The Federal Court considered an application for mandamus
requiring IRCC to complete the processing of a child’s PR application. The
application had been submitted in January 2021 after several temporary resident
visa refusals. Although the matter involved unusual guardianship, sponsorship
eligibility, and humanitarian and compassionate issues, the Court found that
the lengthy delay was not satisfactorily explained. The record showed extended
periods of inactivity, with meaningful steps often occurring only after
judicial proceedings were initiated or immediately before the hearing.
Key Principle
The absence of a published processing time does not permit
IRCC to delay an application indefinitely. Mandamus may be granted where the
applicant has fulfilled all requirements, promptly responded to requests, made
a prior demand for a decision, and is not responsible for the delay, while IRCC
has allowed the application to remain inactive without satisfactory
justification. The complexity of an application may explain some delay, but it
does not justify prolonged periods of unexplained inactivity, particularly
where the applicant is a child and the delay prolongs family separation.
Background
The child was placed with prospective adoptive parents in
2017, and a court granted them guardianship in 2018. The parents had obtained
Canadian PR status in 2014.
After three unsuccessful temporary resident visa
applications, a family sponsorship PR application was submitted for the child
in January 2021. IRCC later found the father ineligible to sponsor because of
residency requirements but continued considering the child’s application,
including possible H&C relief.
The family repeatedly requested updates, provided medical
information, answered procedural fairness concerns, and submitted additional
documents. A demand letter was sent in January 2024, followed by the mandamus
application in February 2024.
Court Findings
• Public Duty and Clear Right Were Established
IRCC had a legal duty to process the PR application, and the
child had complied with all requests and paid the required fees.
• Delay Was Unreasonable
Whether measured from January 2021 or the December 2022
H&C submissions, the processing period included long and unexplained
periods of inactivity.
• Complexity Did Not Fully Explain the Delay
The unusual sponsorship and H&C issues justified some
additional processing time, but not years of uncertainty without consistent
progress.
• Judicial Proceedings Prompted Action
The record suggested that IRCC took significant steps only
after court proceedings were initiated or deadlines approached.
• Applicant Did Not Cause the Delay
The child and parents responded promptly to all requests and
repeatedly sought updates.
• Balance of Convenience Favoured the Child
Continued delay prolonged family separation and disrupted
the family’s plans to live together in Canada.
Outcome
The Federal Court granted mandamus and ordered IRCC to
complete processing within 120 days. IRCC could seek one additional 30-day
extension if a valid reason prevented compliance. No question was certified.
Case Citation:
A.R. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 236 (CanLII)
Written by:
Dr. Muhammad
Abrar (Barrister and
Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and
Statistics Analyst
