Khamdamov v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship), 2025 FC 1855

ORDER

UPON CONSIDERING the Respondent’s motion for an Order dismissing this application for leave and for judicial review as moot, and having reviewed the submissions of the Respondent and the Applicant;

AND UPON considering that on January 9, 2025, the Applicant commenced an application for leave and for judicial review and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to make a decision with respect to his application for permanent residence;

AND HAVING CONSIDERED that on September 11,2025, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada approved the Applicant’s application for permanent residence;

AND UPON considering Canadian authorities took only 27 months to process this Russian citizen’s application and grant him permanent residence status, the Court has concluded the Respondent’s motion should be granted and this Applicant be dismissed for the following reasons:

1. The Court is not persuaded 27 months is an unreasonable or abnormal processing time let alone sufficient to warrant further relief with respect to this Russian citizen. Notably there is no evidence as to what a reasonable time is for processing such Russian applications and I do not see how this matter may proceed on the basis of mere speculation.

2. This case is in my respectful view, moot. Proceeding with the application would have no practical effect for the Applicant. There is no adversarial context between the parties in the present matter because the Applicant’s application was decided on September 11, 2025.

3. In my respectful view allowing this matter to remain on the Court docket for further proceedings would sanction a waste of judicial resources.

4. I am not persuaded the matter is one warranting the exercise of the Court’s discretion to hear his claim for declaratory relief and costs, notwithstanding its mootness, per Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342.

5. As the Respondent submits, the concern for judicial economy noted by the Supreme Cort of Canada weighs against hearing this matter notwithstanding it is moot.

6. Additionally, this case does not raise an important question that might evade judicial review in a proper case.

7. Furthermore, I am not persuaded this case meets the required high threshold to establish “special reasons” warranting an award of costs to the Applicant notwithstanding the general provision that costs are not awarded in cases under IRPA.

8. In my respectful view the Applicant should have but did not file a notice of discontinuance when his application for permanent residence was approved. If costs were to be awarded the Court would have to consider costs against the Applicant.

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

1. The Respondent’s motion is granted.

2. The underlying application for leave and judicial review is dismissed.

3. There is no order as to costs.