Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers v. Canada (Treasury Board), 2026 FC 1136
The Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers (PAFSO) sought an order of mandamus to compel the Treasury Board to fix systemic and prolonged failures in the administration of the public service health care plan for members working abroad, which left many facing significant medical debt.
The Federal Court dismissed the application. Although the Court found the government breached its public duty and caused an unreasonable delay, it concluded that because the systemic issues had been largely resolved by the time of the hearing, a mandamus order would serve no practical purpose.
Oseikhuemen Ihenyen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1143
The applicant applied for permanent residence under the TR to PR Pathway while holding a valid work permit. However, his work permit expired before a decision was rendered, and the officer refused the application for failing to maintain valid temporary resident status at the time of decision.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming the officer's decision. The Court held that the policy's requirement to have valid temporary status both when applying and when the decision is made is clear, mandatory, and unambiguous.
Yilbas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1139
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by an immigration officer to destroy his new Permanent Resident (PR) card. The card was destroyed after it was mailed to the applicant's address on file and returned to IRCC as 'undeliverable'.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision to be unreasonable and set it aside. The Court ruled that the officer failed to provide an intelligible analysis explaining how the legal requirement for 'notice' was met when IRCC was fully aware the applicant never received the mail.
Kavarizadeh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1133
The applicants, Iranian citizens, applied for permanent residence under the Provincial Nominee Program in June 2022. Facing a delay of over four years, they sought a mandamus order to compel a decision from IRCC, which cited ongoing security screening as the reason for the hold-up.
The Federal Court granted the mandamus order, compelling IRCC to issue a final decision within 90 days. The Court found the delay was unreasonable and that simply stating 'security screening continues' without further detail was an insufficient justification for the prolonged processing time.
Foukeng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 CF 1131
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision that refused her temporary work permit as an agricultural worker and imposed a five-year ban for misrepresentation regarding her employment history in Cameroon.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that because the Minister failed to provide a complete certified record—missing the application itself and other key documents—it was impossible to assess the rationality of the decision.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1123
The principal applicant's spousal work permit and her children's study permits were refused. An immigration officer concluded there was insufficient evidence of her spouse's qualifying employment in Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer failed to meaningfully engage with the substantial volume of evidence provided, which directly contradicted the finding of 'insufficiency'.
Hussini v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1122
The Applicant, a Syrian refugee who applied for citizenship as a child in 2019, faced an unexplained delay of over seven years. After he filed a mandamus application to compel a decision, IRCC granted his citizenship, rendering the application moot. The government then moved to dismiss the case entirely.
While the mandamus application was dismissed as moot, the Federal Court ordered the government to pay the Applicant $2,000 in costs. The Court found that the extensive and unjustified delay constituted 'special reasons' to award costs, even though the primary legal issue was resolved.
Harjot Singh Gill v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2026 FC 1121
The applicant, Mr. Gill, sought judicial review of a refused Temporary Resident Visa (TRV). While the judicial review was ongoing, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) mistakenly reopened and issued a new decision on his application.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review as moot. The Court found that by reopening the file and issuing a new decision, IRCC had already provided the remedy sought—a reconsideration—thus eliminating the live controversy before the Court.
Mansoursharifloo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1111
The Applicant, an Iranian citizen with a background in mechanical engineering and work at a nuclear power plant, sought a mandamus order to compel a decision on his visitor visa application. The application had been pending for over 900 days, far exceeding the posted processing times, with no meaningful updates from IRCC.
The Federal Court granted the application, finding the delay unreasonable and unjustified. The Court ordered the Minister to render a final decision on the visitor visa application within 60 days, reinforcing that even complex security screenings do not give IRCC 'carte blanche' for indefinite delays.
Forcades v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1117
The applicant, a Cuban national, sought permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds after living in Canada for many years, overstaying his initial status but later obtaining work permits. The officer refused the application, finding his establishment in Canada was insufficient to outweigh his history of non-compliance with immigration laws.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court confirmed that it is not its role to reweigh the evidence and that an officer can place significant negative weight on an applicant's disregard for immigration laws, even with long-term establishment.
