Updated on August 19, 2026 by canadian immigration experts
Quick answer
If IRCC has not decided, your remedy is mandamus — a Federal Court order compelling IRCC to decide. If IRCC has decided and you disagree, your remedy is judicial review, which asks the Court to quash the refusal and send it back, or an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division where appeal rights exist. Both start with the same leave application.
What is the difference between mandamus and judicial review?
Mandamus asks the Federal Court to order IRCC to decide an application left undecided for an unreasonable time. Judicial review asks the Court to set aside a decision already made, as unreasonable or procedurally unfair. Mandamus produces a decision; judicial review produces a second look at one. Neither produces an approval.
The most common misconception is that mandamus compels approval. A writ of mandamus in Canada does not force IRCC to approve your application. It forces IRCC to decide it. On judicial review the Court does not substitute its own decision either.
| Question | Mandamus | Judicial review |
|---|---|---|
| What triggers it | No decision. The wait is longer than the process requires and a written demand went unanswered. Passing IRCC’s published service standard is evidence of delay, not proof it is unreasonable. | A decision exists: a refusal letter or a negative officer decision. |
| What you ask the Court to do | Order IRCC to perform its public legal duty and decide the application. | Find the decision unreasonable or unfair, quash it, and remit the file for redetermination. |
| The legal test | The 8-part test in Apotex Inc. v Canada (AG), [1994] 1 FC 742 (FCA). Delay is measured under Conille, [1999] 2 FC 33: longer than the process requires, not your fault, unjustified by IRCC. | Reasonableness on the merits — Canada (MCI) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 — and correctness on procedural fairness. |
| Deadline to file | No decision means no date to start the clock. Counsel files once a demand letter has gone unanswered. | 15 days if the matter arose in Canada, 60 days if it arose outside Canada — s. 72(2)(b) IRPA. |
| What the Court can order | A decision, sometimes within a fixed period. It cannot order an approval. | The decision set aside and the file redetermined, usually by a different officer. |
| Typical outcome | A large share settle before hearing: IRCC finalises the decision once litigation starts. | Where leave is granted and you succeed, the file goes back for a fresh decision. |
| When it is the wrong choice | When a decision already exists, even a refusal you consider wrong. Mandamus cannot reopen a decided file. | When nothing has been decided, or you hold an IAD appeal right, which allows new evidence. |
What must you prove to win a mandamus application?
Mandamus requires you to show that IRCC owes you a legal duty to decide, that you have done everything required of you, that you asked IRCC to decide and were met with silence, and that no other adequate remedy exists. The Federal Court applies the 8-part test from Apotex Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 FC 742 (FCA).
- A public legal duty to act rests on IRCC — here, the duty to decide a properly filed application.
- That duty is owed to you, the applicant, not to the public at large.
- You have a clear right to performance: every condition precedent is satisfied, so nothing is outstanding on your side.
- You made a prior demand that IRCC decide, and allowed a reasonable time to comply.
- IRCC refused or delayed unreasonably in response.
- There is no other adequate remedy available to you.
- The order would have practical value and nothing bars equitable relief.
- The balance of convenience favours making the order.
Unreasonable delay is assessed under Conille v Canada (MCI), [1999] 2 FC 33, on three questions: the delay is longer than the nature of the process requires, you are not responsible for it, and the authority has offered no satisfactory justification. All three must hold.
What usually causes the delay?
Long delays most often trace back to background and security screening rather than to any problem with your forms. Knowing the cause matters, because it shapes the justification IRCC will offer the Court.
- Security or background screening by partner agencies — the single most common cause of multi-year waits.
- Section 11.2 IRPA issues, where eligibility must be reassessed at the visa stage.
- Criminal or medical admissibility questions that require further assessment.
- Misplaced or dormant files that never re-enter the queue after a transfer between offices.
Which remedy fits your situation?
If your immigration application is taking too long, the remedy is mandamus. If it was refused, judicial review or an IAD appeal. Match what has happened on your file to the row below.
| Your situation | The remedy that fits |
|---|---|
| No decision on a PR application after years | Mandamus in the Federal Court, after a written demand goes unanswered. |
| Refusal on an outland spousal sponsorship | IAD appeal within 30 days of the written refusal. The hearing is de novo, so new evidence is allowed. |
| Refusal on an inland spousal application | No IAD appeal right. Judicial review, 15 days where the matter arose in Canada. Check the spousal sponsorship refusal reasons in the officer’s letter first. |
| Study permit refused | Judicial review only. No appeal right; 60 days if decided outside Canada. |
| PR card renewal stuck, no decision | Mandamus, once a demand letter goes unanswered and the wait exceeds what the process requires. |
| Found abroad not to have met the residency obligation | IAD residency obligation appeal, 60 days from the decision when the appeal is made from outside Canada. Humanitarian and compassionate relief under s. 67(1)(c) IRPA is available. |
| Removal order against a permanent resident | IAD appeal within 30 days — unless s. 64 IRPA removes the appeal right, leaving judicial review. Compare mandamus vs IAD appeal. |
How do you work out which forum applies?
Work through four questions in order. The answer to the first one decides most files on its own.
- Has a decision been made? If nothing has been decided, you are in mandamus territory and there is no refusal date running against you.
- If a decision exists, do you have a right of appeal? Section 63 IRPA gives appeal rights for refused family-class sponsorships, removal orders against permanent residents and protected persons, and residency obligation decisions.
- Does s. 64 IRPA take that right away? Serious criminality, organised criminality, security and human or international rights violations remove the IAD appeal, leaving judicial review.
- Diarise the deadline the day the decision arrives. 30 days for the IAD, 60 days for a residency obligation appeal made from abroad, 15 or 60 days for judicial review depending on where the matter arose.
What do mandamus and judicial review have in common?
Both are brought as an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review under s. 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, on Form IR-1, in the Federal Court. Jurisdiction comes from s. 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act.
Leave — the Court’s permission to proceed — must be granted before either case is heard, and it is granted in a minority of cases. A judge decides leave on the paper record, without an oral hearing. Drafting is therefore the work in Canadian immigration litigation, not an afterthought. The stages below show how to file a mandamus application in practice.
| Stage | What happens |
|---|---|
| 1. Demand letter | A written demand that IRCC decide, allowing roughly 30 days. |
| 2. File the ALJR | Form IR-1 filed in the Federal Court and served on the Minister. |
| 3. Records exchanged | IRCC serves the certified tribunal record; your record is due 30 days after the leave application. |
| 4. Settlement or leave | Many files settle here once IRCC finalises the decision. Otherwise a leave decision follows months later. |
What does the Vavilov reasonableness standard mean in plain language?
Reasonableness means the Court asks whether the officer’s decision holds together, not whether the judge would have decided the same way. Under Canada (MCI) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, a reasonable decision is coherent and justified against the facts and law that constrained the officer. A decision a judge disagrees with can still stand.
Winning therefore means showing that the reasons do not follow, that the officer ignored contradicting evidence, or that the process was unfair. Procedural fairness is reviewed on correctness, a lower bar.
When is an IAD appeal the better route than judicial review?
Where a right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division exists, it is usually the better route: the IAD hearing is de novo. You may file new evidence, testify and call witnesses. Judicial review is confined to the record before the officer. The IAD sits at the Immigration and Refugee Board, not the Federal Court.
Under s. 63 IRPA the IAD hears sponsorship appeals, removal order appeals by permanent residents and protected persons, and the residency obligation appeal route for permanent residents who fall short of the 730-days-in-5-years rule in s. 28 IRPA. The Notice of Appeal is due 30 days after the written decision, or 60 days for residency obligation appeals from abroad. The IAD can also grant humanitarian and compassionate relief under s. 67(1)(c) IRPA, including the best interests of a child, and stay a removal order under s. 68.
When there is no appeal right at all
Section 64 IRPA removes the IAD appeal right where a person is inadmissible for serious criminality — at least six months’ imprisonment in Canada — or for organised criminality, security, or human or international rights violations. The IAD then has no jurisdiction, and judicial review in the Federal Court is the only route. Separately, and for a different reason, temporary resident refusals and inland spousal refusals carry no IAD appeal right either: s. 63 IRPA simply does not confer one, so those refusals also go to the Federal Court. Where an appeal does exist, Immigration Appeal Division appeals and a spousal sponsorship refusal appeal run under the IAD’s own rules.
Not sure which remedy your file needs?
Bring us the refusal letter, or the date you last heard from IRCC, and an immigration mandamus lawyer in Toronto will tell you which forum applies and what your deadline is. Fees vary with complexity — ask for a written quote.
Frequently asked questions
Can mandamus force IRCC to approve my application?
No. Mandamus forces IRCC to decide your application, not to approve it. The decision that follows can still be a refusal, challenged separately by judicial review or an IAD appeal.
Do mandamus and judicial review both need leave from the Court?
Yes. Both are brought as an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review under s. 72 IRPA, on Form IR-1. Leave is decided on the written record and granted in a minority of cases.
What is the deadline to file for judicial review of a refusal?
15 days if the matter arose in Canada and 60 days if it arose outside Canada, under s. 72(2)(b) IRPA. Extensions can be sought but are not assured, so take advice immediately.
My application was refused. Can I still file mandamus?
No. Mandamus applies where IRCC has failed to decide. Once a decision exists there is no duty left to compel, so the remedy is judicial review, or an IAD appeal if appeal rights exist.
Can I submit new evidence on judicial review?
Generally no. Judicial review is decided on the record before the officer, with narrow exceptions such as procedural unfairness. Where new evidence matters, an IAD appeal allows it.
How much does a Federal Court application cost?
The court filing fee is modest; legal fees are the larger part and vary with complexity, the size of the record, and whether the matter settles. Ask for a written quote.
Disclaimer: This article is general information about Canadian immigration law and procedure, current as of 2026. It is not legal advice and no solicitor-client or representative-client relationship is created by reading it. Deadlines and requirements change, and the right remedy depends on the facts of your file. Speak to a qualified immigration professional about your own circumstances before acting. Jane Katkova & Associates has advised clients on Canadian immigration matters since 1995.
