Federal Court Rejects Mandamus Claim Over PR Application Delay

Date: 20260709 [NAME] : IMM-3650-25 Citation: 2026 FC 921 Ottawa, Ontario , July 9, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice McDonald BETWEEN: [NAME] and [NAME] by their litigation guardian [NAME] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicants are a family from Syria, who were granted refugee status on December 6, 2022, and applied for Permanent Residence (PR) status in Quebec on December 15, 2022. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) confirmed receipt of their application by letter, dated April 12, 2023. On February 14, 2025, they filed this Application for an Order of mandamus . [ 2 ] The only issue is if the Applicants satisfy the test for an Order of mandamus .

I. Analysis [ 3 ] The requirements for mandamus were outlined in [COMPANY] v Canada ([NAME]) , 1993 CanLII 3004 (FCA) at p766-769 [ [NAME] ] as follows: (1) there must be a public legal duty to act; (2) the duty must be owed to the applicant; (3) there must be a clear right to performance of that duty; (4) where the duty sought to be enforced is discretionary, certain additional principles apply; (5) no other adequate remedy is available to the applicant; (6) the order sought will have some practical value or effect; (7) there is no equitable bar to the relief sought; and (8) on a balance of convenience an order of mandamus should be issued. [ 4 ] The third requirement , a clear right to performance of the duty to act, arises only when a party has met all the requirements for a decision to be made, they requested the decision to be made, and the tribunal has either refused to make a decision, or has taken unreasonably long to make a decision ( [NAME] at p767). [ 5 ] In assessing whether a delay has been unreasonable, the Court considers the following factors, outlined in [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1998 CanLII 9097 at para 23 [ [NAME] ]): (1) the delay in question has been longer than the nature of the process required, prima facie ; (2) the applicant and his counsel are not responsible for the delay; and (3) the authority responsible for the delay has not provided satisfactory justification. [ 6 ] Recently, the delay considerations from [NAME] were addressed in [NAME] v Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee), 2026 FCA 53 [ [NAME] ], where the Court of Appeal stated (at para 77): [The first [NAME] factor] addresses the time requirements inherent to the administrative proceedings in light of the legal and factual complexities of the matters dealt with by the administrative decision-maker, and considering the requirements of a fair process, the purpose of the proceedings and the rights and interests of those affected by them. [ 7 ] In this case, the legal and factual complexities must be considered against the program the Applicants applied under. The Government of Canada and Quebec have an agreement, the Canada-Québec Accord relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens , where Quebec, and not Canada, determines which refugees are granted [NAME] status (section 19). This Accord also limits annual immigration totals based on Quebec’s population relative to the rest of Canada (sections 5-8). [ 8 ] In my view, the operation of this program fully answers the delay allegation in this mandamus application. The Applicants argue that the Respondent has not filed evidence addressing their specific applications and that generalized explanations cannot justify the delay. However, these submissions do not account for the reality that the program under which they applied imposes caps on admissions. [ 9 ] The evidence before the Court regarding IRCC’s processing times for Quebec applications was provided by the Respondent. The Joaquin Affidavit was filed on April 3, 2025, and indicates that an application by someone in the Applicants’ circumstances (a [NAME] application made by a refugee) would expect a 45-month processing time. The Respondent provided an updated affidavit from [NAME], dated March 10, 2026, which indicates that an application made in December 2022, by someone in the Applicants’ circumstances, would still have another 19 months before completion. [ 10 ] The test for unreasonable delay considers the “nature of the process” . In this case, the nature of the process must consider that the PR application was made in Quebec, requires processing by both the Quebec and Federal governments, and is affected by Quebec’s limited admissions for each year. These complexities suggest that the Applicants’ PR application may not be a quick process. [ 11 ] [NAME] also confirms that the purpose of the proceedings informs their inherent time requirements. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [ IRPA ] does not include specific objectives for the processing of refugee PR applications. However, IRPA includes broad objectives for both the immigration and refugee protection systems. [ 12 ] The IRPA objective most relevant to this request for mandamus is “to support, by means of consistent standards and prompt processing, the attainment of immigration goals established by the Government of Canada in consultation with the provinces” ( IRPA , s 3(1)(f)). In my view, the primary goal of this objective is to meet immigration targets established by the Federal Government in consultation with the provinces; consistent standards and prompt processing are not standalone objectives, but merely the means to meet this primary goal. [ 13 ] For [NAME] applications, the relevant objective is to meet Quebec’s immigration targets. Once those annual targets are reached, prompt processing becomes less significant. To require continued prompt processing after Quebec’s immigration goals have been met would treat it as an independent objective, contrary to the wording of IRPA at paragraph 3(1)(f).

Accordingly, the purpose of [NAME] applications does not require expeditious processing once Quebec’s immigration goals have been achieved. This supports the conclusion that the first [NAME] factor allows for a longer processing period. [ 14 ] Finally, in [NAME] , the Court of Appeal stated that service standards are relevant, but not determinative, in deciding whether a delayed decision was inordinate (at paras 91-92). [ 15 ] The Applicants assert that PR applications made in late 2022 had a service standard of 6 months, citing statements from an October 2023 Parliamentary question period on processing PR applications. However, this evidence is uncompelling because these statements reflect Canada-wide applications, and not specifically for Quebec applications. [ 16 ] Here, the Applicants submitted their PR application in December 2022. At the time of the filing of this Application for judicial review, 28 months had passed since the Applicants filed their PR application. At the time of this hearing, 42 months had passed since they filed their PR application. In either case, the processing time fell within the expected timelines. [ 17 ] Based on the evidence before the Court, I am not satisfied the delay in the Applicants’ application has been unreasonable. The Applicants’ PR application is within the expected timeframe for similar applications made in similar circumstances, and this timeframe overall is not unreasonable, given the nature of the process. [ 18 ] The Applicants have not met the test for mandamus and this judicial review is dismissed.

II. Conclusion [ 19 ] This judicial review is dismissed.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-3650-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. blank "Ann Marie McDonald" blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF [NAME] : IMM-3650-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] et al v mci HEARING

HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE AT : Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: June 24, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT : McDonald J. DATED: July 9, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANTS [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], Ontario FOR THE APPLICANTS [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT