Background
Mubarak Abou Hussini, a Syrian refugee who arrived in Canada at age ten, applied for citizenship with members of his family in January 2019. His mother and siblings became citizens between 2020 and 2023, but his own application remained unresolved for more than seven years. Case-management notes repeatedly stated only that security was under review, and the application was not designated “non-routine” until October 2025.
In March 2025, Hussini sought judicial review and mandamus compelling a decision within 45 days, as well as costs. On May 25, 2026—the same day the Court granted leave—his citizenship application was approved, and he took the oath on June 8. The Minister then moved to dismiss the proceeding as moot, while Hussini maintained that his request for costs still required determination.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court dismissed the Minister’s motion for judgment as unnecessary and separately dismissed Hussini’s mandamus application for mootness. Because citizenship had been granted, the concrete dispute had disappeared. The Court declined to treat the reasonableness of the delay as an independently live issue, but held that it could still decide costs in a moot proceeding.
Justice Kane found that, had no citizenship decision been made before the hearing, the Court would have granted mandamus. The delay was prima facie excessive, nearly ten times the average processing period, and the record contained no evidence explaining or justifying it. Those circumstances—together with Hussini’s repeated unanswered inquiries, his childhood arrival in Canada, his family members’ much earlier approvals, and the uncertainty and stigma he experienced—constituted “special reasons” for costs under Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules.
The Court emphasized that costs in immigration proceedings, especially moot mandamus cases, must remain exceptional. Finding no bad faith and viewing the award principally as a signal against excessive unexplained delay, it ordered the Minister to pay Hussini nominal costs of $2,000 rather than the $9,000 he requested.
Key Takeaways
- A mandamus application ordinarily becomes moot once the government renders the decision the applicant sought, even if questions remain about the preceding delay.
- The Federal Court may award costs in a moot immigration proceeding without treating the reasonableness of the delay as a continuing live controversy.
- An exceptionally long, unexplained delay combined with unhelpful responses and significant effects on the applicant may constitute the “special reasons” required for costs, even absent bad faith.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that granting an immigration or citizenship application before a mandamus hearing will generally eliminate the basis for mandamus, but it will not necessarily insulate the government from costs. Courts retain discretion to address exceptional, unjustified administrative delay through a costs award.
At the same time, the modest award signals restraint: delay does not automatically justify costs, and awards in immigration matters—particularly where mandamus has become moot—should remain unusual and dependent on the full circumstances.