In Mandamus – Citizenship, the Federal Court dismissed Mubarak Abou Hussini’s judicial review application as moot after his citizenship application was granted. However, Justice Catherine M. Kane awarded him $2,000 in costs, finding that the extensive and unexplained processing delay amounted to special reasons for an exceptional costs award.
Citizenship application was pending for more than seven years
Mr. Hussini, a Syrian refugee who arrived in Canada with his family in January 2016 at age 10, applied for Canadian citizenship with family members in January 2019. His mother and one sibling became citizens in 2020, while another sibling was granted citizenship in 2023.
His own application remained outstanding until May 25, 2026. In March 2025, he applied for judicial review seeking mandamus to require a decision within 45 days, along with costs.
The Court granted leave and scheduled a hearing for August 13, 2026. On May 25, 2026, the same day leave was granted, Mr. Hussini’s citizenship application was approved. He took the oath of citizenship on June 8, 2026.
Parties disagreed over whether costs remained available
After citizenship was granted, the respondent sought judgment dismissing the mandamus application for mootness. Mr. Hussini accepted that the request to compel a decision was moot but argued that the Court still had to determine his request for costs.
Mr. Hussini pointed to repeated inquiries about his application, generic responses, and the absence of an explanation for why his file remained under review for more than seven years. He submitted that the delay was far longer than the posted average processing time of eight months referenced in his materials.
The respondent submitted that the application no longer had any practical effect once citizenship was granted. It also argued that the application had become non-routine and that security review was ongoing, so there were no special reasons to award costs.
Court found the mandamus request moot
Justice Kane held that the concrete dispute underlying the mandamus application had disappeared because the citizenship decision had been made. The Court dismissed the application for mootness.
The Court did not adopt the view that the reasonableness of delay itself necessarily remains a live issue after a decision is rendered. It described comments to that effect in Liu v Canada as obiter, noting that delay is generally part of assessing whether there was an implied refusal to act for the purpose of mandamus.
The Court nevertheless confirmed that it retained discretion to consider costs in a moot mandamus matter. It dismissed the respondent’s motion for judgment, finding it unnecessary to determine the motion separately given that the mandamus application continued and was also dismissed as moot.
Unexplained delay justified exceptional costs
Under Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, costs in immigration matters are not awarded unless the Court orders them for special reasons. Justice Kane stressed that such awards should remain exceptional, including in moot mandamus applications.
In this case, however, the Court found special reasons existed. GCMS notes had included entries beginning in 2020 stating only that security was under review, and the application was identified as non-routine in October 2025. The Court found that this did not explain the processing timeline from 2019 to 2025.
Justice Kane stated that, had a decision not been issued before the hearing, the Court would have granted mandamus. The delay was prima facie longer than the process required and, without evidence justifying it, unreasonable.
The Court noted there was no evidence of bad faith by the respondent. Still, Mr. Hussini had arrived in Canada as a child, his family members had received citizenship years earlier, his inquiries had not produced helpful explanations, and the delay was almost ten times the average processing time referenced in the case.
Federal Court awarded $2,000
Mr. Hussini sought $9,000 in costs. The Court found that the circumstances were not analogous to the cases he relied on for higher amounts and observed that costs awards based largely on delay had been more modest in other decisions.
Justice Kane awarded nominal costs of $2,000. The Court said the award would not provide the explanation Mr. Hussini sought for the delay, but would signal that excessive delays and a lack of evidence justifying them are discouraged.
The judgment dismissed the respondent’s motion for judgment, dismissed Mr. Hussini’s judicial review application for mootness, and ordered the respondent to pay him $2,000 in costs.
Practical significance
This decision does not make costs routine in citizenship mandamus proceedings. The Court emphasized that costs in immigration matters remain exceptional and that a delay alone will not necessarily establish special reasons.
However, the decision shows that a citizenship decision issued before a mandamus hearing does not necessarily end the question of costs. On the facts before the Court, the prolonged delay, limited explanations, and absence of evidence to justify the processing history supported a modest costs award despite the application being moot.
Source: Federal Court Decisions