Background
Yu Dai applied for Canadian permanent residence under the Home Child Care Provider pilot program on January 1, 2023. The program aims to fill labour gaps by providing permanent residence to home care workers who support seniors, children, and people with disabilities. By the time this judgment was rendered in July 2026, Dai’s application had been pending for over 42 months without finalization.
The processing delays were significant: IRCC records showed a substantial gap in activity from November 2024 to September 2025, and another lag until April 2026. In June 2025, Dai was advised her application would take 23 months to process. By May 2026, the government estimated an additional 39 months would be required, with 18,300 applicants ahead of her in a processing queue of 38,800 total applicants.
Dai sought judicial review and an order of mandamus to compel the government to finalize her application. The government defended the delay by citing Ministerial Instructions (MIs) issued on March 22, 2025, and December 8, 2025, which it argued modified the processing priorities and timeframes for the program.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Battista granted the application for judicial review and issued an order of mandamus, compelling a decision on Dai’s application within 60 days. The court found that the delay was unreasonable and that the government failed to provide justifiable reasons for it. The court applied the three-part test from Conille: whether the delay exceeds what the nature of the process requires, whether the applicant is responsible for the delay, and whether the authority has provided satisfactory justification.
The court determined that the delay of 42 months (with an estimated total of 79+ months) far exceeded the inherent time requirements of an administrative immigration process. While an applicant had previously been told processing would take 23 months, the actual delay demonstrated the benchmark was regularly exceeded. The statutory objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act emphasize “consistent standards and prompt processing” and maintaining “fair and efficient procedures,” all undermined by the extensive delay.
Critically, the court rejected the government’s attempt to justify the delay through the second set of Ministerial Instructions. While the first MIs (March 2025) providing specific processing limits could potentially constitute reasonable justification, the second MIs (December 2025) eliminated all prior processing systems, instructions, and timelines without replacement, leaving only a non-binding processing time estimate that could change. The court held that a policy eliminating guidance without replacement cannot provide transparent, intelligible justification for inordinate delay. It creates an impermissible “open-ended delay” with no assurance of processing order or timeline.
Key Takeaways
- A delay of 79+ months in an essentially administrative immigration process is unreasonable as a matter of law.
- Government ministerial instructions can justify processing delays only if they provide transparent, intelligible processing policies and guidance; eliminating policies without replacement cannot justify continued delay.
- Processing time estimates that are non-binding, subject to change, and provide no maximum timeframe do not constitute adequate policy justification.
- Immigration applicants may obtain mandamus relief when administrative delay is unreasonable and unjustified, with the court empowered to order finalization within a fixed timeframe.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the principle that administrative bodies cannot evade accountability for processing delays by eliminating policy guidance. For the Home Child Care Provider pilot program, which serves a labour shortage in essential care roles, the ruling establishes that applicants cannot be left in indefinite limbo. Dai’s personal hardship—serious financial, emotional, and family strain over nearly seven years—illustrates why prompt processing matters to real people awaiting immigration status. With over 18,000 applicants in the current queue, this decision has potential implications for the program’s administration going forward.
The judgment also clarifies the separation between ministerial authority to set processing priorities (which courts respect) and the duty to maintain intelligible, transparent policies when doing so (which courts will enforce). The court acknowledged the Minister’s broad power to manage immigration flows and impose deliberate processing delays, but only when done through clear, comprehensible policies consistent with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act’s statutory objectives of promptness and efficiency.