The Federal Court has granted Mandamus – Permanent Residence relief requiring IRCC to decide Kirac’s permanent residence application within 60 days of the October 29, 2026 judgment. The application had been pending for 16 years. The Court found that IRCC had not satisfactorily justified significant periods of delay, including an unexplained period of inactivity between early 2016 and late 2021. It declined, however, to find an abuse of process or award costs.
Case Summary
- Case & citation: Kirac c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration), 2026 CF 1327, Court file IMM-6974-24.
- Decision date & judge: October 29, 2026, Associate Chief Justice Martine St-Louis.
- Issue: Whether IRCC’s delay in deciding a protected person’s 2010 permanent residence application warranted mandamus.
- Outcome: The mandamus application was granted; IRCC must decide the application within 60 days, without costs.
Permanent residence application remained unresolved
Kirac, a Turkish citizen, arrived in Canada in 1993 and was granted refugee status. He made a second permanent residence application in January 2010 after receiving a pardon in 2009 in relation to convictions that had led to the refusal of an earlier application.
In April 2024, before IRCC had made a decision on the second application, Kirac sought judicial review and an order of mandamus compelling IRCC to decide it. He also alleged an abuse of process and sought costs.
The parties ultimately agreed that the Court needed to address two elements of the applicable mandamus test: whether Kirac had a clear right to performance of the legal duty sought, and whether the balance of convenience weighed against granting the remedy.
Court found the delay unreasonable
The Court concluded that Kirac had established a clear right to have IRCC perform its duty by deciding the application. It noted that 16 years had passed since the application was filed and that the Minister conceded the processing period was longer than the process required on its face.
The judgment referred to an IRCC average processing time of 29 months in 2024, while emphasizing that IRCC processing guidance was not determinative. The Court found that the 16-year delay clearly exceeded that average.
Associate Chief Justice St-Louis found that the earlier period from the application’s filing through the end of 2015 could not be attributed solely to either party. During that time, there were communications about the applicant’s Turkish passport, security-related review and two IRCC interviews concerning inadmissibility allegations.
However, the Minister acknowledged not knowing what occurred between early 2016 and late 2021. The certified tribunal record was also silent on that period, and the Court held that the unexplained delay was entirely IRCC’s responsibility.
The Court attributed the period from December 2021 to July 2022 to Kirac because of exchanges about further submissions. It did not find that Kirac or his counsel were responsible for the continued delay after final submissions were provided in 2022.
Security concerns did not justify the delay
The Minister argued that the application raised security issues connected to a 1999 demonstration, the conduct of individuals involved with Kirac and alleged contradictions in the record.
The Court held that general references to ongoing background or security screening were insufficient to justify the delay without evidence explaining the complexity of the particular file or the steps taken on it. The Minister had pointed to historical events and record material but had not connected them to the prolonged delay in processing this application.
On the evidence before it, the Court was not persuaded that the file’s facts were complex enough to justify IRCC’s review continuing for so many years. It also found no evidentiary basis to conclude that the balance of convenience weighed against mandamus.
No abuse of process finding or costs
Kirac also argued that the delay amounted to an abuse of process, citing difficulties with financial institutions and creditors as well as psychological and emotional hardship related to not having permanent resident status.
The Court found that the evidence did not establish the significant prejudice required for an abuse of process finding. It held that the two affidavit paragraphs relied on, without supporting documentary evidence, were insufficient and that delay alone does not constitute prejudice.
The Court also refused costs. It explained that satisfying the requirements for mandamus does not itself amount to the special reasons needed for costs in an immigration matter. In this case, Kirac had not provided evidence supporting an additional basis for costs.
The remedy was therefore limited to mandamus. The judgment requires IRCC to decide the permanent residence application no later than 60 days after the date of judgment; it does not grant permanent residence.
Source: Federal Court Decisions