Jahazi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 2072 : Federal Court Recognizes Unjustified Delay as “Special Reasons” for Costs

In Jahazi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 2072, the Federal Court considered whether costs should be awarded to an applicant whose Canadian citizenship application remained pending for approximately ten years because of prolonged security screening. The Court also considered costs arising from a related section 38 proceeding concerning the protection of sensitive national security information. The Court found that the ten-year delay was unreasonable and unjustified and constituted “special reasons” warranting an award of costs. However, the conduct did not rise to the level required for substantial indemnity or solicitor-client costs.

Key Principle

Under Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, costs are generally unavailable in immigration proceedings unless “special reasons” exist. Such reasons can include an unreasonable and unjustifiable delay by immigration or citizenship officials. A prolonged security investigation, without a cogent explanation for why it remained necessary, cannot by itself justify an exceptionally lengthy delay.

The Court also confirmed that solicitor-client or substantial indemnity costs require circumstances significantly more serious than mere unreasonable delay, such as bad faith, reprehensible or outrageous conduct.

Background

Mr. Jahazi, an Iranian citizen who had lived and worked in Canada for many years, applied for Canadian citizenship in 2014. His history included previous permanent residence refusals based on security concerns, which were successfully challenged in 2010. On redetermination, he obtained permanent residence and had worked in Canada as a university professor since 2011.

His citizenship application was suspended in 2016 while security assessments were conducted. He brought a mandamus proceeding in 2019, but it was dismissed. In June 2022, he brought a second mandamus application. Although leave was granted, delays in preparing the certified tribunal record led to further proceedings under section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act concerning sensitive national security information.

In April 2024, Mr. Jahazi’s citizenship application was finally approved, rendering the mandamus proceeding moot. The Attorney General subsequently discontinued the section 38 proceeding.

Court Findings

• Ten-year delay was unreasonable and unjustified: The Court found that approximately ten years had elapsed before a decision was made. Merely stating that security partners continued investigating was insufficient. The Minister was required to provide a cogent explanation for such an extraordinary delay.

• Costs were justified, but not at the solicitor-client level: The Court found that the delay constituted a “special reason” for costs. However, the evidence did not establish bad faith, reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct. The conduct was described as lacking diligence and reflecting a lackadaisical approach, but it did not meet the exceptionally high threshold for solicitor-client costs.

• Highest end of party-and-party scale: Given the extraordinary ten-year delay, the Court awarded approximately 50% of the applicant’s actual fees in the mandamus proceeding—$2,000 plus HST.

• Section 38 proceeding: Discontinuance alone did not justify costs because the AGC was performing a statutory duty to protect sensitive information. However, its unusual opposition to appointing an amicus curiae unnecessarily increased the applicant’s litigation expenses. The Court therefore awarded $1,250 plus HST for that motion.

Outcome

The motion for costs was partially granted. The Minister was ordered to pay $2,000 plus HST for the mandamus proceeding, while the AGC was ordered to pay $1,250 plus HST for the amicus curiae motion. The Court declined substantial indemnity costs.

Case Citation:

Jahazi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 2072 (CanLII)