When Can You Win Legal Costs Against the Government in Immigration Cases?

Challenging an immigration decision in Federal Court can feel like a daunting David-and-Goliath battle. You're an individual, facing the vast resources of the Canadian government. A common question we hear is, “If I win, can the government be forced to pay my legal bills?” While it’s true that in immigration cases, each party usually pays their own way, there are important exceptions. The courts call these “special reasons,” and they often arise from stories of unreasonable delays, broken promises, and unfair conduct.

Recent Federal Court decisions paint a vivid picture of when judges will step in and level the playing field by awarding costs against the government. These aren't just legal rulings; they are stories of justice in action, offering hope and crucial lessons for anyone navigating the system.

When Unreasonable Delays Go Too Far

Imagine waiting a decade for a decision on your citizenship. That was the reality for Mr. Jahazi, whose application was stuck in limbo for ten long years. In Mohammad Jahazi v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2024 FC 2072, the court found this delay completely unacceptable. The judge noted that such a long wait was “prima facie unreasonable” and required a very strong explanation from the government-an explanation that never came. As a result, the court ordered the government to pay a portion of Mr. Jahazi's legal costs for the unjustified ordeal.

Similarly, in Habibi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1675, an applicant waited 36 months for his citizenship application, caught in a prolonged security check with no clear answers. The delay was so severe it forced him to take a job in the U.S., separating him from his family in Canada. The Federal Court agreed the delay was unreasonable and ordered a decision within 60 days. Crucially, the court also awarded costs, stating that the government cannot expect an applicant to “bear the cost of any and all arbitrary and unexplained delays.”

Expert insight: These cases show that while IRCC needs time for due diligence like security checks, this is not a blank cheque for indefinite delays. When the government fails to provide a good reason for an excessive wait, the court may order them to pay for your trouble.

Abuse of Process and Egregious Conduct

Sometimes, the issue isn't just delay, but how the government has conducted itself during the legal process. In one powerful case, Gomez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1615, the government broke a settlement agreement it had made with an applicant years earlier. The Department of Justice tried to get out of its promise by pointing to a minor procedural slip-up by the applicant's lawyer, which it had known about and ignored at the time.

The Court was not impressed, calling the government's behaviour “egregious conduct” and a form of “sharp practice.” The judge made it clear that a settlement is a binding promise that must be honoured. For this breach of trust, the court awarded a rare and significant lump-sum cost of $10,000 against the Minister.

This principle was also seen in The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Shiyuan Shen, 2025 FC 1175, where the Minister’s actions were found to be an “abuse of process” that caused unnecessary delays. While noting that awarding costs in immigration is “the exception and not the rule,” the Court confirmed that such conduct creates the “special reasons” needed to justify a cost award, granting a lump sum of $5,500.00 to the applicant.

Public Interest and Access to Justice

The court also considers the bigger picture. If your case helps clarify an important area of law or stands up for a principle that benefits many others, you may be entitled to higher costs. This helps ensure that critical legal issues can be heard, even if the person bringing the case doesn't have deep pockets.

In two recent cases, Cully v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1379 and Powless v. Attorney General of Canada, 2025 FC 1425, the court awarded significantly elevated costs to successful applicants. Both cases involved Jordan's Principle, a rule ensuring First Nations children get the services they need. The judges recognized the immense public importance of the litigation and the huge “resource imbalance” between an individual and the government. As the judge in Cully stated, “it is probable that the matter would not have been heard had Applicant counsel not agreed to take the matter on a pro bono basis.”

Expert insight: These rulings confirm that awarding costs is a key tool for ensuring access to justice. If your case has a broader public interest, the court may award higher costs to level the playing field and encourage lawyers to take on these important fights.

Conclusion: Key Lessons on Costs

While winning costs against the government isn't guaranteed, these stories reveal a clear pattern. The Federal Court is willing to intervene financially when there is evidence of:

• Unreasonable and Unexplained Delays: Long periods of inaction by IRCC without a solid reason.
• Government Misconduct: Actions that are unfair, unethical, or an abuse of the court process, like breaking a settlement.
• Public Interest: Cases that address systemic issues or clarify important laws, helping to ensure access to justice for all.

It’s important to remember the flip side, too. As shown in STEELHEAD LNG v. ARC RESOURCES LTD., 2025 FCA 5, bringing a meritless or “less than a low-chance case” to court can result in you being ordered to pay the government's costs. Ultimately, the court's power to award costs is all about fairness and ensuring the integrity of the justice system for everyone involved.