Won Your Judicial Review? Federal Court Explains Why You May Not Get Costs
- Citation
- 2025 FC 1971
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-23194-24
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Issa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1971
The Applicant successfully overturned an immigration decision in a judicial review (2025 FC 1821). He then sought an order for the government to pay his legal costs, arguing the visa officer's decision was unfair and that the Minister's lawyers should have settled instead of proceeding to a hearing.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court denied the request for costs. It affirmed that winning a judicial review does not automatically entitle an applicant to costs. The Applicant failed to meet the high threshold of proving "special reasons," such as bad faith or oppressive conduct by the government, which are required for a costs award in immigration matters.
Key Quote from the Court
Having received and considered the parties' respective submissions in light of the jurisprudence applicable to costs awards pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22 [the FCCIRPR], the Court finds that the Applicant has not established that special reasons exist in the circumstances of this proceeding for a costs award to be made.
Expert Takeaways
-
Winning a Case Doesn't Guarantee Costs This decision is a critical reminder that success in a judicial review does not automatically mean the government will pay your legal fees. Under Rule 22, you must prove 'special reasons,' a standard the Court describes as a 'high threshold.'
-
An Officer's Error is Not 'Special Reasons' The Court reinforced that an officer making a factual error or an unreasonable decision is, by itself, insufficient to warrant a costs award. The conduct must typically be unfair, oppressive, improper, or in bad faith.
-
Minister's Right to Defend a Decision Even if the government's case appears weak, the Minister is entitled to proceed to a hearing and argue their position based on existing case law. Doing so is not, in itself, considered unreasonable conduct that would justify a costs award.
-
Focus on Conduct, Not Just Outcome When seeking costs, the focus must be on the behaviour of the parties. This includes unreasonable delays, misleading conduct, or a refusal to acknowledge clear evidence during the litigation process, none of which were found by the Court in this case.
There is a deadline on this
That is the window to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review at the Federal Court, counted from the day you were notified of the decision. An extension can be requested, but it is granted at the Court's discretion - it is not automatic.
Check my deadlineDoes this ruling apply to your situation?
Tick whatever is true for you. Nothing is sent anywhere - this stays in your browser.
That combination is worth a proper look. It does not mean you have a case - only a lawyer reading your actual documents can say that - but it does mean the question is worth asking before your filing window closes.
Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and subject to change. For advice specific to your situation, please schedule a consultation with a qualified legal professional.
Your window to challenge is closing.
Judicial review of an IRCC refusal is time-sensitive. Book a consultation before your deadline.
No obligation - we review your documents and tell you if a Federal Court application is realistic.
Questions people ask after reading a case like this
Does this mean my own case will succeed?
No. Every application is decided on its own record. A reported decision shows how the Federal Court has reasoned about a particular kind of error - it does not predict the result of a different file. What it can tell you is whether the problem in your refusal is the kind of problem the Court has been willing to intervene on.
How long do I have to challenge a refusal?
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act you generally have 15 days to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review if the decision was made inside Canada, and 60 days if it was made outside Canada, counted from when you were notified. The Court can extend that period, but an extension is discretionary - it is not automatic.
What actually happens at the Federal Court?
Judicial review has two stages. You file the application and a written record, and a judge decides on paper whether to grant leave - permission for the case to proceed. If leave is granted, there is a hearing. The Court does not re-decide your immigration application; it decides whether the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. If you succeed, the file is normally sent back to be decided again by a different officer.
Do I have to be in Canada to bring an application?
No. Applicants outside Canada regularly bring judicial review applications, which is why the longer 60-day deadline exists for decisions made abroad. Applicants are not normally required to attend in person.
What happens in the free 15-minute review?
You explain what was refused or delayed and when you were notified. We tell you whether your filing window is still open, which issues in the decision look arguable, and what the realistic options are - including reapplying instead of litigating, where that is the better route. There is no obligation to retain us afterwards.
More recent Federal Court rulings
Federal Court: Challenge Admissibility Referral Delays at the Immigration Division First
Federal Court: Officer Must Meaningfully Engage with Systemic Racism Evidence
Court: Past Failures Don't Justify Mandamus if Problem is Now Resolved
Federal Court: IRCC Cannot Destroy PR Card Without Justifying Notice
Written by
Ali Dadkhah
Ali Dadkhah is a litigator whose practice is dedicated to challenging government decisions at the Federal Court of Canada. He specializes in judicial review, providing a crucial avenue for recourse for individuals and businesses who have faced unfair or unreasonable administrative outcomes. Bilingual legal support in English and Persian (Farsi)