Gentile v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 452 : Court Addresses Citizenship Mandamus Application After Four-Year Suspension Was Lifted During Judicial Review

Mandamus Application Largely Moot; Monthly Court Reporting Ordered

Nino Mongiovi Gentile sought mandamus after his citizenship application had been suspended for more than four years while CBSA and IRCC investigated admissibility concerns. After the judicial review hearing, CBSA completed its latest investigation, IRCC lifted the suspension and resumed processing. The Federal Court held that the challenge to the suspension was therefore largely moot, but Gentile’s request for completion of processing remained live. Rather than impose his requested 60-day deadline, the Court ordered continuing monthly status reports.

Key Principle

A citizenship application may be suspended under section 13.1 of the Citizenship Act only for as long as necessary to obtain relevant information or investigation results, and the suspension remains subject to reasonableness review. Where another federal department conducts the investigation, IRCC cannot shield the suspension from meaningful review by simply stating that the investigation remains ongoing. The Court must receive sufficient information to assess whether the length of the suspension remains reasonably justified.

Background

Gentile had applied for Canadian citizenship more than ten years earlier. His current application remained suspended for over four years while IRCC and CBSA conducted investigations relating to admissibility.

He sought mandamus requiring IRCC to complete processing, together with declarations concerning unreasonable delay and inadequate disclosure. After the hearing, the Minister advised that CBSA had completed its investigation, the suspension had been lifted and IRCC had resumed processing on a priority basis.

Gentile nevertheless asked the Court to decide whether the prior suspension had been unreasonable and to require completion within 60 days.

Court Findings

• Challenge to the Prior Suspension Became Moot

Because IRCC had resumed processing, an order declaring the suspension unreasonable and requiring processing to resume would no longer change Gentile’s position. The Court declined to exercise its discretion under Borowski to decide the historical reasonableness issue, emphasizing that whether a section 13.1 suspension lasts longer than necessary is highly fact-specific.

• Government Must Provide Enough Information to Justify Delay

The Court expressed concern that IRCC had maintained the suspension largely because CBSA repeatedly advised that its investigation remained ongoing. IRCC had obtained little information explaining the investigation’s status or duration. A federal department cannot insulate a citizenship suspension from judicial scrutiny merely because another federal department conducts the underlying investigation. Some information must be available to permit meaningful reasonableness review.

• Fixed 60-Day Completion Deadline Was Not Appropriate

Gentile’s request that processing be completed remained live. However, the Court lacked sufficient information about the time required for updated clearances and a citizenship judge interview. It also recognized potential disruption arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead of imposing a fixed deadline, the Court retained supervision through recurring status reports, allowing further delay or outstanding processing concerns to be brought promptly before the Court.

Outcome

The Minister was ordered to report on Gentile’s citizenship application within 30 days and every 30 days thereafter until processing was completed or the Court ordered otherwise. Justice McHaffie remained seized of the matter, and costs were reserved until final disposition.

Case Citation:

Gentile v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 452 (CanLII)