The
Federal Court dismissed a student’s motion to stay his removal from Canada. The
Court found that the student could not rely on the 150-day authorized-leave
policy because there was no evidence that his original designated learning
institution had approved his absence.
Key
Principle
The decision confirms that a student may rely on
the 150-day authorized-leave policy only where the leave has been approved by
the designated learning institution. Where an officer obtains information from
a school indicating that a leave, academic suspension, or study gap was not
authorized, procedural fairness requires that the student be given a meaningful
opportunity to respond to that information.
A
change of schools within 150 days does not, by itself, establish compliance
with study permit conditions.
Background
Yuvraj
Ahuja received a study permit in September 2024 to attend a two-year
hospitality and tourism program at Lambton College in Sarnia, Ontario.
Mr.
Ahuja attended Lambton College for only one day. He did not secure
accommodation in Sarnia and later stated that he had never intended to attend
the college.
In
October 2024, Mr. Ahuja was accepted into a Social Service Worker program at
Sheridan College beginning in January 2025. He argued that his transition from
Lambton College to Sheridan College was within the 150-day period allowed for
an authorized leave from studies.
CBSA
issued a section 44 report alleging non-compliance with study permit
conditions. Following an interview, CBSA issued an exclusion order in December
2024.
Mr.
Ahuja later received a new study permit for Sheridan College. However, CBSA
proceeded with enforcement action, cancelled his study permits, and scheduled
his removal to India.
Mr.
Ahuja sought a stay of removal pending judicial review of the exclusion order.
Court
Findings
The
Court applied the three-part test for a stay of removal. The applicant had to
establish:
· A serious issue to be determined;
· Irreparable harm if removal occurred; and
· That the balance of convenience favoured a stay.
The
Court found that Mr. Ahuja did not establish a serious issue.
Mr.
Ahuja relied on IRCC policy allowing a student to take an authorized leave
from studies for up to 150 days without becoming non-compliant with study
permit conditions.
However,
the Court emphasized that the leave must be authorized by the designated
learning institution. Although IRCC does not need to be notified of an
authorized leave, the student must have approval from the school.
Mr.
Ahuja had no evidence that Lambton College authorized his absence or approved a
leave from studies. His argument that the period between Lambton College and
Sheridan College was less than 150 days was therefore insufficient.
The
Court found that the absence of authorization was fatal to his argument. The
150-day policy does not apply simply because a student changes schools or
resumes studies at another institution within 150 days.
The
Court also found that Mr. Ahuja did not establish irreparable harm. Lost
tuition, interrupted studies, and academic delay were primarily financial or
temporary harms. There was no evidence that he could not defer his program,
obtain a refund or credit, return after the exclusion period, or apply for
authorization to return to Canada earlier.
The
Federal Court dismissed the motion to stay removal. The exclusion order
remained enforceable pending the underlying judicial review.
Case Citation:
Ahuja v. Canada (Public Safety and
Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 800 (CanLII)
