evidence of the risk. But the fact that the risk comes from within the individual does not diminish its seriousness. Returning to Alayaki<\/em>, the Court affirmed that \u201csuicidal ideation is not voluntary and cannot be considered a mere scheme to avoid the requirement to leave Canada<\/em>.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

Justice Shirzad in Nagarasa<\/em> articulated the principles behind this reasoning:\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Self-harm and suicide is\u00a0not<\/u>\u00a0\u201ccontrollable\u201d\u00a0by a person who contemplates taking his or her own life. By definition, the fact that the Applicant was willing to take his own life means that the pain with which he is suffering is so unbearable to him that, in his view, the only answer is to end his own life. Like other serious medical conditions, depression and other mental health issues often require intervention by specialists who can diagnose the problem and provide treatment in the form of counseling, medication, etc. <\/em>[\u2026] Only the most perverse characterization would call attempted suicide in these circumstances a choice, or, in the Officer\u2019s words,\u00a0\u201ccontrollable by the applicant\u2019s own actions.<\/em>[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

Suicidal thoughts can justify staying removal even when it is unclear whether the individual experiencing such thoughts intends to act them out.[5]<\/a> To wait for them to act upon those thoughts before taking them seriously would be, in Justice Ahmed\u2019s words from the Yousef <\/em>case, \u201ctruly dangerous<\/em>\u201d, \u201ccontrary to law<\/em>\u201d, and \u201cmeritless and even life-threatening reasoning<\/em>\u201d.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

Unfortunately, our immigration officials have not always responded responsibly to risks of suicide brought on by removals. In 2022, Bryan Arthur Stone died by suicide while awaiting removal in immigration detention. He had previously warned that he was experiencing suicidal thoughts related to separation from his son, and had attempted suicide just days prior.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

If you or a loved one is facing removal from Canada and experiencing suicidal or self-destructive thoughts, please seek help from both a licensed mental health professional and an experienced lawyer with dedicated expertise in immigration litigation. It is critical to know your options for asking an officer to defer removal, or for seeking a stay of removal from the Federal Court.<\/p>\n

Call or text Canada\u2019s suicide crisis hotline at 9-8-8, or visit https:\/\/988.ca\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Review CILA\u2019s directory of lawyers here: https:\/\/cila.co\/directory\/<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Alayaki v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2022 CanLII 112134 at para 28<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Zhang v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2024 CanLII 59708; Nrejaj v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2023 CanLII 123029; Rivera Marquez v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2023 CanLII 50936 at paras 7-13<\/a>; Yousef v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2023 FC 1600 at para 20<\/a>; AB v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2023 FC 1301 at para 27<\/a>; Castro Ramirez v Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, 2023 FC 1243 at para 22<\/a>; Alayaki v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2022 CanLII 112134 at paras 28-29<\/a>; Choi v Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, 2021 CanLII 103640;\u00a0 Choy v Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, 2021 CanLII 64167; Takpa v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2020 FC 298 at para 29<\/a>; Flores-Calder\u00f3n Toledo c Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>2018 CF 903 at para 26<\/a>; Konat\u00e9 v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2018 FC 703 at paras 12-17<\/a>, 22-23<\/a>; Tiliouine v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2015 FC 1146 at paras 13-14<\/a>; Bodika-Kaninda v Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, 2011 FC 1484 at para 13<\/a>; Mazakian v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2008 FC 1248 at paras 6<\/a>, 33-35<\/a>;\u00a0 Melchor v Canada (Solicitor General)<\/em><\/a>, 2004 FC 372 at para 12<\/a>; Triana Orozco v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2024 CanLII 62474.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Alayaki v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2022 CanLII 112134 at para 28<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Nagarasa v Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, 2018 FC 313 at para 28<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Jean Tron v Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, 2023 FC 910 at paras 27-30<\/a>; Alabi v Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, 2023 FC 841 at paras 21-22<\/a>; Karkarod v Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, 2022 FC 1471 at paras 34-35<\/a>; Flores-Calder\u00f3n Toledo c Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>2018 CF 903 at para 26<\/a>; Melchor v Canada (Solicitor General)<\/em><\/a>, 2004 FC 372 at para 12<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Yousef v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2023 FC 1600 at para 23<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Samer Muscati, “Deaths Underscore Inhumanity of Canada\u2019s Immigration Detention” (2023-01-27), URL:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.hrw.org\/news\/2023\/01\/27\/deaths-underscore-inhumanity-canadas-immigration-detention<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Le droit canadien constate que de nombreuses personnes menac\u00e9es d’expulsion du Canada souffrent r\u00e9ellement de probl\u00e8mes de sant\u00e9 mentale qui peuvent mettre leur vie en danger. Comme l’a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 le juge Fuhrer dans l’arr\u00eat Alayaki<\/em>,<\/p>\n

une expulsion imminente peut aggraver l’\u00e9tat psychologique d’un individu et d\u00e9clencher une tentative de suicide<\/em>[1]<\/a>\u00a0[Traduit du jugement anglais]<\/p>\n

Heureusement, l’essentiel de la jurisprudence de la Cour f\u00e9d\u00e9rale reconna\u00eet le suicide comme une forme de pr\u00e9judice irr\u00e9parable qui d\u00e9passe les cons\u00e9quences normales de renvoi, et admet qu\u2019un risque de suicide peut justifier un sursis de renvoi jusqu\u2019\u00e0 ce que la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 de la personne ne soit plus menac\u00e9e.[2]<\/a> Bien s\u00fbr, il doit exister des preuves fiables du risque. Mais le fait que la menace provienne de la personne elle-m\u00eame n’en diminue pas la gravit\u00e9. Pour revenir \u00e0 l\u2019affaire Alayaki<\/em>, la jurisprudence confirme que \u00ab\u00a0les id\u00e9es suicidaires ne sont pas volontaires et ne peuvent \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9es comme une simple ruse pour se soustraire \u00e0 l\u2019obligation de quitter le Canada<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb.[3]<\/a> [Traduit du jugement anglais]<\/p>\n

Dans l’arr\u00eat Nagarasa<\/em>, le juge Shirzad a exprim\u00e9 les principes qui sous-tendent ce raisonnement\u00a0:<\/p>\n

L\u2019automutilation et le suicide ne sont pas\u00a0\u00ab\u00a0contr\u00f4lables\u00a0\u00bb\u00a0chez une personne qui songe \u00e0 s\u2019enlever la vie. Par d\u00e9finition, le fait que le demandeur f\u00fbt pr\u00eat \u00e0 se suicider signifie que la douleur qu\u2019il ressentait \u00e9tait si insupportable que selon lui, la seule solution \u00e9tait de mettre fin \u00e0 ses jours. Comme d\u2019autres maladies graves, la d\u00e9pression et les autres probl\u00e8mes de sant\u00e9 mentale n\u00e9cessitent souvent l\u2019intervention de sp\u00e9cialistes qui peuvent diagnostiquer le probl\u00e8me et fournir des soins comme des s\u00e9ances de consultation et des m\u00e9dicaments, entre autres. Comme l\u2019agent le savait tr\u00e8s bien, la situation du demandeur \u00e9tait si grave qu\u2019il a fini par atteindre la cons\u00e9quence extr\u00eame de son \u00e9tat\u00a0: il a tent\u00e9 de se suicider. Seule la description la plus perverse qualifierait une tentative de suicide comme un choix, dans ces circonstances, ou comme l\u2019a dit l\u2019agent, comme un probl\u00e8me\u00a0\u00ab\u00a0contr\u00f4lable par le demandeur lui\u2011m\u00eame\u00a0\u00bb.<\/em>[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

Les pens\u00e9es suicidaires peuvent justifier un report ou sursis de renvoi, m\u00eame s’il est difficile de d\u00e9terminer si la personne qui les vive a vraiment l’intention de passer \u00e0 l’acte.[5]<\/a> Attendre qu’elle agisse avant de prendre ces pens\u00e9es au s\u00e9rieux serait, selon le juge Ahmed dans l\u2019arr\u00eat Yousef<\/em>, \u00ab\u00a0vraiment dangereux<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb, \u00ab\u00a0contraire \u00e0 la loi<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb et un \u00ab\u00a0raisonnement sans fondement et m\u00eame destructeur<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

Malheureusement, les agents d’immigration n’ont pas toujours r\u00e9agi de mani\u00e8re responsable face aux risques de suicide li\u00e9s aux expulsions. En 2022, Bryan Arthur Stone est mort de suicide alors qu’il \u00e9tait d\u00e9tenu dans un centre de r\u00e9tention administrative en attente d’expulsion. Il avait pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment averti les autorit\u00e9s qu’il avait des pens\u00e9es suicidaires li\u00e9es \u00e0 sa s\u00e9paration de son fils, et avait fait une tentative de suicide quelques jours auparavant.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

Si vous ou un proche font face \u00e0 un renvoi du Canada et avez des pens\u00e9es suicidaires ou autodestructrices, veuillez consulter un professionnel de la sant\u00e9 mentale licenci\u00e9 et un avocat sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9 en litiges d’immigration. Il est essentiel de conna\u00eetre vos options pour demander \u00e0 un agent de reporter l’expulsion ou pour obtenir un sursis \u00e0 l’expulsion aupr\u00e8s de la Cour f\u00e9d\u00e9rale.<\/p>\n

Composez le 9-8-8 pour appeler ou messager la ligne d’\u00e9coute du Canada pour la pr\u00e9vention du suicide, ou visitez le site https:\/\/988.ca\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Consultez le r\u00e9pertoire des avocats de l\u2019ACAI ici\u00a0: http:\/\/cila.co\/annuaire-des-avocats\/?lang=fr<\/a><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Alayaki v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2022 CanLII 112134 au al 28<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Zhang v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2024 CanLII 59708; Nrejaj v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2023 CanLII 123029; Rivera Marquez v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2023 CanLII 50936 aux al 7-13<\/a>; Yousef c Canada (MSPPC)<\/em><\/a>, 2023 FC 1600 au al 20<\/a>; AB c Canada (MSPPC)<\/em><\/a>, 2023 FC 1301 au al 27<\/a>; Castro Ramirez c Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, 2023 FC 1243 au al 22<\/a>; Alayaki v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2022 CanLII 112134 aux al 28-29<\/a>; Choi v Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, 2021 CanLII 103640;\u00a0 Choy v Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, 2021 CanLII 64167; Takpa c Canada (MSPPC)<\/em><\/a>, 2020 FC 298 au al 29<\/a>; Flores-Calder\u00f3n Toledo c Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>2018 CF 903 au al 26<\/a>; Konat\u00e9 c Canada (MSPPC)<\/em><\/a>, 2018 FC 703 aux al 12-17<\/a>, 22-23<\/a>; Tiliouine c Canada (MSPPC)<\/em><\/a>, 2015 FC 1146 aux al 13-14<\/a>; Bodika-Kaninda c Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, 2011 FC 1484 au al 13<\/a>; Mazakian c Canada (MSPPC)<\/em><\/a>, 2008 FC 1248 aux al 6<\/a>, 33-35<\/a>;\u00a0 Melchor c Canada (Solliciteur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral)<\/em><\/a>, 2004 FC 372 au al 12<\/a>; Triana Orozco v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2024 CanLII 62474.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Alayaki v Canada (MPSEP)<\/em><\/a>, 2022 CanLII 112134 au al 28<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Nagarasa v Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, 2018 FC 313 au al 28<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Jean Tron v Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, 2023 FC 910 aux al 27-30<\/a>; Alabi v Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, 2023 FC 841 aux al 21-22<\/a>; Karkarod c Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, 2022 FC 1471 aux al 34-35<\/a>; Flores-Calder\u00f3n Toledo c Canada (MCI)<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>2018 CF 903 \u00e0 al 26<\/a>; Melchor c Canada (Solliciteur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral)<\/em><\/a>, 2004 FC 372 \u00e0 al 12<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Yousef c Canada (MSPPC)<\/em><\/a>, 2023 FC 1600 au al 23<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Samer Muscati, “Des d\u00e9c\u00e8s mettent en lumi\u00e8re l\u2019inhumanit\u00e9 du syst\u00e8me de d\u00e9tention de migrants au Canada” (2023-01-27), URL:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.hrw.org\/fr\/news\/2023\/01\/27\/des-deces-mettent-en-lumiere-linhumanite-du-systeme-de-detention-de-migrants-au<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Justin Jian-Yi Toh, Barrister & Solicitor.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":115,"featured_media":12379,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[644,78,759,758,757],"class_list":["post-15244","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-thought-leadership","tag-fcc","tag-federal-court","tag-removal-order","tag-removals","tag-suicide"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t