Background
Sarah Javadi and her spouse, Abbas Zirakjou, are Iranian citizens living in Canada on employment and study permits. Javadi applied for permanent residence under the Canadian Experience Class on August 26, 2023, including Zirakjou as a dependent. IRCC’s published service standard was then 180 days, and the dynamic average processing time was seven months. By the June 11, 2026 hearing, the couple had waited more than 1,020 days without decisions.
IRCC acknowledged the application the day after filing. The couple supplied requested curricula vitae and information about Zirakjou’s Iranian military service by late December 2023. Security information was marked complete and submitted in early January 2024, after which the reasons describe no substantive work on the file. Javadi sent an unanswered demand letter on February 7, 2025, and sought leave and judicial review on March 19, 2025, requesting mandamus. In May 2025, IRCC repeated its earlier military-service request; Javadi responded within two days. Screening remained in progress for months afterward. GCMS notes recorded on April 20, 2026 that the spouse’s security screening was favourable and passed, but the applications remained undecided at the hearing.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Brouwer allowed the judicial review and issued mandamus. Applying the eight Apotex criteria, the Court explained that the applicant bears the onus on the first four, concerning entitlement, while the Minister bears the onus on the final four, which concern whether the discretionary remedy should nevertheless be withheld. The dispute centred on Javadi’s clear right to performance and, within that inquiry, whether IRCC’s delay was unreasonable under Conille: longer than the process required, not attributable to the applicant or counsel, and lacking satisfactory justification.
The Court found the delay facially excessive. The Minister did not dispute that processing exceeded five times the posted service standard and was just under five times the dynamic average, and offered no evidence that this category inherently required longer. Although service standards are relevant rather than determinative, that record established the first Conille factor. Responsibility for the delay was not attributed to Javadi or her counsel.
IRCC’s general reliance on mandatory and important security screening did not satisfactorily explain this delay. The Court required case-specific information about the screening and the reasons for its length, rather than a blanket justification. It noted the long periods of inactivity, the repeated request for information already supplied, and the eventual favourable screening. The Minister failed to show anything particular to these applicants requiring a drastically longer process. General obligations to protect immigration-system integrity also did not tip the balance of convenience against relief, absent evidence that mandamus would impair that integrity or proper investigation. The Court additionally found extensive sworn and corroborated evidence of hardship, while stating that proof of prejudice is not required for mandamus.
Key Takeaways
- IRCC service standards and average processing times are relevant, though not determinative, when assessing whether immigration-processing delay is prima facie excessive.
- Security screening is not a blanket justification for delay; the Minister must provide enough case-specific information to assess the review and explain its duration.
- The Court ordered IRCC to process and determine the permanent residence application within 30 days of judgment, assuming no decision had already been rendered, and remained seized so the parties could seek further direction.
- Unreasonable and unjustified delay constituted a “special reason” for costs under Rule 22, but the Court awarded an all-inclusive lump sum of $2,000 rather than the requested $10,000.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a generalized invocation of security screening from evidence explaining why a particular file requires substantially more time. It also allocates the burdens within the Apotex framework and confirms that delay-related prejudice need not be established to obtain mandamus, although the Court found prejudice here.
The relief was procedural and time-limited: IRCC was compelled to process and determine the application, not to grant permanent residence. The Court awarded $2,000 in costs, certified no serious question of general importance under section 74(d) of the IRPA, and remained seized of the matter.