Docket: IMM-12361-25
Citation: 2026 FC 956
Halifax, Nova Scotia, July 16, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Battista
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
PENGYU LIU
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1] A decision was recently rendered on the Applicant’s work permit, which is the subject of this Application for Judicial Review requesting an order of mandamus. The Respondent accordingly submits that this Application should be dismissed because it is moot, or alternatively that mandamus should be denied because the remedy would have no practical effect.
[2] For the reasons below, the matter is not moot because the continuing live dispute between the parties has not disappeared. However, there is no clear right to performance of the duty because there is no refusal to act given that a decision was rendered on the application. The application for judicial review and request for mandamus are therefore dismissed.
II. Background
[3] Mr. Liu applied for a work permit to do paid research as a PhD student at the University of Alberta. His application was filed on August 22, 2024.
[4] Mr. Liu’s security assessment was passed on April 29, 2026, and in May 2026 he was asked for updated medical information and employment information. No response was received to these requests, and his application was refused for non-compliance based upon subsections 16(1) and 16(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA) on June 24, 2026.
[5] Mr. Liu did not appear for the hearing of this matter and has not recently been responsive to the Registry of the Court. After being satisfied that notice of the hearing was provided to the Applicant, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the Applicant pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.
III. Issues
[6] A threshold issue is whether this Application for Judicial Review is now moot due to the issuance of a decision on the underlying application. This issue is resolved by applying the principles governing the doctrine of mootness (Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC) [Borowski] at 353).
[7] If this application is not moot, the remaining issue is whether the criteria for an order of mandamus have been fulfilled and if so, whether an equitable bar exists to refuse that remedy (Benison v Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee), 2026 FCA 53 [Benison] at paras 45-52).
IV. Analysis
A. The matter is not moot because the live dispute has not disappeared
[8] Mootness is a preliminary objection that precedes the determination of the merits of judicial review. If mootness is established, the matter is dismissed without consideration of the merits; if mootness is not established, a court proceeds to determine the merits, then proceeds to consider remedy (Ramizi v College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants, 2025 FC 692 [Ramizi] at paras 36-37 citing Budlakoti v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration, 2015 FCA 139 at paras 28-30).
[9] Mootness is established when “the required tangible and concrete dispute has disappeared and the issues have become academic”
(Borowski at 353). In this matter, there is no evidence that the dispute or lis has disappeared.
[10] The object of the dispute is not a decision on Mr. Liu’s application. That is the object of the remedy. The object of the dispute is the reasonableness of the delay in the processing of Mr. Liu’s application.
[11] In written submissions the parties disagreed on the reasonableness of the delay experienced by Mr. Liu in the processing of his work permit application and despite his absence at the hearing there is no evidence that Mr. Liu’s position on the dispute has changed.
[12] If it is established that unreasonable delay existed in the processing of Mr. Liu’s application, the Court will determine whether an order of mandamus is appropriate. This includes the consideration of equitable bars to mandamus, such as the lack of practical value or the lack of effectiveness of the remedy (Benison at para 50).
[13] Even if mandamus is withheld, there may be an associated value in the determination of inordinate delay, such as an award of costs or the exposure of unfair or unreasonable decisions to public scrutiny (Ramizi at para 31). With these potential benefits in mind, in my view the resolution of the parties’ disagreement regarding inordinate delay should not reflexively yield to the interest of judicial economy in the face of an ineffective remedy (Ramizi at para 43).
B. There is no prima facie entitlement to mandamus because there has been no refusal to act
[14] The criteria for an order of mandamus are described in Apotex v Canada (Attorney General)(CA), 1993 CanLII 3004 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 742 (CA) [Apotex] at 766-769:
(1) there must be a public legal duty to act;
(2) the duty must be owed to the applicant;
(3) there must be a clear right to the performance of that duty;
(4) where the duty sought to be enforced is discretionary, certain additional principles apply;
(5) no other adequate remedy is available to the applicant;
(6) the order sought will have some practical value or effect;
(7) there is no equitable bar to the relief sought; and
(8) on a balance of convenience an order of mandamus should be issued.
[15] As recently explained by the Federal Court of Appeal, the requirements for mandamus are met when the Applicant establishes the first four criteria of the Apotex test, and the remaining four criteria provide an opportunity for the respondent to demonstrate that the remedy should be withheld (Benison at paras 45-51).
[16] The parties do not dispute the first two criteria of the test, and therefore it has been established that a public duty to act is owed to Mr. Liu. That duty is to finalize Mr. Liu’s application.
[17] However, a clear right to performance of the duty has not been established. This third Apotex criterion requires a demand for performance of the duty, a reasonable time to comply with the demand, and a subsequent refusal which is either expressed or implied (Apotex, at 767). The express or implied refusal is one factor in establishing unreasonable delay.
[18] In Mr. Liu’s case, there has been no refusal to perform the duty. Mr. Liu received a decision on his application on June 24, 2026, and the duty was discharged on that date.
[19] As a result of the decision Mr. Liu received, he is unable to establish unreasonable delay, and unable to establish a prima facie entitlement to mandamus.
V. Conclusion
[20] The conclusion of a process which is the subject of a mandamus request should not automatically render a mandamus request moot if the parties remain in dispute regarding whether the prerequisites for mandamus are met. The discretionary nature of judicial review is not confined to the discretion to refuse substantive judicial review; it also extends to conducting judicial review in the interest of offering alternate remedies such as declaratory relief or costs, as well as conducting judicial review in the interests of public accountability and good governance.
[21] In the present case, however, the issuance of a decision on Mr. Liu’s work permit application cannot be characterized as a refusal to act on the duty owed to him, and he is unable to establish unreasonable delay. There is accordingly no need to consider equitable bars to mandamus, and Mr. Liu has not requested alternate relief. The judicial review application is dismissed.
Email this Content