immlaw@akahlon.ca | +1 (647) 450-0000
Writ of Mandamus

Writ of Mandamus

A Writ of Mandamus is a court order that compels a government body to fulfill its legal duty when it has failed to act within a reasonable timeframe. In immigration law, this writ forces IRCC to process an application that is stalled without justification.

What is our four-step approach to resolving immigration delays?

Unlike firms that rush to court, our firm takes a methodical approach to resolving immigration delays, focusing on compliance, administrative requests, and escalation before seeking judicial intervention.

Step 1: Comprehensive Application Review

The first step is to review your entire immigration application to determine whether it is true, correct, and complete. Any errors, omissions, or missing documents can result in an unnecessary refusal. Therefore, before taking further action, we conduct a thorough assessment and supplement the application with any missing information via IRCC’s webform.

The importance of this step has been reinforced by case law, particularly:

  • Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1690: The Federal Court ruled that documents submitted via IRCC webform prior to a final decision must be considered by decision-makers. The court emphasized that IRCC cannot ignore such submissions without providing justifiable reasons.
  • Rupal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1371: Kahlon Law Office successfully represented this case, where the Federal Court reaffirmed that IRCC must acknowledge and assess additional documents submitted via webform before making a final decision. This ruling further strengthened the argument that IRCC cannot arbitrarily dismiss supplementary documents provided before a decision is rendered.

By ensuring that an application is accurate, complete, and supplemented where necessary, we reduce the risk of refusal and position our clients for a successful outcome even before considering further legal action.

Step 2: Request for Decision via Webform

Once we confirm that the application is true, correct, and complete, we move to the second step—submitting a formal request to IRCC via webform, requesting a decision within 30 calendar days.

This step provides IRCC an opportunity to act on the application without the need for judicial intervention. Often, delays are caused by administrative backlogs, and a formal request may be enough to prompt action.

Step 3: Formal Demand Letter

If IRCC fails to respond within 30 days of our formal request, we escalate the matter by sending a demand letter. This letter serves two key purposes:

  1. It formally demands a decision within an additional 30 days.
  2. It notifies IRCC that failure to act may result in judicial intervention via a Writ of Mandamus.

This step ensures that IRCC is given every reasonable opportunity to fulfill its duty before legal action is pursued.

Step 4: Filing the Writ of Mandamus

If IRCC fails to respond to the demand letter or continues to delay processing, we proceed with filing a Writ of Mandamus in the Federal Court.

A Mandamus application must meet the following legal requirements, as established in case law:

  1. A public legal duty to act – IRCC must have an obligation to process the application.
  2. A clear right to performance of that duty – The applicant must meet all eligibility requirements.
  3. No other adequate remedy available – The applicant must have exhausted all reasonable alternatives before seeking court intervention.
  4. Delay must be unreasonable – The delay must be beyond normal processing times and without valid justification.

When a Writ of Mandamus is filed, the Federal Court reviews IRCC’s inaction and determines whether the delay is legally justifiable. If it is found to be unreasonable, the court orders IRCC to make a decision within a specified timeframe.

What legal precedents support mandamus applications?

The Federal Court has consistently upheld the right of applicants to seek Mandamus when faced with unreasonable delays. Some notable cases include:

  • Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 221 – The Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed that a Writ of Mandamus is appropriate when a government authority fails to act within a reasonable timeframe.
  • Vaziri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1159 – The court ruled that delays beyond standard processing times without valid justification may constitute an abuse of discretion, warranting Mandamus relief.
  • Conille v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 FC 33 – The court held that an applicant must first exhaust all administrative remedies before filing for Mandamus, reinforcing the importance of our step-by-step approach.

These cases highlight that IRCC cannot unreasonably delay applications and that a Writ of Mandamus is a powerful legal tool to enforce timely decision-making.

Why choose Kahlon Law Office for filing a Writ of Mandamus?

  • Strategic & Cost-Effective: We exhaust all possible remedies before pursuing costly litigation, ensuring that our clients only file a Writ of Mandamus when absolutely necessary.
  • Proven Track Record: Our firm has experience in handling matters involving processing delays.
  • Client-Focused Approach: We prioritize efficiency and success, ensuring that your case is handled with precision, urgency, and legal expertise.

CONTACT US TODAY +1 (647) 450-0000

Our Services

DISCLAIMER

NO LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP: Visiting or using this website does not establish a lawyer-client relationship between you and Kahlon Law Office. Such a relationship is only formed after we conduct a conflict-of-interest check and enter into a formal agreement with you. Please refrain from sharing any confidential or sensitive legal information through this website, as doing so does not create any legal obligations on our part.

NO LEGAL ADVICE PROVIDED: The content on this website is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. While we strive to keep the information relevant and updated, laws evolve, and the material may not always reflect the latest legal development. If you require legal advice tailored to your situation, we encourage you to seek professional legal counsel.

THIRD-PARTY WEBSITES: For your convenience, our website may contain links to external websites maintained by third parties. However, Kahlon Law Office does not control or endorse the content on these websites and assumes no responsibility for their accuracy, completeness, or reliability. Visiting such links is at your own discretion.

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: Kahlon Law Office is not responsible for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages resulting from the use of this website, reliance on its content, or any inability to access it. The information is provided "as is" without any warranties, express or implied.

CHANGES TO THE IMMIGRATION LAW: The information provided is for general informational purposes only and may not reflect the most up-to-date legal developments.

CHANGES TO DISCLAIMER: Kahlon Law Office reserves the right to modify or update this disclaimer at any time without prior notice. It is your responsibility to review this page periodically for any changes.

Menu

Contact Info

Phone: +1 (647) 450-0000

Email: immlaw@akahlon.ca

Address: 200-1B Conestoga Drive, Brampton, Ontario L6Z 4N5, Canada.

Services

POWERED AND MAINTAINED BY INTOPDIGITAL

© Kahlon Law Office 2025.