OP-ED: Why Canada can't deport foreign criminals — and why it matters
Lawyer Sergio R. Karas writes, "Perhaps the most damning example is not a single case, but a category: foreign criminals under deportation orders who simply vanish."
By: Sergio R. Karas
Sergio R. Karas, principal of Karas Immigration Law Professional Corporation, is a certified specialist in Canadian Citizenship and Immigration Law by the Law Society of Ontario, Division Chair of the ABA International Law Section, past chair of the Ontario Bar Association Citizenship and Immigration Section, past chair of the International Bar Association Immigration and Nationality Committee, and a fellow of the American Bar Foundation.
Canada’s immigration system is built on a delicate balance: compassion, due process, and public safety. But when it comes to deporting foreign criminals, that balance has increasingly tilted toward paralysis. Despite laws that clearly authorize removal, the reality is that deportations often take years, sometimes decades, and in many cases, never happen at all.
This is not a marginal problem. It is a systemic failure that undermines trust in immigration enforcement and raises legitimate public safety concerns.
At the core of the problem is a legal framework layered with procedural protections. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), individuals facing removal have access to multiple avenues of appeal, administrative deferrals, and humanitarian applications. Each step can pause enforcement, sometimes for years.
The Supreme Court of Canada has continued to expand access to appeals. In Pepa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 SCC 21 (CanLII), the Court reinforced that removal orders can be challenged flexibly and even beyond strict deadlines, in the name of fairness. While admirable in principle, such rulings inevitably prolong proceedings.
Even determining whether a person qualifies for deportation can be complicated. The Supreme Court has also held that deportation on “security grounds” requires a clear nexus to national security, narrowing government discretion. In other words, not all violent or troubling conduct is enough.
In practice, this means that deportation is rarely swift or certain.
Canada is deporting more people than before — but it is also losing control of the system.
The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) removed over 18,000 inadmissible individuals in 2024–2025, the highest number in a decade. Yet at the same time, the inventory of outstanding removal cases has ballooned to more than 30,000.
More alarmingly, hundreds of foreign criminals have simply disappeared. Recent reporting indicates that nearly 600 individuals with removal orders — including over 400 convicted of serious offences — are currently unaccounted for, some having evaded authorities for years.
This is not an administrative glitch. It is a breakdown in enforcement.
Several recent categories of cases illustrate how Canada’s deportation regime struggles to function effectively:
Criminal networks — some removals, many gaps
Authorities have recently deported dozens of foreign nationals linked to organized extortion networks in British Columbia. In 2026 alone, more than 30 individuals connected to violent extortion rings were removed following police cooperation.
But this example cuts both ways: it shows that deportations are possible — yet also underscores how long individuals can remain in Canada while engaged in criminal activity before immigration enforcement finally acts.
The “missing criminals” problem
Perhaps the most damning example is not a single case, but a category: foreign criminals under deportation orders who simply vanish. Authorities have acknowledged hundreds of such individuals, including serious offenders, who have slipped through the cracks and remain at large.
This raises a basic question: what is the value of a removal order that cannot be enforced?
Deportation orders delayed or halted at the last minute
Even when removal is imminent, political or legal interventions can derail the process. In March 2026, the federal government halted the deportation of a Montreal father and child days before removal, citing humanitarian concerns.
While such interventions may be justified in individual cases, they contribute to a broader perception that deportation orders are provisional rather than final.
Beyond legal appeals, several structural obstacles make deportation difficult:
Completion of criminal sentences first: Foreign nationals must serve their full sentence in Canada before removal can even begin.
Lack of travel documents: Some countries refuse or delay issuing documents needed for deportation, effectively blocking removal.
Non-refoulement obligations: Canada cannot deport individuals to countries where they risk persecution, limiting enforcement in many cases.
Limited detention powers: Immigration detention is used sparingly and is subject to strict review, increasing the risk that individuals abscond.
The result is a system where enforcement is reactive, not proactive.
There is also a growing disconnect between political rhetoric and operational reality.
Recent federal statements emphasize prioritizing the removal of foreign criminals and strengthening enforcement. The CBSA is even targeting roughly 20,000 removals annually.
Yet these efforts are overwhelmed by systemic inefficiencies and legal constraints. Increasing deportation targets does little if the underlying machinery cannot deliver timely results.
This issue is not abstract. When individuals with serious criminal records remain in Canada for years despite removal orders — or disappear entirely — the risks are real.
Past investigations have documented individuals ordered deported for violent offences who remained in Canada for over a decade, continuing to commit crimes. Even today, the existence of hundreds of missing offenders suggests that enforcement gaps persist.
Public confidence in the immigration system depends not only on who is admitted, but on whether the rules are enforced once violated.
Canada does not lack laws authorizing deportation. It lacks a system that can execute them efficiently.
Reform should focus on three priorities:
Streamlining appeals and limiting abuse of process
While due process is essential, endless litigation undermines enforcement. Clear timelines and stricter thresholds for appeals are needed.Strengthening detention and tracking mechanisms
Individuals under removal orders — particularly those with criminal records — must be effectively monitored to prevent absconding.Enhancing international cooperation
Canada must negotiate more effective arrangements with countries that delay or refuse repatriation.
Canada’s difficulty in deporting foreign criminals is not the result of a single failure. It is the predictable outcome of a system that prioritizes process over results, flexibility over finality, and rights without sufficient regard for enforcement.
No serious immigration system can function this way indefinitely.
Until Canada restores balance — preserving fairness while ensuring that removal orders mean removal — the gap between law and reality will continue to grow. And so will the risks.