Docket: IMM-4446-25
Citation: 2026 FC 885
Ottawa, Ontario, June 30, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Saint-Fleur
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
NAZIA MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Nazia Muhammad Hussain, seeks an order of mandamus compelling the Respondent, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC], to process her application for permanent residence under the Home Care Worker Immigration (Child Care) and Home Care Worker Immigration (Home Support) pilot programs which she submitted on January 27, 2021. The Applicant argued before the Court that the delays by the Respondent were unreasonable and that she has satisfied all the conditions required for an order of mandamus.
[2] The Respondent submits that an order of mandamus is not warranted in the circumstances as the alleged delay is the result of IRCC processing the application in accordance with the processing priorities outlined in the applicable Ministerial Instructions.
[3] For the following reasons, this application is dismissed.
II. Background
[4] The Applicant is a citizen of Pakistan who has been living in Saudi Arabia on a work permit since October 2012. She applied for permanent residence under the Child Care and Home Support pilot programs in January 2021. Biometrics were provided in December 2021.
[5] On March 29, 2023, IRCC sent the Applicant a letter requesting copies of her family’s passports, and other documents and information to continue processing her application. The Applicant responded to this request on May 1, 2023.
[6] Medical admissibility was assessed as passed on March 29, 2023, for the Applicant’s dependent children and on March 31, 2023, for her and her spouse. The family’s medical status has been updated and renewed on four occasions, including once for the Applicant’s youngest child born in 2023.
[7] The Applicant’s criminal admissibility was assessed as passed in an entry in the Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes. This status was renewed on April 15, 2025, and is valid until April 15, 2027.
[8] The Applicant met the criteria for Stage 1 eligibility. Her eligibility was set to passed accidentally by IRCC in the GCMS notes on May 1, 2023, prior to all admissibility reviews being completed. The Applicant’s eligibility assessment was updated as in progress in the GCMS notes on February 19, 2026.
[9] On May 24, 2023, a security screening review request was submitted for the Applicant’s spouse. The screening was completed and security admissibility was set to passed in the GCMS notes on April 15, 2025.
[10] On May 25, 2023, IRCC sent the Applicant a letter requesting she pay the Right of Permanent Residence fee for the continued processing of her application for permanent residence. The Applicant paid the fee on June 2, 2023.
III. Issue
[11] The only issue in this matter is whether the Applicant has met the test for an order of mandamus.
IV. Relevant Legislation
[12] Paragraph 18.1(3)(a) of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7 confirms the power of the Federal Court to grant mandamus:
Powers of Federal Court
|
Pouvoirs de la Cour fédérale
|
(3) On an application for judicial review, the Federal Court may
|
(3) Sur présentation d’une demande de contrôle judiciaire, la Cour fédérale peut :
|
a) order a federal board, commission or other tribunal to do any act or thing it has unlawfully failed or refused to do or has unreasonably delayed in doing; or
|
a) ordonner à l’office fédéral en cause d’accomplir tout acte qu’il a illégalement omis ou refusé d’accomplir ou dont il a retardé l’exécution de manière déraisonnable;
|
[13] Ministers may issue instructions with respect to processing applications that will support the Government of Canada’s immigration goals under section 87.3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]:
Application
|
Application
|
87.3 (1) This section applies to applications for visas or other documents made under subsections 11(1) and (1.01), other than those made by persons referred to in subsection 99(2), to sponsorship applications made under subsection 13(1), to applications for permanent resident status under subsection 21(1) or temporary resident status under subsection 22(1) made by foreign nationals in Canada, to applications for work or study permits and to requests under subsection 25(1) made by foreign nationals outside Canada.
|
87.3 (1) Le présent article s’applique aux demandes de visa et autres documents visées aux paragraphes 11(1) et (1.01) — sauf à celle faite par la personne visée au para graphe 99(2) —, aux demandes de parrainage faites au titre du paragraphe 13(1), aux demandes de statut de résident permanent visées au paragraphe 21(1) ou de résident temporaire visées au paragraphe 22(1) faites par un étranger se trouvant au Canada, aux demandes de permis de travail ou d’études ainsi qu’aux demandes pré vues au paragraphe 25(1) faites par un étranger se trouvant hors du Canada.
|
Clarification
|
Précision
|
(1.1) For greater certainty, this section applies to a sponsorship application made under subsection 13(1) to sponsor a person referred to in subsection 99(2).
|
(1.1) Il est entendu que le présent article s’applique aux demandes de parrainage faites au titre du paragraphe 13(1) pour parrainer une personne visée au paragraphe 99(2).
|
Attainment of immigration goals
|
Atteinte des objectifs d’immigration
|
(2) The processing of applications and requests is to be conducted in a manner that, in the opinion of the Minister, will best support the attainment of the immigration goals established by the Government of Canada.
|
(2) Le traitement des demandes se fait de la manière qui, selon le ministre, est la plus susceptible d’aider l’atteinte des objectifs fixés pour l’immigration par le gouvernement fédéral.
|
Instructions
|
Instructions
|
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the Minister may give instructions with respect to the processing of applications and requests, including instructions(a) establishing categories of applications or requests to which the instructions apply;(a.1) establishing conditions, by category or other wise, that must be met before or during the processing of an application or request;
(b) establishing an order, by category or otherwise, for the processing of applications or requests;
(c) setting the number of applications or requests, by category or otherwise, to be processed in any year; and
(d) providing for the disposition of applications and requests, including those made subsequent to the first application or request.
|
(3) Pour l’application du paragraphe (2), le ministre peut donner des instructions sur le traitement des demandes, notamment des instructions :a) prévoyant les groupes de demandes à l’égard desquels s’appliquent les instructions;
a.1) prévoyant des conditions, notamment par groupe, à remplir en vue du traitement des demandes ou lors de celui-ci;
b) prévoyant l’ordre de traitement des demandes, notamment par groupe;
c) précisant le nombre de demandes à traiter par an, notamment par groupe;
d) régissant la disposition des demandes dont celles faites de nouveau.
|
Application
|
Application
|
(3.1) An instruction may, if it so provides, apply in respect of pending applications or requests that are made before the day on which the instruction takes effect.
|
(3.1) Les instructions peuvent, lorsqu’elles le prévoient, s’appliquer à l’égard des demandes pendantes faites avant la date où elles prennent effet.
|
Clarification
|
Précision
|
(3.2) For greater certainty, an instruction given under paragraph (3)(c) may provide that the number of applications or requests, by category or otherwise, to be pro cessed in any year be set at zero.
|
(3.2) Il est entendu que les instructions données en ver tu de l’alinéa (3)c) peuvent préciser que le nombre de de mandes à traiter par an, notamment par groupe, est de zéro.
|
Compliance with instructions
|
Respect des instructions
|
(4) Officers and persons authorized to exercise the powers of the Minister under section 25 shall comply with any instructions before processing an application or re quest or when processing one. If an application or re quest is not processed, it may be retained, returned or otherwise disposed of in accordance with the instructions of the Minister.
|
(4) L’agent — ou la personne habilitée à exercer les pouvoirs du ministre prévus à l’article 25 — est tenu de se conformer aux instructions avant et pendant le traite ment de la demande; s’il ne procède pas au traitement de la demande, il peut, conformément aux instructions du ministre, la retenir, la retourner ou en disposer.
|
Clarification
|
Précision
|
(5) The fact that an application or request is retained, returned or otherwise disposed of does not constitute a decision not to issue the visa or other document, or grant the status or exemption, in relation to which the application or request is made.
|
(5) Le fait de retenir ou de retourner une demande ou d’en disposer ne constitue pas un refus de délivrer les visa ou autres documents, d’octroyer le statut ou de lever tout ou partie des critères et obligations applicables.
|
Publication
|
Publication
|
(6) Instructions shall be published in the Canada Gazette.
|
(6) Les instructions sont publiées dans la Gazette du Canada.
|
Clarification
|
Précision
|
(7) Nothing in this section in any way limits the power of the Minister to otherwise determine the most efficient manner in which to administer this Act.
|
(7) Le présent article n’a pas pour effet de porter atteinte au pouvoir du ministre de déterminer de toute autre façon la manière la plus efficace d’assurer l’application de la loi.
|
[Emphasis added]
V. Analysis
A. The Test for an Order of Mandamus
[14] The Applicant seeks to compel IRCC to render a decision on her pending permanent residence application. The test for mandamus is set out in Apotex v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 FC 742 (FCA) [Apotex]:
1. There must be a legal duty to act;
2. The duty must be owed to the applicant;
3. There must be a clear right to performance of that duty:
a. The applicant has satisfied all conditions precedent giving rise to the duty; and
b. There was:
i. A prior demand for performance of the duty;
ii. A reasonable time to comply with the demand unless refused outright; and
iii. A subsequent refusal which can be either expressed or implied, e.g. by unreasonable delay.
4. Where the duty sought to be enforced is discretionary, certain additional principles apply;
5. No adequate remedy is available to the applicant;
6. The order sought will have some practical value or effect;
7. The Court finds no equitable bar to the relief sought; and
8. On a balance of convenience, an order of mandamus should be issued.
[15] As the test for mandamus is conjunctive, the Court must be satisfied on all eight elements to issue an order of mandamus (Cheloei v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 820 at para 13; Yuehong v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1837 at para 39).
[16] The Federal Court of Appeal recently addressed how reviewing courts are to assess the Apotex criteria. This Court must first determine whether the Applicant has demonstrated their entitlement to mandamus under the first four criteria. Having been satisfied of this, the court then turns to consider whether it should exercise its discretion to deny the remedy under the last four criteria (Benison v Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee), 2026 FCA 53 at para 45 [Benison]). Either the Respondent or the reviewing court may raise one of the last four criteria as a discretionary bar to withhold relief. Whether raised or apparent on the record, the Applicant bears a tactical burden to demonstrate why mandamus should still be ordered (Benison at paras 50–51).
[17] In the present case, the parties dispute whether the Applicant has met the elements for an order of mandamus. There is no dispute between the parties that the Minister owes the Applicant a legal duty to process her permanent residence application.
[18] As is often the case for mandamus applications in the immigration and citizenship context, the issue here is whether the Applicant has a clear right to performance of the duty, particularly whether the alleged delay is reasonable (Abdolkhaleghi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 729 at para 13).
B. The Applicant has not satisfied the test for mandamus
[19] Regarding the third Apotex criterion, whether the Applicant has a clear right to performance of the duty, I note the following. First, the Applicant argues she has submitted a complete application, including all required forms, supporting documents, and processing fees. She submits she has complied with all IRCC requests in a timely manner and argues there is no evidence of non-compliance on the record. The Respondent does not contest the Applicant has satisfied all conditions precedent giving rise to the duty.
[20] Secondly, the Applicant has inquired about the status of her application via online webform, and emails sent by her counsel and her Member of Parliament. The Respondent again does not contest there was a prior demand for performance of the duty.
[21] Third, the Applicant claims IRCC has had reasonable time to comply with her demands for performance which the Respondent does not contest.
[22] However, I find the Applicant has not satisfied this Court there is a clear right to performance of the duty as she has not established there was unreasonable delay in processing her permanent residency application in light of satisfactory justification provided by the Respondent.
[23] The assessment of unreasonable delay is informed by Conille v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), [1999] 2 FC 33 at paragraph 23. The delay will be unreasonable if: (1) the delay has been longer than the nature of the process required, prima facie; (2) the Applicant and their counsel are not responsible for the delay; and (3) the authority responsible for the delay has not provided a satisfactory justification. Unreasonable delay in performing the public duty may be deemed an implied refusal to perform (Dragan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (T.D.), [2003] 4 FC 189 at para 45).
[24] On the third of these factors, the Applicant believes she has not received a satisfactory justification, or any justification, for the delay. In response, the Respondent argues IRCC has not refused to process the Applicant’s permanent residency application, only that it is being processed according to processing priorities set out in the Ministerial Instructions.
[25] Upon review of the evidence on the record and the submissions of both parties, I find the third condition of the conjunctive test for an order of mandamus has not been satisfied as the Respondent has provided a satisfactory justification for the delay.
[26] As of February 2025, and based on the Applicant’s application date, the record indicates there are 5,100 other applicants ahead of the Applicant waiting for their applications to be processed and a total of 40,700 people waiting for a decision. According to the IRCC processing times website, as of February 12, 2026, permanent residence applications in the caregiver class made in January 2021 have an estimated remaining processing time of 12 months.
[27] Also, as submitted by the Respondent, the Ministerial Instructions regarding the processing of applications under the Home Care Worker Immigration Pilot Program (Child Care) and Home Care Worker Immigration Pilot Program (Home Support) (Ministerial Instructions, Canada Gazette, Part I, vol 159, no 12, (March 22, 2025)) and the New Ministerial Instructions regarding the processing of applications under the Home Care Worker Immigration Pilot (Child Care) and Home Care Worker Immigration Pilot (Home Support) (Ministerial Instructions, Canada Gazette, Part I, vol 159, no 51, (December 12, 2025)) [Ministerial Instructions] guide the management of the processing of applications to best support the attainment of the immigration goals established by the Government of Canada. Notably also, the Ministerial Instructions dated December 12, 2025, repeal the Instructions dated March 22, 2025.
[28] The Ministerial Instructions, published in the Canada Gazette in accordance with subsection 87.3(6) of the IRPA, require the processing of pilot program applications in accordance with the Government of Canada’s established immigration goals and objectives under paragraph 3(1)(f) of the IRPA, and to manage the processing of applications to reduce application inventories.
[29] Under paragraph 87.3(3)(b), the Minister can establish conditions to be met before or during the processing of applications which apply to pending applications. These Ministerial Instructions are a legitimate exercise of the Minister’s authority, and their operation justify the alleged delay. Both this Court and the Federal Court of Appeal have confirmed section 87.3 gives the Minister wide authority to issue instructions on how applications are to be processed to best support the Government of Canada’s immigration goals. The Minister has broad authority to limit the number of applications to be processed and to direct how processing is to operate (Cabral v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FCA 4 at para 43).
[30] Delays attributable to immigration levels are justifiable. This Court in Vaziri v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1159 [Vaziri] found the delay reasonable as the Minister had decided to prioritize processing of applications of spouses and dependent children over the applications of parents and grandparents. The Court found the delay was not longer than the nature of the process required and was the result of lawful Ministerial policies (Vaziri at paras 54–55, 57). This Court in Mersad v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 543 [Mersad] similarly declined to grant mandamus where the applicant had waited over six years for a decision on his permanent residence application because Government measures and immigration levels were held to be sufficient justification (Mersad at para 27). Similarly, this Court has most recently found delays of three years and seven years for applicants in the Québec Business Class were justified because of Government priorities and targets (Javid v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1440 at paras 28–29, 33; Wang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1832 at paras 27, 29).
[31] As recently confirmed by this Court in Yim v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 254 [Yim], issuing an order of mandamus would “circumvent, and indeed repudiate, the processing priorities established in the Ministerial Instructions”
(Yim at para 31). It is not the role of this Court to set, vary, or grant exemptions from government policy (Universal Ostrich Farms Inc. v Canada (Food Inspection Agency), 2025 FCA 147 at para 6). The Government has made policy choices directing the processing of the permanent residency applications under the Child Care and Home Support programs, including prioritizing pending applications and the number of applicants to be admitted on an annual basis. Processing times may be lengthier relative to other programs, but this is a matter of policy and ministerial discretion.
[32] In this case, there has been no refusal to act by the Respondent. The Applicant has not established that the processing delay in her case is longer than the nature of the process requires, considering the features of this program and the Government’s targets and priorities. The processing of the Applicant’s permanent residency application is ongoing in accordance with the relevant Ministerial Instructions which supports the reasonableness of the delay.
[33] Accordingly, the Applicant has failed to establish a clear right to the performance of the duty under the Apotex test.
[34] Given the conjunctive nature of the test, I need not consider the remaining steps.
VI. Conclusion
[35] For the reasons set out above, this application for an order of mandamus is dismissed.
[36] No question of general importance will be certified and no costs awarded.
Email this Content