Liu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 956 : Mandamus Application Dismissed After Officer Refused Work Permit for Non-Compliance

The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review seeking an order of mandamus to compel IRCC to decide a work permit application. Although IRCC issued a decision only after the judicial review had been commenced, the Court held that the application was not moot because the parties continued to dispute whether the delay in processing was unreasonable. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that mandamus was unavailable because IRCC had already fulfilled its legal duty by rendering a decision before the matter was heard. The case provides important guidance on the relationship between processing delays, mootness, and the legal requirements for obtaining mandamus.

Key Principle

A judicial review seeking mandamus does not automatically become moot simply because IRCC issues a decision after litigation has commenced. However, once IRCC has discharged its legal duty by making a decision, an applicant generally cannot establish the essential prerequisite for mandamus—namely, a continuing refusal to perform the statutory duty.

Background

The applicant applied for a work permit in August 2024 to undertake paid PhD research at the University of Alberta.

During processing, IRCC completed the applicant’s security assessment and later requested updated medical and employment information. When no response was received, the application was refused for non-compliance under subsections 16(1) and 16(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

Before the refusal was issued, the applicant had already commenced an application for judicial review seeking an order of mandamus on the basis of unreasonable delay in processing the work permit application.

Court Findings

Justice Battista held that the judicial review was not moot, even though IRCC had rendered a decision before the hearing.

The Court explained that the central dispute between the parties was not simply whether a decision had been made, but whether IRCC had taken an unreasonable amount of time to process the application. That dispute continued to exist despite the eventual refusal, and the Court observed that findings regarding unreasonable delay may still serve useful purposes, including public accountability or, in appropriate cases, an award of costs.

However, the Court concluded that the applicant could not satisfy the legal test for mandamus.

Applying the well-established Apotex test, the Court emphasized that an applicant must demonstrate a clear right to the performance of a public duty, including proof that the decision-maker has refused—either expressly or implicitly—to perform that duty.

In this case, there was no refusal to act. IRCC had fulfilled its statutory obligation by issuing a decision on the work permit application before the judicial review was determined. Since the legal duty had already been discharged, the applicant could no longer establish a continuing failure to act, which is an essential prerequisite for mandamus.

Accordingly, although the Court acknowledged that processing delays may continue to be scrutinized after a decision is rendered, the remedy of mandamus was no longer available because the underlying duty had already been performed.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and the request for mandamus. The decision confirms that while a delayed immigration decision does not necessarily render a mandamus application moot, the issuance of a decision before the Court determines the matter will generally prevent an applicant from obtaining mandamus because there is no longer an ongoing refusal by IRCC to perform its statutory duty.

Case Citation:

Liu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 956 (CanLII)