Citizenship Delayed Years Then Granted? You May Still Win Costs

The journey to Canadian citizenship can be long, but for some, it becomes an ordeal of silence and unexplained delays. You follow the rules, submit your application, and wait. And wait. Years can pass with no word, despite your repeated inquiries. Frustrated, you take the only step left: you ask the Federal Court to intervene. Suddenly, just weeks after you file your case, your citizenship is approved. While the outcome is a relief, the battle isn't quite over. You've spent time, money, and emotional energy forcing a decision that should have been made years ago. The question then becomes: can IRCC avoid accountability for extreme delays just by granting your application at the last minute? Recent Federal Court decisions send a clear signal: no, they cannot. You may still win costs.

This is a story about holding the government accountable. It explores how, even when an application is rendered moot by a last-minute approval, the Federal Court can use its authority to award legal costs as a way of discouraging excessive and unjustified delays, ensuring fairness for applicants who are forced to seek justice.

The Legal Framework for Citizenship and Court Oversight

Why the Citizenship Act (RSC 1985, c C-29) Matters

The Citizenship Act (RSC 1985, c C-29) is the cornerstone of Canadian citizenship. It defines who is a citizen and outlines the legal pathways to becoming one. It grants the Minister the authority to make decisions on applications, establishing the government's duty to process them.

In plain language: This Act creates the legal right to apply for citizenship and imposes a duty on the government to make a decision on that application. It doesn't, however, specify a hard deadline, which can lead to prolonged and frustrating waits for applicants.

Why this matters in Judicial Review: When the delay in processing becomes so long that it feels like a refusal to act, an applicant can argue that the Minister is failing to fulfill the duties established by the Citizenship Act (RSC 1985, c C-29). This forms the basis for seeking a court order to compel a decision.

Why the Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) Matters

The Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) provides the legal muscle for court oversight. It gives the Federal Court the jurisdiction to supervise federal bodies like IRCC and grant remedies when they fail to act lawfully. One of the most powerful remedies for inaction is an order of mandamus, which compels an official to perform their public legal duty.

In plain language: This Act empowers the Court to step in and tell IRCC, "You have a legal duty to decide this application, and you must do it now." It's the legal tool that breaks through administrative paralysis.

Why this matters in Judicial Review: The Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) is the reason applicants can sue the government for unreasonable delays. It provides the legal authority for a judge to assess the delay and, if found to be unjustified, order IRCC to act.

Why the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106) Matter

While the Acts provide the authority, the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106) lay out the specific procedures for a court case, including the rules for awarding costs. Costs are intended to partially compensate a successful party for their legal expenses. The Rules allow a judge to award costs for "special reasons," even if the main issue has been resolved.

In plain language: This is the playbook for how a court case unfolds. Crucially, it contains the mechanism that allows a judge to penalize a party for poor conduct, such as causing unjustified delays that force someone to sue.

Why this matters in Judicial Review: This is where accountability meets consequences. The Court can use these rules to signal its disapproval of IRCC's conduct. If a delay was so excessive that it forced an applicant to file a lawsuit, the Court can deem this a "special reason" to order IRCC to pay costs, even if the citizenship was granted right after the lawsuit was filed.

When IRCC's Delay Meets a Day in Court

The journey from a stalled application to a court-ordered remedy is a story told through real cases. For every applicant waiting in silence, these Federal Court decisions offer both a cautionary tale and a glimmer of hope.

This was the reality for Mr. Hussini, a Syrian refugee who applied for citizenship as a child in 2019. For over seven years, his application languished without explanation. After his repeated inquiries went unanswered, he filed a mandamus application to force a decision. Just two months later, his citizenship was granted. The government then argued the case was moot and should be dismissed. The Court agreed the primary issue was resolved but found that the extensive and unjustified delay constituted "special reasons" to award costs against the government.

“Costs will not provide Mr. Hussini with the explanation that he seeks, but costs do send a signal that excessive delays and a lack of evidence before the Court to demonstrate some justification for an excessive delay in these circumstances are discouraged.”

Expert insight: This decision confirms that IRCC cannot escape accountability for unreasonable delays simply by making a decision at the last minute. The issue of costs can remain a live issue, and the Court can still penalize the government for its conduct. Applicants should not be forced to bear the legal fees incurred to address government inaction. Filing a mandamus application is often the most effective way to break through prolonged processing delays.

In Hussini v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1122, the judge used the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106) to hold IRCC accountable. The Court signaled that forcing an applicant to resort to litigation after a seven-year wait was unacceptable, and this conduct warranted a financial consequence.

The principle of awarding costs for unreasonable delays was also affirmed in another case. Mr. Jahazi had been waiting approximately ten years for a decision on his citizenship application before seeking a writ of mandamus. The Federal Court found this delay to be unreasonable and unjustified, constituting 'special reasons' for awarding costs against the Minister.

“In my view, the delay of approximately ten years that occurred before the Minister made a decision on Mr. Jahazi's citizenship application was unreasonable and unjustified. In the face of such a long delay, the decision was prima facie unreasonable and required a cogent explanation by the Minister.”

Expert insight: This decision reaffirms that unreasonable and unjustified delays by IRCC, particularly without cogent explanation, can lead to a successful claim for costs against the Minister in Judicial Review applications. The ruling highlights that the power to award costs is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.

In Mohammad Jahazi v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2024 FC 2072, the Court again demonstrated its willingness to use its powers under the Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) and Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106) to address administrative failings that undermine the principles of the Citizenship Act (RSC 1985, c C-29).

When the Applicant Is to Blame

However, the Court does not automatically side with the applicant. The case of Jasmeen Kaur Manes serves as a critical reminder of an applicant's own responsibilities. She sought a mandamus order after waiting nearly eight years for a decision on her citizenship application filed in 2018. The Federal Court dismissed her application, finding that she herself had caused the delay by failing to provide documents requested by IRCC for several years.

“Accordingly, the Applicant has failed to establish a clear right to the performance of the duty under the Apotex test.”

Expert insight: To successfully argue for a mandamus order, an applicant must first prove they have satisfied all conditions, including submitting all requested documents. The Court will not find a delay unreasonable if the applicant is the cause. This case shows that failing to respond to document requests will be attributed to the applicant, not IRCC.

In Jasmeen Kaur Manes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 80, the judge’s decision highlights that the right to a timely decision is paired with the responsibility to be a diligent and responsive applicant. Without fulfilling one's own obligations, the path to a judicial remedy is closed.

Key Lessons

• Accountability Beyond Approval: A last-minute decision by IRCC does not erase the harm of an unreasonable delay. The Federal Court can and will award costs to hold the government accountable for its inaction.
• Document Your Efforts: The applicant in Hussini had a record of his repeated, unanswered inquiries. Keeping a detailed paper trail of your attempts to get an update is crucial evidence in a potential court case.
• Mandamus is a Catalyst: Filing an application for Judicial Review is often the most powerful tool to force a decision on a stalled file. In many cases, action is taken shortly after the government is served with court documents.
• Your Own Diligence is Key: You cannot blame IRCC for a delay you caused. As seen in the Manes case, failing to respond to document requests in a timely manner will be fatal to any claim of unreasonable delay.
• Costs Are Not Automatic: Winning costs requires showing "special reasons," such as an excessive and unexplained delay. It is a discretionary tool used by the Court to discourage poor administrative conduct.

Facing a wall of silence from IRCC can be one of the most disheartening experiences in the immigration process. But the law provides a remedy. If your citizenship is delayed for years and then suddenly granted only after you've initiated legal action, you may still be able to recover your costs. These court decisions affirm a fundamental principle: access to justice includes holding the government accountable for its delays. With careful preparation and strong legal guidance, you can ensure that your long-overdue good news isn't overshadowed by the financial burden of having to fight for it.