Writ of Mandamus
What is a writ of mandamus
A writ of mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion. At its core, mandamus is a legal remedy that seeks to address situations where an entity, typically a government official, is not carrying out their prescribed duties in accordance with the law. The term "mandamus" itself is derived from Latin, meaning "we command." Through this legal tool, the court effectively commands a public authority or official to perform a specific act or duty mandated by law.
Key Considerations
Failed to Fulfill a Public Duty:
The writ of mandamus is invoked when a government official has failed to fulfill a public duty assigned to them by law. This could include responsibilities related to processing immigration applications, conducting timely reviews, or ensuring fair and just decisions. Mandamus acts as a mechanism to compel the official to meet their obligations, promoting accountability and adherence to legal mandates.
Prior Demand of Such Duty:
Before seeking a writ of mandamus, it is typically a requirement that the affected party has previously demanded that the government official fulfill their duty. This prior demand serves as a formal notice, alerting the official to the deficiency in their actions and providing an opportunity for corrective measures. Mandamus is often seen as a remedy of last resort, to be sought when all other avenues of resolution have been exhausted.
Other considerations
Federal court previously noted in Abdalla v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 988, mandamus would generally not be issued to process PR applications because of the temporary visas can be obtained.
In Chen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 885, Federal court refused to grant a writ of mandamus to a study permit applicant who had waited 1.5 years. The court noted the applicant did not demonstrate significant prejudice. We interpret this cautious approach as an indication that the court is mindful of the potential for a floodgate of similar applications.