When Silence Becomes Unreasonable: Seeking Mandamus and Costs for Immigration Delays

The waiting period for a Canadian immigration decision can feel like a lifetime. You’ve submitted your life’s story in documents, paid the fees, and put your future on hold. But what happens when weeks turn into months, and months stretch into years, with only silence from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)? For many, this is more than just an inconvenience; it’s a period of profound uncertainty that affects families, careers, and well-being. Fortunately, Canada’s legal system offers a powerful tool called a writ of mandamus-a court order compelling IRCC to do its job and make a decision.

While forcing a decision is a significant victory, what about the financial burden of taking the government to court? Recent Federal Court cases reveal a fascinating story about not only when a mandamus order is granted but also the rare circumstances under which the court will order IRCC to pay the applicant’s legal costs for their unreasonable behaviour.

The Core Principle: Mandamus for Unjustified Delays

Countless stories show the Federal Court stepping in when processing delays become untenable. The theme is consistent: if a delay is significantly longer than IRCC’s own service standards and the government cannot provide a good reason for it, a judge is likely to intervene.

For example, in one case involving a Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) application pending for over three years, the Court found the delay unreasonable and ordered a decision within 90 days. The judge noted that IRCC had provided “hardly any justification at all” for the wait. This sentiment was echoed in another case where a family sponsorship application languished for 40 months. Despite IRCC’s claims that the file was progressing “albeit slowly,” the Court was not impressed, stating, “this does not supersede the previous delay incurred without any justification.”

• Peng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 2 (Read full judgment (PDF))
• Donzo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 154 (Read full judgment (PDF))

Expert insight: These rulings consistently show that blanket statements like “security checks pending” are not a blank cheque for indefinite delays. The burden is on IRCC to provide a satisfactory justification, not on the applicant to wait forever.

Winning the Battle, But at What Cost?

Even when a mandamus order is granted, applicants are usually left to cover their own legal fees. In the Federal Court, costs are not awarded automatically. They are reserved for cases with “special reasons”-a high bar that typically involves unreasonable or improper conduct by the losing party.

This was highlighted in the case of a woman whose spousal sponsorship application was returned as incomplete. She sought a mandamus order, but the Court dismissed her application, finding IRCC’s position was not unreasonable. In her decision, the judge noted, “While I appreciate the Applicant's frustrations with the processing of the Applicant's applications, I am dismissing this application without costs,” reinforcing that a simple disagreement is not enough to warrant a costs award.

• Contreras Monterroso v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 170 (Read full judgment (PDF))

When the Court Says Enough is Enough: Awarding Costs Against IRCC

So, what does it take for the court to order the government to pay? Two recent citizenship cases paint a clear picture.

In the staggering case of Mr. Mohammad Jahazi, his citizenship application was left undecided for a decade. The Federal Court found this delay not just unreasonable but also unjustified, calling it a prime example of a situation requiring a “cogent explanation” from the Minister-an explanation that never came. The Court found this failure constituted the “special reasons” needed to award costs against the government for its inaction.

Similarly, in the case of Ali Habibi, an Iranian national waited 36 months for a decision on his citizenship. The delay forced him to take a job in the U.S., separating him from his family in Canada. The Court granted the mandamus order and also awarded costs. The judge powerfully stated, “The Respondent cannot reasonably rest their ‘balance of convenience’ argument on an expectation that the Applicant must bear the cost of any and all arbitrary and unexplained delays.”

• Mohammad Jahazi v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2024 FC 2072 (Read full judgment (PDF))
• Habibi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1675 (Read full judgment (PDF))

Expert insight: These rare but important decisions send a strong message. While IRCC has a duty to conduct thorough checks, it does not have the right to leave applicants in limbo indefinitely without explanation. When delays become egregious and justifications are absent, the Court may not only force a decision but also hold the government accountable for the financial consequences.

Key Lessons for Applicants

These stories from the Federal Court offer crucial lessons. A mandamus order is a vital remedy against unreasonable administrative delay. While securing one is a significant step, obtaining a costs award requires demonstrating something more-that IRCC's conduct or lack of justification for the delay was so poor it created a special reason for the court to act. For those trapped in the silence of a stalled application, these cases offer a reminder that the justice system is there to ensure fairness and, in exceptional circumstances, accountability.