Federal Court denies stay in deportation case tied to Thunder Bay trafficking conviction

THUNDER BAY – LEGAL – A Federal Court ruling has denied David Solomon-Umazi’s bid to halt his removal from Canada, in a case that matters locally because it grew out of a Thunder Bay drug investigation and shows how a trafficking conviction can carry immigration consequences well beyond the criminal sentence. Solomon-Umazi, now 23, argued he would face irreparable harm if returned to Nigeria, the country he left as a child.

Thunder Bay conviction becomes a federal immigration case

According to the ruling, Solomon-Umazi came to Canada from Nigeria at age 12, was convicted in May 2024 in a Thunder Bay trafficking case and received an 18-month conditional sentence. The Federal Court later refused his request to stay the deportation order while he challenged his removal.

Case traces back to Amelia Street West home takeover probe

The Thunder Bay Police Service said its intelligence unit went to a residence in the 200 block of Amelia Street West on Dec. 7, 2022, during an investigation into a suspected ongoing home takeover.

Police arrested Solomon-Umazi after what they described as a brief struggle and said officers seized suspected crack cocaine, fentanyl, cash and paraphernalia consistent with drug trafficking.

At the time, he was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000, resisting a peace officer and unlawfully being in a dwelling.

Why the conviction carried deportation risk

Under section 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a permanent resident or foreign national may be found inadmissible for serious criminality if convicted in Canada of an offence punishable by a maximum sentence of at least 10 years, or if a sentence of more than six months is imposed.

For foreign nationals, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations provide that inadmissibility under section 36(1)(a) or 36(2)(a) results in a deportation order. The same federal law says Canada’s immigration system is meant not only to deliver economic and social benefits, but also to protect public safety and deny access to serious criminals.

Drug trafficking offences are treated as among the most serious

Section 5 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act makes it an offence to traffic in, or possess for the purpose of trafficking, substances listed in Schedules I to V. For Schedule I or II substances, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Schedule I includes cocaine and fentanyls, which helps explain why trafficking convictions of this kind can trigger the serious-criminality provisions in federal immigration law.

Why this matters in Thunder Bay and Northwestern Ontario

For Thunder Bay readers, the decision is a reminder that a local police court case can evolve into a much larger federal case once a conviction engages immigration law.

In this instance, a south-side home takeover investigation in Thunder Bay ultimately ended up before the Federal Court, linking community safety concerns on the ground with national rules on removal, public safety and serious criminality.

For Northwestern Ontario, where local courts regularly deal with trafficking cases tied to broader networks and long-distance movement into the region, that intersection is not abstract. It can shape what happens long after the arrest and sentencing are over.