George Lee Law | Vancouver, BC
Is This Your Story?
You submitted your spousal sponsorship application over two years ago. Every time you check the status online, it says the same thing: “In progress.”
Your partner is overseas. You haven’t seen them in months—maybe years. Every holiday, every birthday, every anniversary passes without them. You call IRCC. You send webforms. You contact your MP. And every time, the answer is the same: “Please be patient. Your application is being processed.”
Or maybe you’re waiting for your citizenship application. You’ve lived in Canada for decades. You’ve paid taxes, raised your children here, built a life. But your application has been stuck in “background check” limbo for three, four, even five years. No explanation. No timeline. Just silence.
If any of this sounds familiar, you’re not alone.
Thousands of immigration applicants across Canada find themselves trapped in what courts have warned against: being left in “administrative limbo” with no end date—waiting indefinitely for decisions that never come.
But here’s what IRCC won’t tell you: you have legal options.
George Lee Law: Experience in Mandamus Applications
At George Lee Law, we have helped numerous clients break through bureaucratic paralysis and compel IRCC to finally act on their stalled applications.
When conventional methods fail—when webforms go unanswered, when MP inquiries produce nothing, when years pass without movement—we can take the matter to Federal Court and push for a court-supervised timeline. Many cases resolve after litigation is started, though outcomes always depend on the specific facts of each case.
The remedy we use is called mandamus—and it may be exactly what you need.
What Is Mandamus?
Mandamus (from the Latin “we command”) is a powerful judicial remedy that compels a government authority to perform a legal duty it has failed to carry out.
In immigration law, mandamus is used to force Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) or the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) to make a decision on an application that has been unreasonably delayed.
A mandamus order does not guarantee approval—it does not tell IRCC what decision to make. What it does is force IRCC to stop ignoring your file and issue a decision within a court-ordered deadline, typically 30 to 90 days.
In Conille v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 9097 (FC), the Federal Court held that allowing CSIS to delay completion of its investigation indefinitely effectively usurped the decision-making powers conferred on the citizenship authorities by the Act. The Court made clear that applicants cannot be left waiting forever without justification.
In plain terms: IRCC cannot leave you in limbo indefinitely. When they do, the Federal Court can—and will—intervene.
When Is Mandamus Appropriate?
Mandamus is not a way to “jump the queue” or demand special treatment. It is a remedy for unreasonable, unjustified delay.
You may have grounds for mandamus if:
- Your application has been pending significantly longer than IRCC’s posted processing times
- You have received no meaningful updates despite repeated inquiries
- IRCC has provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay
- You have complied with all requests for documents, biometrics, and information
- You are experiencing real hardship as a result of the delay
Important note: IRCC’s posted processing times are not legally binding, and exceeding them alone is usually not sufficient for mandamus. These times are factors in the reasonableness analysis, not hard legal limits.
The Legal Test: What You Must Prove
The Federal Court applies a well-established legal test for mandamus, derived from Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 FC 742 (FCA), and refined through decades of immigration jurisprudence.
The Eight-Part Apotex Test
- Public legal duty to act — IRCC has a statutory obligation to process and decide your application
- Duty owed to you — The duty is owed specifically to you as the applicant
- Clear right to performance — You have met all preconditions
- Refusal or unreasonable delay — IRCC has explicitly refused to act, or there has been unreasonable delay
- No other adequate remedy — Other options have been exhausted
- Practical effect — A mandamus order would have real impact
- No equitable bar — No conduct on your part would disentitle you to relief
- Balance of convenience — The balance of interests favours granting the order
The Conille Factors for Unreasonable Delay
For immigration delay cases specifically, courts apply the three-part test from Conille v. Canada, 1998 CanLII 9097:
- The delay has been longer than the nature of the process requires
- You are not responsible for the delay
- IRCC has not provided satisfactory justification
What About “Prejudice”?
There has been some debate in the case law about whether applicants must also prove “significant prejudice.” Recent 2025 decisions have pushed back on treating this as a strict extra requirement:
In Tousi v. Canada, 2025 FC 671, Justice Turley held that importing an additional requirement of “significant prejudice” is inconsistent with the proper test for unreasonable delay.
In Majidi v. Canada, 2025 FC 680, Justice Grant agreed, explaining that treating “significant prejudice” as a mandatory threshold would improperly raise the hardship requirement.
In Sharma v. Canada, 2025 FC 796, Justice Battista adopted this reasoning and granted mandamus after a three-year delay despite only limited evidence of prejudice.
The bottom line: Evidence of hardship strengthens your case, but the core question remains whether the delay is unreasonable and unjustified. Even where prejudice is not treated as a strict requirement, evidence of real-life impact often strengthens the reasonableness analysis and the Court’s exercise of discretion.
What Delays Have Courts Found Unreasonable?
Every case turns on its own facts, but Federal Court decisions provide guidance:
| Case | Application Type | Delay | Outcome |
| Jaballah v. Canada, 2024 FC 163 | Spousal sponsorship | ~7 years | Mandamus granted |
| Tousi v. Canada, 2025 FC 671 | Start-Up Visa (PR) | 62 months | Mandamus granted; decision within 90 days |
| Majidi v. Canada, 2025 FC 680 | Start-Up Visa (PR) | Over 4 years | Mandamus granted |
| Sowane v. Canada, 2024 FC 224 | Permanent residence | ~59 months | Mandamus granted |
| Sharma v. Canada, 2025 FC 796 | Temporary resident visa | ~3 years | Mandamus granted |
| Habibi v. Canada, 2025 FC 1675 | Citizenship | ~36 months | Mandamus granted; $1,500 costs awarded |
Case details summarized from Federal Court decisions and practitioner commentary; full citations available on request.
The Federal Court has repeatedly held that simply stating a security investigation is ongoing, without specific evidence or explanation, is not an adequate justification for lengthy delays. IRCC must provide concrete evidence of what security concerns exist and what steps are being taken.
The Mandamus Process: Step by Step
Step 1: Exhaust Preliminary Remedies
Before filing in Federal Court, you should demonstrate that you have tried to resolve the delay through other means:
- Send webform inquiries to IRCC
- Contact the IRCC Client Support Centre
- Request your GCMS notes through an Access to Information/ATIP request
- Contact your Member of Parliament for assistance
Step 2: Send a Pre-Mandamus Demand Letter
Your lawyer will send a formal demand letter to IRCC identifying your application, outlining the delay, and demanding a decision within a reasonable period. In many cases, the demand letter alone prompts action.
Step 3: File the Application for Leave and Judicial Review
If IRCC does not respond adequately, your lawyer files an Application for Leave and Judicial Review with the Federal Court, including a Notice of Application, supporting affidavit, and memorandum of argument.
Step 4: Building the Record
After filing, counsel typically continues building the record using GCMS/ATIP materials, prior correspondence, and any litigation disclosures that arise. In delay cases, the focus is on whether the Minister can provide concrete evidence to justify the delay.
Step 5: Department of Justice Response
The Department of Justice typically has 30 days after service of your Applicant’s Record to file its responding materials. At this stage, settlement discussions often occur, and in many cases, DOJ negotiates a resolution.
Step 6: Leave Decision and Hearing (If Necessary)
The leave decision is generally made on the written record—there is typically no oral hearing at the leave stage. If leave is granted and the matter does not settle, the Court schedules the judicial review hearing.
Important: Many mandamus applications never reach a full hearing because filing the application creates sufficient pressure to prompt IRCC action or settlement.
Typical Timeframe for Mandamus Proceedings
| Stage | Typical Duration |
| Pre-mandamus demand letter | Often 2–4 weeks for response |
| Applicant’s Record preparation and service | Typically 2–4 weeks |
| Respondent’s Record due | Usually 30 days after service |
| Leave decision (on written record) | Often 1–3 months |
| Hearing (if leave granted and no settlement) | Often 2–4 months after leave |
Note: These are approximate timelines only and can vary significantly. Many cases resolve during the litigation process without ever reaching a hearing.
What Mandamus Cannot Do
It’s important to understand the limits of mandamus:
- Mandamus does not guarantee approval — It forces a decision, not a particular outcome
- Mandamus is not for queue-jumping — It addresses unreasonable delays, not normal processing times
- Mandamus does not apply if you caused the delay — If you failed to respond to requests, mandamus will likely fail
- Mandamus cannot override legitimate security concerns — But the government must provide real evidence of such concerns
Recent Developments: Courts Holding IRCC Accountable
In recent years, the Federal Court has become increasingly critical of IRCC’s delays and “blanket” security excuses.
In Habibi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1675, the Court found a 36-month citizenship delay due to a prolonged security check was unreasonable, granted mandamus with a structured timeline, and awarded $1,500 in costs due to IRCC’s unsatisfactory justification.
In Gichura v. Canada, 2024 FC 1756, Justice Sadrehashemi granted costs where the Minister filed no evidence about the complexity of processing a sponsorship application and there was no explanation for multiple, staggered document requests.
The message is clear: the Federal Court will not tolerate administrative indifference. IRCC must justify delays with real evidence—or face mandamus orders and cost awards.
Are You Stuck in Administrative Limbo?
Ask yourself:
- Has your application been pending significantly longer than IRCC’s posted processing times—with no meaningful progress?
- Have you received no real updates despite repeated inquiries?
- Has IRCC provided no clear explanation for the delay?
- Have you responded promptly to all document requests?
- Is the delay causing you real hardship—family separation, career disruption, financial stress?
If you answered “yes” to these questions, mandamus may be right for you.
Don’t Wait Another Year. Take Action Now.
Every month that passes is another month of uncertainty. Another month separated from your family. Another month watching your plans slip away.
You have waited long enough. The Federal Court exists to hold the government accountable—and we can help you use it.
Contact George Lee Law today for a confidential consultation.
We will review your case, assess whether mandamus is appropriate, and explain your options clearly—in English, Cantonese, or Mandarin.
📞 604-681-1611
George Lee Law Vancouver, BC Immigration | Family Law | Civil Litigation Serving clients in English, Cantonese, and Mandarin
Legal Disclaimer
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided reflects Canadian immigration law and Federal Court jurisprudence as of January 2026. Laws, regulations, and judicial interpretations may change, and the application of legal principles depends on the specific facts of each case.
Reading this article does not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and George Lee Law. Every immigration case is unique, and you should not rely on this information as a substitute for professional legal advice tailored to your individual circumstances.
If you believe you may have grounds for a mandamus application, you should consult with a qualified immigration lawyer promptly. Delays in seeking legal advice may affect your options.
The success of a mandamus application depends on many factors, including the specific facts of your case, the reasons for the processing delay, and the evidence available. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. The case outcomes described in this article are examples from Federal Court decisions and practitioner commentary and do not represent predictions about any particular case.
Nothing in this article should be construed as a guarantee or prediction of any specific result in your matter.
© 2026 George Lee Law. All rights reserved.