Sowane v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 224 : Provincial Nominee PR Application – Mandamus Granted After Unexplained 59-Month Security Delay

Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed a mandamus application concerning a provincial nominee PR application that had remained unresolved for almost five years. The applicants argued that IRCC had provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay and that the uncertainty prevented them from planning their future. The Court granted judicial review and ordered IRCC to finalize the application within 90 days.

Key Principle

Mandamus may issue where IRCC has a public duty to process a PR application, the applicants have fulfilled all required steps, the delay is substantially longer than the process normally requires, the applicants are not responsible for it, and the Minister provides no satisfactory justification. General references to ongoing security screening are insufficient where no evidence identifies any particular complexity or inadmissibility concern.

Background

The principal applicant was nominated by Ontario and submitted his PR application in March 2019, including his son as a dependant. Biometrics, medical examinations, eligibility, and criminality steps were completed, and updated documents were supplied promptly whenever requested.

By the time of the Court’s decision, approximately 59 months had passed, compared with an estimated processing time of 22 months. IRCC attributed the delay to outstanding information connected with security screening.

Court Findings

• IRCC Owed Clear Public Duty

The applicants had submitted the necessary documents, paid applicable fees, complied with requests, and repeatedly sought completion of the process. IRCC therefore owed them a public duty to process the application and provide a final decision.

• Delay Was Prima Facie Excessive

The application had been pending for almost five years and exceeded the estimated processing period by approximately three years. Nothing in the record identified any unusual complexity that could explain such a significant departure from normal processing.

• Applicants Did Not Cause the Delay

The record showed that both applicants responded promptly to biometrics, medical, police-certificate, and updated-form requests. The Court found no evidence that they contributed to the prolonged processing time.

• Security Screening Explanation Was Inadequate

The Minister relied on ongoing security screening but provided no evidence of any concrete security, complexity, or inadmissibility concerns. Blanket references to pending security assessments could not justify an otherwise unexplained 59-month delay.

• Processing Activity Did Not Cure the Delay

The Court accepted that IRCC had taken some steps and that the file was not entirely inactive. However, the record had been virtually silent for a lengthy period, and inter-agency screening delays did not make the overall delay reasonable.

• Balance of Convenience Favoured Mandamus

The applicants faced continuing uncertainty and hardship while the Minister provided no persuasive evidence that the application would soon be finalized. A 90-day order still allowed sufficient time to complete any outstanding security work.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and issued mandamus requiring IRCC to process and determine the PR application within 90 days. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Sowane v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 224 (CanLII)