Federal Court Orders Visa Decision After Three-Year Delay
📌 In brief
The Federal Court ordered the government to make a decision on a man's visa application within 30 days because the application had been delayed for over three years. The court found the delay unreasonable and ordered the government to provide a decision promptly.
⚖️ Legal holding
An applicant is entitled to a timely decision on their temporary resident visa application if the delay exceeds the nature of the process required.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines the goals of Canada's immigration system, which include gaining social, cultural, and economic benefits, strengthening Canadian society, supporting minority language communities, and promoting a strong economy. It also aims to reunite families and help permanent residents integrate into Canada.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Federal Court ordered a decision on the claimant's temporary resident visa within 30 days due to excessive delay.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Federal Court granted an order of mandamus requiring a decision on the claimant's application for a temporary resident visa within 30 days due to an unreasonable delay exceeding the nature of the process required.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Date: 20260611 Docket: IMM-1552-25 Citation: 2026 FC 783 Toronto, Ontario, June 11, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent
REASONS AND
JUDGMENT (delivered orally from the bench on June 11, 2026) [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks an order of mandamus requiring a decision on his application for a temporary resident visa enabling him to visit his two Canadian daughters. The application has been in process for over 3 years, since its submission in April of 2023. [ 2 ] The legal test for an order of mandamus is described in [COMPANY]. v Canada (Attorney General) (C.A.), 1993 CanLII 3004 (FCA) at 766-769, and recently clarified by the Federal Court of Appeal in [NAME] v Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee), 2026 FCA 53 [ [NAME] ]. [ 3 ] The components of the test in dispute in this matter between the parties are whether there has been a delay that is longer than the nature of the process required, and whether the balance of convenience favours the granting or the denial of the order. [ 4 ] I find that the delay has been longer than the nature of the process required. The process in question is the temporary resident visa application process, which includes security screening. While not binding or determinative, this process involved a 98-day service standard as of February 2025, which is an approximate indication of the time required for the process ( [NAME] , at para 91). [ 5 ] The delay experienced by the Applicant is approximately 11-12 times longer than this service standard. [ 6 ] By its nature, temporary resident visas further the objective of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [ IRPA ] of facilitating the entry of visitors for tourism purposes, and in the Applicant’s case a temporary resident visa would facilitate the statute’s objective of seeing that families are reunited in Canada ( IRPA , ss 3(1)(d) and 3(1)(g)). A further goal of the legislation is to ensure “consistent standards and prompt processing” ( IRPA, s 3(1)(f); [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 647 at para 20). [ 7 ] The Applicant has a strong interest in the issuance of his temporary resident visa, namely, to visit his two Canadian daughters and participate in their important life events. The Applicant has attested to missing important events and milestones in his daughter’s lives, such as the wedding of his eldest daughter and the surgery of his youngest daughter. [ 8 ] Based on the time required by the nature of the process, and the interests of the Applicant, I find that the delay has exceeded the time required for the process. [ 9 ] The onus now shifts to the Respondent to justify the delay. The Respondent has presented evidence that information was sought from the Applicant in April 2026 regarding his previous government service. It is implied but not explicitly stated that this information is related to the Applicant’s security screening. Nothing more specific has been provided as a justification for the delay. [ 10 ] Based on the lack of specific information justifying the delay, and the unexplained delay of more than three years in the request for information from the Applicant, the justification is not transparent or intelligible, and therefore it is unreasonable ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 780 at para 21). [ 11 ] Finally, the Respondent has not met the high threshold for demonstrating that the balance of convenience favours the refusal of the order ( [NAME], at paras 151-156). The Respondent has not provided any evidence that a decision on the Applicant’s application would undermine or prejudice any ongoing investigations. If such investigations do pertain to security screening, they may continue after a decision on the application is rendered ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2025 FC 796 at para 5). [ 12 ] The Applicant has requested costs on a solicitor and client basis in the amount of $2,000.00. Cost requests in judicial review applications are subject to Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules , SOR/93-22, which requires “special reasons” for costs to be awarded. [ 13 ] Special reasons have been recognized in mandamus cases where there was excessive delay, and where the Respondent repeatedly ignores the reasonable requests and queries of the Applicant ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1132 at para 29; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1847 at para 9; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 946 at paras 45-49; [NAME] v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2011 FC 131 at paras 19-22). [ 14 ] Special reasons for an award of costs are present in this case. The Respondent has repeatedly ignored the Applicant’s requests for a decision on his application, requiring him to file this application for judicial review in order to even understand the basis for the delay in his application. As such, costs in the amount of $2,000.00 are awarded.
JUDGMENT in IMM-1552-25 THIS COURT’S
JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is granted. A decision shall be rendered on the Applicant’s temporary resident visa within 30 days. Costs are awarded to the Applicant in the amount of $2,000.00. There is no question for certification. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1552-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 11, 2026
REASONS AND
JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: JUNE 11, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The delay of over 3 years was longer than the nature of the process required.
- The Applicant's interest in visiting his daughters and participating in their life events was significant.
- The Respondent failed to provide specific justification for the delay beyond requesting additional information.
- The Respondent did not demonstrate that a decision on the application would undermine ongoing investigations.
- The Respondent repeatedly ignored the Applicant’s requests for a decision, leading to excessive delay.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The Respondent claimed that the delay was justified by the need for additional information from the Applicant.
- The Respondent argued that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the order due to unspecified ongoing investigations.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Federal Court ordered the government to make a decision on the claimant's visa application within 30 days.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the unreasonable delay in processing the claimant's application for a temporary resident visa.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the claimant, finding that the delay in processing the visa application was unreasonable and exceeded the nature of the process required.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(g), and 3(1)(f) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the delay in processing the visa application was unreasonable and exceeded the nature of the process required.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, ordering the government to make a decision on the visa application within 30 days.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation can seek an order of mandamus if they experience an unreasonable delay in processing their visa application.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the length of the delay and the nature of the visa application process, including the standard service time for processing such applications.