Savirimuthu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
- Citation
- 2025 FC 1957
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 11 December 2025
- Posture
- Judicial Review Immigration (mandamus for Decision on Permanent Residence Application) / Final Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 11 December 2025
- Posture
- Judicial Review Immigration (mandamus for Decision on Permanent Residence Application) / Final Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found the Apotex criteria for mandamus satisfied: the Applicant had a clear right to a timely decision, the Respondent had a public duty to decide and there was no alternative remedy. Security concerns were resolved (security clearance received), leaving nothing outstanding; 30 days was a reasonable period to render a decision. "Special reasons" existed to award costs under s.22 because a late procedural fairness letter issued close to the hearing was without substantive merit, generated additional work and emotional distress, and raised concerns about its motivations; accordingly costs of $8,550 were awarded.
Court disposition
Application for judicial review granted; writ of mandamus ordered requiring a decision on the permanent residence application within 30 days; costs awarded to Applicant in the lump sum of $8,550; no certification for a question of general importance
Orders
- A decision will be rendered on the Applicant's application for permanent residence within 30 days of the date of this order.
- The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant costs in the lump-sum amount of $8,550.
- There is no question of general importance for certification.
02
Material facts
Parties
GUNASEELAN SAVIRIMUTHU
Applicant Counsel: Clarissa WaldmanTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent Counsel: Aleksandra MurrayAmounts and remedies
- Costs Awarded: CAD 8,550
- Delay (years): 6
03
Procedural history
Posture
Judicial Review Immigration (mandamus for Decision on Permanent Residence Application) / Final Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether mandamus should issue to compel a decision on a permanent residence application delayed over six years
- 02
Whether 30 days is a reasonable timeframe for the decision to be rendered
- 03
Whether "special reasons" exist to award costs under s.22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules
- 04
Whether the procedural fairness letter issued shortly before hearing justified additional costs
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant sought a writ of mandamus after his permanent residence application remained pending since September 27, 2019. The Applicant argued security concerns were the only previously stated reason for delay but security clearance was received on December 3, 2025, leaving nothing outstanding; requested a 30‑day timeline for a decision and solicitor and client costs based on additional work prompted by a November 24, 2025 procedural fairness letter and supporting billing log.
- Respondent
- Respondent explained delay was due to outstanding security checks but had since confirmed the security assessment was passed; implicitly resisted immediate timelines and the quantum or basis for enhanced costs, asserting the need to complete internal processes and that costs are limited absent "special reasons."
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Apotex Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 1993 CanLII 3004 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 742
Criteria for mandamus require a clear right, a public duty to act, and no other adequate remedy
- 02
Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22, s.22
Costs on applications for leave and judicial review are barred except where "special reasons" exist
- 03
Savirimuthu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1957 (Battista J.)
Where an administrative file is complete and no outstanding steps remain, a prompt decision is reasonable
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found the Apotex criteria for mandamus satisfied: the Applicant had a clear right to a timely decision, the Respondent had a public duty to decide and there was no alternative remedy. Security concerns were resolved (security clearance received), leaving nothing outstanding; 30 days was a reasonable period to render a decision. "Special reasons" existed to award costs under s.22 because a late procedural fairness letter issued close to the hearing was without substantive merit, generated additional work and emotional distress, and raised concerns about its motivations; accordingly costs of $8,550 were awarded.
Obiter and limits
- Court expressed concern about the timing and possible motivations of the procedural fairness letter issued shortly before the hearing
- There is no question of general importance warranting certification
Court disposition
Application for judicial review granted; writ of mandamus ordered requiring a decision on the permanent residence application within 30 days; costs awarded to Applicant in the lump sum of $8,550; no certification for a question of general importance
- A decision will be rendered on the Applicant's application for permanent residence within 30 days of the date of this order.
- The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant costs in the lump-sum amount of $8,550.
- There is no question of general importance for certification.
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 11 December 2025
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Federal Court
Judgment· 11 December 2025
Savirimuthu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2025-12-11 Neutral citation 2025 FC 1957 File numbers IMM-1205-25 Decision Content Date: 20251211 Docket: IMM-1205-25 Citation: 2025 FC 1957 Toronto, Ontario, December 11, 2025 PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Battista BETWEEN:
GUNASEELAN SAVIRIMUTHU Applicant and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS (delivered orally from the bench on December 11, 2025) [1] The Applicant requests a writ of mandamus requiring a decision on his permanent residence application under the Protected Persons/Convention Refugees in Canada Class. The application has been in process for over six years, since September 27, 2019. The previous explanation provided by the Respondent for the delay was outstanding security checks, however, on December 3, 2025, the Respondent notified the Applicant that he passed the security assessment. [2] The criteria for a writ of mandamus were confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal in Apotex Inc v Canada (Attorney General) (CA), 1993 CanLII 3004 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 742. I am satisfied that these criteria are met in this case. [3] The remaining disputes between the parties concern the amount of time to be ordered for the issuance of a decision, and costs. [4] Given that nothing is outstanding for the completion of the Applicant’s file, I am satisfied that 30 days is a reasonable time frame for a decision to be issued on the application. [5] Regarding costs, the Applicant requests solicitor and client costs predominantly on the basis of a procedural fairness letter issued on November 24, 2025, which raised security-related concerns that were resolved less than two weeks later. The Applicant asserts that the procedural fairness letter was not only
without merit, but sent at such a late juncture that it required significant additional work which should be compensated by the Respondent. The Applicant submitted a billing log representing the cost of this work. [6] An award of costs is subject to section 22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22, which provides that no costs shall be awarded on applications for leave and judicial review but for “special reasons.” [7] I am satisfied that “special reasons” exist here based on the procedural fairness letter which was issued very close to the hearing of this matter raising serious concerns that were resolved in a very short period of time. There are legitimate concerns about the motivations behind the letter, and it did generate additional costs for the Applicant, in addition to understandable emotional distress. JUDGMENT in IMM-1205-25 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is granted. A decision will be rendered on the Applicant’s application for permanent residence within 30 days of the date of this order. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant costs in the lump-sum amount of $8,550. There is no question of general importance for certification. "Michael Battista" Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1205-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: GUNASEELAN SAVIRIMUTHU v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: DECEMBER 11, 2025 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: BATTISTA J. DATED: DECEMBER 11, 2025 APPEARANCES: Clarissa Waldman For The Applicant Aleksandra Murray For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mithoowani Waldman Immigration Law Group Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.