- The Federal Court ordered IRCC to decide long-delayed applications within specific deadlines ranging from 45 to 90 days.
- A PhD study permit delayed for 42 months was granted a strict 45-day deadline for a final decision.
- The court rejected generic backlog excuses, requiring the government to provide evidence-based justifications for multi-year processing delays.
The Federal Court of Canada has ordered Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to decide long-delayed applications within court-set deadlines, including a study permit held for 42 months. The rulings address unreasonable delays and require decisions in 45, 60, or 90 days, depending on the case.
Justice Michael Battista issued the latest order on August 5, 2026, in Kia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 780. The case involved a PhD study permit application delayed for 42 months.
Free toolCanada Express Entry Points Calculator
Battista rejected broad references to security screening and administrative backlogs without supporting evidence.
"Submissions by counsel could not substitute for evidence. unsupported references to security screening or administrative backlogs are insufficient [to justify a 3.5-year delay]."
The court ordered a decision within 45 days. The order does not direct a particular outcome on the study permit application.
Two other cases show how the court has set different deadlines for different immigration files. A caregiver permanent-residence application delayed for 42 months received a 60-day deadline, while a start-up visa permanent-residence application delayed for 62 months received 90 days.
Court orders now attach deadlines to three delayed applications
| Case | Application | Reported delay | Decision deadline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 780 | PhD study permit | 42 months | 45 days |
| Dai v. Canada, 2026 (July 10) | Caregiver permanent residence | 42 months | 60 days |
| Tousi v. Canada, 2025 FC 671 | Start-up visa permanent residence | 62 months | 90 days |
The rulings use mandamus, a court remedy that compels a public official to perform a duty the official has neglected. Applicants generally must show that the delay substantially exceeds applicable service standards and that the government lacks a satisfactory, evidence-backed explanation.
The legal framework described in the research is the “Apotex/Conille test.” Specific security concerns may support a delay when the government provides evidence. General statements about backlogs or ongoing screening may not be enough.
The court’s immigration docket is growing alongside the application inventory
The orders arrive as the department reports an inventory of more than 1.5 million applications. The figure covered the total inventory as of May 31, 2026, according to the agency’s backlog reporting.
The Federal Court’s immigration litigation has increased fivefold compared with the 2014–2019 average. Acting Chief Justice Martine St-Louis addressed the growth in a June 29, 2026, press release.
"The situation is becoming unsustainable. new immigration proceedings have grown for a fifth record-breaking year, potentially exceeding 30,000 files in 2026."
The projected figure refers to proceedings in 2026. It places pressure on a court already handling applications asking judges to compel action on individual files.
On July 21, 2026, IRCC launched a redesigned dashboard that divides its pending inventory into categories. The department said it is moving toward a 120-day service standard for most temporary-residence applications, while warning that multi-agency security assessments continue to create operational challenges in complex cases.
Evidence, not a generic backlog explanation, is becoming the dividing line
A multi-year delay does not automatically guarantee mandamus relief. Applicants must establish that the delay is excessive in the circumstances and that the government has not provided a satisfactory explanation.
The Kia ruling identifies the evidentiary problem directly. Counsel’s submissions cannot replace proof, and a reference to security screening does not by itself explain why an application remained unresolved for 3.5 years.
The cases also affect people who have deferred studies repeatedly or remained separated from family members while applications awaited action. A court order can create a defined decision deadline where an application has otherwise remained in an open-ended process.
The department is changing how it manages delayed files
The agency has responded by triaging files internally and updating reciprocity guidance. The research identifies an August 7, 2026, update on C20 Reciprocity as part of that administrative response.
Those changes sit alongside the redesigned inventory dashboard and the planned 120-day service standard for most temporary-residence applications. Complex files involving multiple agencies remain subject to operational challenges, according to the department’s July 21 statement.
The court’s recent orders do not establish a single deadline for every delayed application. The deadlines have instead reflected the individual records before the judges: 45 days in Kia, 60 days in Dai, and 90 days in Tousi.
Applicants considering a mandamus application typically need evidence showing the filing history, the length of the delay, relevant service standards, and the government’s explanation. The legal test and available procedure can vary with the facts and the court record.
The June 29 warning from Acting Chief Justice St-Louis points to continuing pressure in the months ahead, with new immigration proceedings potentially exceeding 30,000 files in 2026. The orders in the three cases require decisions within their specified periods, rather than allowing the files to remain pending indefinitely.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
