Tousi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
This page is a summary and commentary on a publicly available court decision, written for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship with Azimi Law, regardless of how specific or applicable it may seem to your situation.
This summary may be incomplete, simplified, or not reflect the most current state of the law — the decision may be appealed, distinguished, or overtaken by later rulings. Independently verify this case against the official decision before relying on it. Nothing here guarantees the outcome of any other matter, including yours.
Do not rely on this page to make decisions about your own situation. Consult a licensed lawyer, or contact Azimi Law to discuss your situation directly.
The Facts
The principal applicant, with a spouse and child, applied for permanent residence under the Start-up Visa program on February 10, 2020. By the time the matter was decided in April 2025, the file had been open for over 62 months. IRCC's own published processing time for this program was about 40 months. The family asked the Federal Court for an order of mandamus, a court order compelling an officer to perform a public duty, here to make a decision on the application. They said they had been given no real explanation for the wait.
What the Court Decided
Justice Turley granted the application. The Court applied the usual three-part test for unreasonable delay: the wait is longer than the process reasonably requires, the applicant is not responsible for it, and the government has not given a satisfactory justification. All three were met. The Court also took a clear position on a point where earlier decisions had differed: significant prejudice to the applicant is not a separate fourth requirement, because it has no bearing on whether the time taken was reasonable; evidence of hardship can still support relief, but it is not a condition of getting it. The Court also stated that the waiting period does not start over each time IRCC asks for further information. IRCC was ordered to make a decision on the application within 90 days.
Delay claims against IRCC have multiplied, and Federal Court judges had been split on whether an applicant must also show significant prejudice. This decision rejects that extra requirement in the immigration context. A 2026 Federal Court of Appeal decision outside immigration has been reported as taking the same view of mandamus generally, so anyone relying on this case should check how that appellate guidance applies.
Does This Affect You?
- ✓Your permanent residence file, such as a Start-up Visa or other economic-class application, has been pending well beyond IRCC's published processing time.
- ✓You have only received general replies that your file is still being reviewed or is under security or background screening.
- ✓IRCC asked you for updated documents, and you wonder whether this resets the clock on how long you have been waiting.
Key Takeaways
- Delay is measured against what the process reasonably requires, not just the published average, and the government must justify a long wait with something more than a general statement that it is still in process.
- An applicant does not have to prove significant prejudice to seek mandamus, although evidence of real harm from the delay is still worth putting in front of the Court.
- A request for more information does not erase the time already spent waiting.