Writing The Writ of Mandamus by ChatGPT and Representing Ourselves

gustoronto · Aug 28, 2023

(This is not finalized yet, your comments are greatly appreciated, I will update the post based on your feedback to provide a guide for everyone who is willing to do this by themselves.)

Note: I am not a lawyer, and not sure about specific cases. Use this at your own risk!
Generally speaking, I am now going to represent myself and accept the consequences. If you believe this is also something you are looking for, continue reading!

I am starting this thread because I know many of you, similar to me, are thinking about the Writ of Mandamus to finalize the decision about the grant of citizenship. We all know we can go to lawyers and pay the fees to do it, but by using ChatGPT, can't we just do it ourselves?

There are basically 3 steps to mandamus:

Letter of Demand (Specific Performance Request)
Submitting mandamus application to the court
Mandamus Hearing (very unusual that it will go to this step, and in this situation, probably it is better to ask for legal help)

#1 - Letter of Demand (Specific Performance Request)

This is a sample prompt I used from ChatGPT to create the writ of mandamus for me. You should update it based on your own specific situation.

ChatGPT Prompt:

Write a writ of mandamus for the Canadian court because IRCC did not complete the application of granting citizenship in the normal processing time which is at the moment 18 months. I applied for it on Oct. 10, 2021, and today's date is September 1, 2023.

ChatGPT Prompt:

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, Province, Postal Code]
[Email Address]
[Phone Number]
[Date]

[Name of the Court]
[Court Address]
[City, Province, Postal Code]

Re: Application for Writ of Mandamus
[Your Full Name] v. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)

File No: [Insert Court File Number]

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to respectfully request the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus in the matter of my application for Canadian citizenship, which is currently pending before the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). I filed my application for Canadian citizenship on October 10, 2021, and as of today's date, September 1, 2023, my application remains unresolved, despite the standard processing time for such applications being 18 months.

Background:

I am an applicant for Canadian citizenship, having met all the necessary eligibility requirements as outlined by the IRCC. The normal processing time for Canadian citizenship applications is stated as 18 months by the IRCC. Unfortunately, my application has surpassed this timeline without any discernible progress, communication, or explanation from the IRCC regarding the delay.

Grounds for Relief:

1. Unreasonable Delay: The delay in processing my application for Canadian citizenship is unreasonable and has caused me undue stress, uncertainty, and inconvenience. The 18-month processing time, which is considered the standard, has been significantly exceeded without any apparent justification provided by the IRCC.

2. Failure to Communicate: Throughout the extended processing period, I have not received any updates, communication, or correspondence from the IRCC regarding the status of my application. The lack of information has further exacerbated the distress and uncertainty caused by the delay.

3. Violation of Legitimate Expectations: Given the established 18-month processing time for Canadian citizenship applications, I had a legitimate expectation that my application would be processed within a reasonable timeframe. The IRCC's failure to adhere to this expectation constitutes a violation of my rights as an applicant.

Relief Sought:

I kindly request the Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus compelling the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to complete the processing of my Canadian citizenship application within a reasonable time, as defined by the standard processing time of 18 months, from the date of filing (October 10, 2021).

I also request that the Court order the IRCC to provide a written explanation for the undue delay and lack of communication regarding the status of my application and make a final decision about the grant of citizenship.

Conclusion:

I am genuinely committed to becoming a Canadian citizen, and the prolonged delay in processing my application has caused me distress and uncertainty. I believe that seeking the Court's intervention through a Writ of Mandamus is the appropriate course of action to ensure that my application is processed fairly, justly, and within a reasonable timeframe.

I sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter and kindly request your prompt consideration of my application for a Writ of Mandamus. I am hopeful that the Court's intervention will lead to a swift resolution of my Canadian citizenship application.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Full Name]
[Your Signature]

CC: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
[IRCC Address]
[City, Province, Postal Code]

#2 - Submitting mandamus application to the court

The procedure for submission to the court is available here.

For Toronto, as far as I know, it is as follows:

Take the copies of applications for judicial review (the document generated by ChatGPT) and all supporting documents (processing time advertised by IRCC, your application profile, and status) to the Registrar’s Office of the Federal Court of Canada. It is located at 180 Queen Street West, Suite 200, (corner University Ave), 2nd Floor.

You will have to pay a $50 filing fee;
Once the Registrar gives your applications back with a court number, you have to take them to the Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice is located in the Exchange Tower at 130 King Street West (corner York Street). Take the first set of elevators to the 19th Floor;
You leave one copy of the leave application at the Department of Justice and you get them to sign on the back of the other copies;
Take one of the copies signed by the Department of Justice back to the Registrar’s Office at the Federal Court and leave it with them; and
Keep the other copies.

Please reply your feedback and correct me if you find some of the information I provided here not reliable or wrong.

xf2278389393 · Sep 2, 2023

The substantive points have to be in numbered paragraphs and go on a court form available on the Federal Court website.

"133 (1) Personal service of an originating document on the Crown, the Attorney General of Canada or any other Minister of the Crown is effected by filing the original and two paper copies of it at the Registry."

xf2278389393 · Sep 3, 2023

You are citing a link to the procedure for judicial review involving federal boards, commisions and tribunals under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. There are seperate rules for judicial review applications involving citizenship decisions. There is also provision for mandamus as a supplemental remedy (e.g, if you are suing for negligence, the court could also award mandamus) under section 44 of the Federal Courts Act. Which procedure do you intend to use?

destiny2016 · Sep 3, 2023

gustoronto said:
(This is not finalized yet, your comments are greatly appreciated, I will update the post based on your feedback to provide a guide for everyone who is willing to do this by themselves.)

Note: I am not a lawyer, and not sure about specific cases. Use this at your own risk!
Generally speaking, I am now going to represent myself and accept the consequences. If you believe this is also something you are looking for, continue reading!

I am starting this thread because I know many of you, similar to me, are thinking about the Writ of Mandamus to finalize the decision about the grant of citizenship. We all know we can go to lawyers and pay the fees to do it, but by using ChatGPT, can't we just do it ourselves?

There are basically 3 steps to mandamus:

Letter of Demand (Specific Performance Request)

Submitting mandamus application to the court

Mandamus Hearing (very unusual that it will go to this step, and in this situation, probably it is better to ask for legal help)

#1 - Letter of Demand (Specific Performance Request)

This is a sample prompt I used from ChatGPT to create the writ of mandamus for me. You should update it based on your own specific situation.

ChatGPT Prompt:

ChatGPT Prompt:

#2 - Submitting mandamus application to the court

The procedure for submission to the court is available here.

For Toronto, as far as I know, it is as follows:

Take the copies of applications for judicial review (the document generated by ChatGPT) and all supporting documents (processing time advertised by IRCC, your application profile, and status) to the Registrar’s Office of the Federal Court of Canada. It is located at 180 Queen Street West, Suite 200, (corner University Ave), 2nd Floor.

You will have to pay a $50 filing fee;

Once the Registrar gives your applications back with a court number, you have to take them to the Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice is located in the Exchange Tower at 130 King Street West (corner York Street). Take the first set of elevators to the 19th Floor;

You leave one copy of the leave application at the Department of Justice and you get them to sign on the back of the other copies;

Take one of the copies signed by the Department of Justice back to the Registrar’s Office at the Federal Court and leave it with them; and

Keep the other copies.

Please reply your feedback and correct me if you find some of the information I provided here not reliable or wrong.

All the very best to you! Get that Citizenship approved fast

gustoronto · Sep 7, 2023

xf2278389393 said:
You are citing a link to the procedure for judicial review involving federal boards, commisions and tribunals under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. There are seperate rules for judicial review applications involving citizenship decisions. There is also provision for mandamus as a supplemental remedy (e.g, if you are suing for negligence, the court could also award mandamus) under section 44 of the Federal Courts Act. Which procedure do you intend to use?

To be honest, I do not know. I am still drafting my mandamus, was very busy in past week. Could you please guide me and provide correct procedure/urls I include it in the first post and revise it?

xf2278389393 · Sep 8, 2023

I can't give you legal advice but I am going to try to help you out procedurally by reference to the provisions in the relevant legislation.

The following are the relevant provisions in the Federal Courts Act that grant jurisdiction to the Federal Court.
Relief against the Crown
17 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other Act of Parliament, the Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction in all cases in which relief is claimed against the Crown.
Cases
(2) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), the Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction, except as otherwise provided, in all cases in which
(a) the land, goods or money of any person is in the possession of the Crown;
(b) the claim arises out of a contract entered into by or on behalf of the Crown;
(c) there is a claim against the Crown for injurious affection; or
(d) the claim is for damages under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.
Crown and subject: consent to jurisdiction
(3) The Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine the following matters:
(a) the amount to be paid if the Crown and any person have agreed in writing that the Crown or that person shall pay an amount to be determined by the Federal Court, the Federal Court — Trial Division or the Exchequer Court of Canada; and
(b) any question of law, fact or mixed law and fact that the Crown and any person have agreed in writing shall be determined by the Federal Court, the Federal Court — Trial Division or the Exchequer Court of Canada.
Conflicting claims against Crown
(4) The Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction to hear and determine proceedings to determine disputes in which the Crown is or may be under an obligation and in respect of which there are or may be conflicting claims.
Relief in favour of Crown or against officer
(5) The Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction
(a) in proceedings of a civil nature in which the Crown or the Attorney General of Canada claims relief; and
(b) in proceedings in which relief is sought against any person for anything done or omitted to be done in the performance of the duties of that person as an officer, servant or agent of the Crown.
Federal Court has no jurisdiction
(6) If an Act of Parliament confers jurisdiction in respect of a matter on a court constituted or established by or under a law of a province, the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding in respect of the same matter unless the Act expressly confers that jurisdiction on that court.
Extraordinary remedies, federal tribunals
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.
Extraordinary remedies, members of Canadian Forces
(2) The Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine every application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition or writ of mandamus in relation to any member of the Canadian Forces serving outside Canada.
Remedies to be obtained on application
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.

The following provision gives the Federal Court the power to grant mandamus in a proceeding in which the Federal Court already has jurisdiction to hear and determine an issue under the provisions in section 17 or under any other federal law.
Mandamus, injunction, specific performance or appointment of receiver
44 In addition to any other relief that the Federal Court of Appeal or the Federal Court may grant or award, a mandamus, an injunction or an order for specific performance may be granted or a receiver appointed by that court in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just or convenient to do so. The order may be made either unconditionally or on any terms and conditions that the court considers just.

In short this means if you are asking for relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal, or you are a member of the Canadian Forces serving outside Canada, you will most likely have to do it by way of judicial review under section 18.1. I am going to assume that you are not a member of the Canadian Forces. So it will basically turn on whether it is a a federal board, commission or other tribunal you are seeking relief against.

Now there is an additional twist and that is that the Citizenship Act contains its own provisions regarding judicial review:
Application for judicial review only with leave
22.1 (1) An application for judicial review with respect to any matter under this Act may be made only with leave of the Court.
[...]

This means if you are seeking mandamus against a federal board, commission or other tribunal and it is a Citizenship Act matter, then you have to following the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules and not under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, and you need to seek leave of the Court before your application can be heard. This is a combined application for both leave and judicial review though.

Within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), there is a body called the Citizenship Commission. It consists of citizenship judges.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/citizenship-commission.html
It doesn't appear that citizenship officers are part of the Citizenship Commission, they are just normal IRCC staff under the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who is a crown servant under section 17 (5) (b) of the Federal Courts Act, meaning the Federal Court has concurrent jurisdiction with provincial-level Superior Courts (the issue there is that those typically only grant relief in the nature of mandamus on judicial review, which means there is exclusive jurisdiction under the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules).

I think the answer would depend on who is holding your file and delaying your application right now. Is it with a citizenship judge who has 60 days to make a decision from the date of referral, or is it with IRCC staff?

If with IRCC staff, it would appear that the answer would be to use an Application form 301 under the Federal Courts Rules and delete the portions that pertain to judicial review. Here is some precedent you could cite: Dragan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (T.D.), 2003 FCT 211 (CanLII), [2003] 4 FC 189, <https://canlii.ca/t/hl3>, at para. [38]

If with a citizenship judge, use form IR-1 and check out this page: https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/representing-yourself/practice-guides/how-to-file-an-application-for-leave-and-for-judicial-review-citizenship

The Crown might respond and say this should be dealt with as a judicial review application under the Citizenship Act because that's how they want to proceed with the matter. But Section 44 of the Federal Courts Act does appear to stand for the proposition that mandamus is available against the Crown or one of its ministers outside a judicial review application, except in respect of a matter before a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

canada2025 · Oct 15, 2023

Did it work for you? I am planning to do the same.

xf2278389393 · Oct 15, 2023

canada2025 said:
Did it work for you? I am planning to do the same.

Maybe it will work - unless the government reminds the judge of Memo 618.
Your main disatvantage is that they appointed the judge and pay the judge's salary. So they hold a lot of sway with the judge. Set your expectations accordingly.

dpenabill · Oct 17, 2023

. . . thinking about the Writ of Mandamus . . .

gustoronto said:
I am starting this thread because I know many of you, similar to me, are thinking about the Writ of Mandamus to finalize the decision about the grant of citizenship. We all know we can go to lawyers and pay the fees to do it, but by using ChatGPT, can't we just do it ourselves?

I have been hesitant to comment here, largely because the topic is specifically about how to obtain mandamus relief in an effort to accelerate citizenship application processing, and doing this self-represented, or "pro se," and using ChatGPT in particular. That is, this thread is about how to do this, on one's own, not whether to do this, not what to consider in making the decision whether to do this. Or even *when* to do this.

In contrast, the gist of what I can offer is off-topic, not responsive, that is the best I can offer is to say, basically, don't do this, rather, see a lawyer. While I can offer some specifics about engaging in such litigation, even that would largely be oriented to cautioning: "Don't do it yourself. See a lawyer."

However, I am otherwise reluctant to not respond, to not affirmatively caution "don't do it" and why, because how difficult this would be should not be overlooked or taken for granted, but rather noted with emphasis and enough background to unequivocally illuminate how ill-advised such a venture would be. That is, similar to what many have said in numerous posts over the course of many years, the appropriate response to any suggestion of pursuing mandamus relief without the aid of a lawyer is:

armoured said:
You need a lawyer, basically, to file a mandamus that has any chance of being successful. So ... ask the lawyer.

from topic "Lawyer for mandamus:" https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/lawyer-for-mandamus.790528/page-2

Among particular reasons for me to not wade in here, I am not much acquainted with using ChatGPT, so I have little to offer in regards to using ChatGPT as a tool in the composition of legal documents, especially the formal and highly technical legal pleadings involved in pursuing mandamus relief. (I wander about the halls of old school jurisprudence, emphasis on old.) That said, some aspects of the legal process for which the rather limited usefulness of ChatGPT (in its current rendition) is readily apparent, warrant highlighting. Will try getting to that in due course.

Overall, digging seriously into mandamus gets complicated, damn weedy, damn fast. Well beyond the typical attention span dominating many conversations here, including most of those about mandamus (with some exceptions, such as some more detailed anecdotal reporting by a few more serious forum participants -- will link some of these in due course, among scores of the opposite sort).

Clue: mandamus offers less relief for slow processing than many here posit. . .
. . . even for those willing and able to pay big bucks for highly recommended lawyers. Leading to . . .

". . . We all know we can go to lawyers and pay the fees to . . . " pursue a Writ of Mandamus (WoM) "to finalize the decision about the grant of citizenship."

Not necessarily. Hiring a lawyer to pursue the WoM is no guarantee that will expedite processing or otherwise soon result in being scheduled to take the Oath. In particular, it is not always the case that a lawyer, employing the process for pursuing a WoM, will be able to successfully compel IRCC to accelerate processing a citizenship application. Regardless how long the application has been in process. It depends a lot on the particular circumstances in the individual case, and how long IRCC has had the application is only one factor, one among several, and typically this is NOT the more important factor.

Here, as the bard would say, is the rub:

The biggest factor in whether pursuing mandamus relief is likely to have any success is whether or not processing has already proceeded to near finalization anyway. Odds are good the oath will be scheduled soon after a lawyer makes a proper demand if the local IRCC office was already approaching the final stages of processing, near to granting approval and scheduling the oath. Otherwise, it's complicated. Leading to . . .

A Mandamus Nudge versus Court Ordered Mandamus Relief:

There has been a fair amount of anecdotal reporting about positive outcomes, applications proceeding to the final steps of the process, in response to a formal mandamus Demand Letter made by lawyers. Much if not most of the optimism, that pursuing mandamus relief can accelerate finalizing the application, derives from such reporting.

There is scant anecdotal reporting about the success of a self-composed mandamus nudge, a Demand Letter that was not made and submitted by an attorney. It is difficult to discern whether this is rooted in bias (assuming demand is less serious if not made by a lawyer), or the ineffectiveness of demands not made by a lawyer, but I'd suggest it is likely both. Nonetheless, the latter, including how and why non-lawyer letters typically fall short, is what warrants further exploration and explanation . . . eventually.

While there are some positive outcomes, sometimes, there is far less reporting about positive outcomes resulting from actually following through with pursuing mandamus relief in the Federal Court, even when litigated by a lawyer. This is mostly seen in officially published accounts of actual cases, the positive outcomes tending to involve cases where IRCC has suspended, or put a hold on processing, which the Federal Court subsequently (eventually) rules is improper. That is, most of the positive outcomes, where a WoM is actually granted (as relief for delayed processing of a citizenship application), are not based on the length of the processing time, but based on setting aside an improper hold or suspension of processing.

That is, overall, in regards to slow processing of applications there has been a fair amount of reporting that a mandamus-nudge can work to push IRCC to proceed with finalizing an application, but NOT much reporting about successfully obtaining mandamus relief from the Federal Court (with exceptions in certain kinds of cases) if IRCC does not concede, does not proceed to finalize the application after a nudge.

Once again leading back to ". . . We all know we can go to lawyers and pay the fees to . . . " pursue a WoM "to finalize the decision about the grant of citizenship" . . . and recognizing that even for the applicant willing and able to pay the fees, it might not be easy to find a reputable, competent lawyer to take the case, who will even submit a Demand Letter to IRCC. In a separate post I will reference and link scores of discussions about mandamus here, in addition to other sources, illustrating among other things that it appears lawyers may be performing something of a gatekeeper function . . . that the first hurdle to get over in using mandamus to push IRCC to finalize processing a citizenship application is getting a good lawyer to advocate the case.

And, again, the biggest factor indicating it is time to push mandamus is whether or not processing has already proceeded to near finalization anyway. (Which means, yeah, sorry, but if there are good odds of pushing IRCC to finalize the process, that generally means it shouldn't be too much longer anyway, without any mandamus-demand-nudge.)

Exception Re Mandamus Relief In Specific Scenarios; Problem Cases:

There are situations in which pursuing and following through with mandamus litigation in the Federal Court is more or less necessary. This is not about slow processing. This is about cases in which IRCC has already made a negative decision, or in which the application has long been entangled in issues which should be resolved (thus, allowing the application to move forward). Technically an applicant can proceed self-represented in such cases, but practically this is for sure in the lawyer-up zone. Challenging IRCC decision-making at this level demands expertise.

. . . Back to thinking about the Writ of Mandamus . . .

. . . to accelerate application bogged down in slow processing . . .

canada2025 said:
Did it work for you? I am planning to do the same.

xf2278389393 said:
Your main disadvantage is that they appointed the judge and pay the judge's salary. So they hold a lot of sway with the judge. Set your expectations accordingly.

Errrr . . . no . . . to be continued . . .

dpenabill · Oct 17, 2023

canada2025 said:
Did it work for you? I am planning to do the same.

xf2278389393 said:
Your main disadvantage is that they appointed the judge and pay the judge's salary. So they hold a lot of sway with the judge. Set your expectations accordingly.

Of course there is some bias in any institutionalized decision-making. Canadians, including Canadian judges, are not immune, not exempt. But that is far, way far from the more significant factors influencing how it will go in litigation against the Minister of IRCC when seeking mandamus relief in regards to a citizenship application. To the extent Federal Court justices are influenced by bias, that will most likely be rooted in personal, social, racial, or even religious or political attitudes deeply embedded. Usually, in Canada, this is NOT overtly, probably not even consciously done except in isolated instances. We all harbor some biases. FC justices too. While the influence of such biases cannot be totally eliminated, Canada seems to be among those countries in the world doing a good job minimizing this.

The fact that the justice's salary is paid by the government likely has zero influence in a FC justice's decision-making in a citizenship case.

There are, in contrast, many other factors which in effect disadvantage a citizenship applicant pursuing mandamus relief for slow processing. And in terms of expectations for how things will go if IRCC does not concede following a Demand and the case proceeds to litigation in the Federal Court, anyone trying to proceed self-represented should indeed recognize the rather poor prospects of success (and be aware that costs can be assessed when one loses).

Even considering the successful cases prosecuted by lawyers, note that among hundreds of thousands of cases in process every year, and many thousands suffering exceedingly slow processing, the number of successful applications for the Writ of Mandamus in citizenship cases, the Federal Court granting the Writ, can generally be counted on your fingers, on just one hand, in almost any given year.

Time To Outline A Lawyer's Approach:

Most of the following repeats a discussion from a little more than a year ago, in the When to make mandamus? topic, looking at page three in particular; see https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/when-to-make-mandamus.553224/page-3

Following is a slightly edited version of information from a lawyer:

A “mandamus” application at the Federal Court can be an effective way to incite – or compel – IRCC to finalize an application suffering from unreasonable delays in processing. The steps . . . would be as follows:

1. Send a notice to the processing office that you will file a mandamus application if your application is not finalized within 60 days.

2. At the same time, request internal notes on your file via an ATIP request (1-2 months).

3. Put IRCC’s legal department on formal notice that we will file an application for mandamus if your citizenship application is not finalized within 30 days.

4. If there is no progress on the citizenship application within 30 days, file the application for mandamus with the Federal Court. Note: if the ATIP notes have not been received yet, we must wait until we receive them to file the mandamus.

5. Contact IRCC’s lawyer to discuss settlement (meaning, discontinuing the court case in exchange for IRCC’s written engagement that they will finalize the application within a certain time frame).

6. If there is no decision on the citizenship application or settlement within 30 days of filing the application for mandamus, prepare and submit the applicant’s record (full legal arguments, affidavit, evidence, etc.)

7. IRCC’s lawyers would send us their record 30 days later. We would then have the opportunity to submit a memorandum in reply.

8. 2-3 months later, the Court would either grant or deny leave on the application.

9. If leave is denied, this would end the proceedings.

10. If leave is granted, the Court would schedule a hearing, usually 2-3 months later. We would have the opportunity to submit further written arguments at that stage. We would then rediscuss settlement with IRCC’s lawyers.

11. If we are successful on a hearing, the Court would compel IRCC to make a decision on your case. IRCC takes these orders seriously, so we could expect the application to be finalized shortly after that.

A Caveat; The key tipping point in the procedure:

The key tipping point is obvious: what IRCC does in response to the notice/demand (step three above). The lawyer outlines this as follows:

There are five main possible outcomes before step 4:

IRCC finalizes the application and convokes you to a citizenship ceremony.

IRCC convokes you to an interview with a citizenship officer.

IRCC refers your file to a citizenship judge for a hearing.

IRCC requests additional documents from you, e.g., a fingerprints request.

IRCC does not do anything.

dpenabill · Oct 17, 2023

CAUTION: While there is actually quite a bit of useful information in many of the discussions here (linked in previous post), there is also a lot of crap, including some outright fiction. Some obviously so. Some not so obviously so. Yeah, sorting it out is work, often tedious work. Anyone who finds wading through these long posts too tedious is not cut out for pursuing mandamus relief on their own; they need a lawyer for sure. To do this demands work. Real work.

In terms of reports here lacking credibility, for example, in the topic "After 36 months: I go for Mandamus! Who else here has hired a lawyer?" one forum participant claimed the lawyer filed the application in Federal Court the day after their meeting (no demand letter, which is an absolutely required prerequisite to qualifying for mandamus relief), got notice from the Dep't of Justice the application was approved in just two weeks and took the oath in less than 5 weeks. Malarkey. (Albeit, as noted in previous post, there are success cases where the oath is scheduled relatively soon after a Demand, what I have also referred to as a "nudge" . . . cautioning, however, most of these are quite likely cases where IRCC was very close to finalizing and scheduling the oath anyway.)

Many of the discussions are a mixed bag, good mixed in with the bad, and since most here (like me) are not experts, even when we are trying to get it right, staying focused on how things actually work, there is much we do not know, and even those trying hard to get it right, as I do, we make more than a few mistakes along the way.

So, for anyone considering pursuing mandamus relief without a lawyer, it is important to get informed, diving deep into multiple sources, in order to sort things out. The good news is there is a lot of available information, but that is also bad news in that for anyone considering pursuing mandamus relief without a lawyer, it is a real lot to cover, a lot to learn, and quite a lot of it is not all that easy to understand or apply; in any event, for how to do it, here's some sources (some of these have already been referenced and linked by others here):

Some key statutes and regulations (rules):

Section 22.1(1) in the Citizenship Act (should link)

Federal Courts Act (should link)

Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules (should link)

Federal Courts Rules (should link)

Also important to be well familiar with all the provisions governing the grant of citizenship, including requirements and procedure, beginning with Section 5(1) in the Citizenship Act, which is here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-2.html#docCont and continuing through at least Section 22.4 (the latter, for example, prescribes that these provisions in the Citizenship Act prevail over any inconsistent provision in the Federal Courts Act).

Some useful government information:

"How to file an Application for Judicial Review" (should link)

"How to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial review (Citizenship)" (should link)

Form for application for leave is here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-93-22/page-3.html#h-951187

Outline of typical steps in application for judicial leave or review in citizenship matters, generally: https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages//representing-yourself/procedural-charts/application-for-leave-and-for-judicial-review-citizenship#cont

Outline of typical steps in application for judicial review generally: https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/representing-yourself/procedural-charts/application-for-judicial-review#cont

Sources for researching actual cases:

CanLII website for Federal Court decisions: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/ (for various reasons, I tend to use this one the most)

Federal Court web page for searching decisions: https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/en/d/s/index.do?col=54

Researching some actual cases is really critical for anyone contemplating proceeding without a lawyer. They illustrate how the process works in actual, real world settings. They are official decisions stating what the law and rules are and how they apply, and again this is in regards to actual facts in real life cases.

Some actual cases illustrate the situations in which mandamus relief is actually granted by the Federal Court. Example: In the Sharafaldin v. Canada, 2022 FC 768, https://canlii.ca/t/jpgxw case, the Federal Court ruled that "Nearly 15 years for the processing of a citizenship application is manifestly longer than the nature of the process required, prima facie." and on May 27, 2022, ordered IRCC to proceed with processing the 1999 citizenship application made by Sharafaldin.

In Gentile v. Canada, 2020 FC 452, https://canlii.ca/t/j8dwf the FC dealt with a citizenship application pending for more the TEN YEARS.

Key Law Governing Eligibility for Mandamus Relief:

While it is not an immigration or citizenship case, the most commonly cited authority, often cited in citizenship and immigration cases, for the conditions of mandamus relief, is the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (C.A.), 1993 CanLII 3004 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 742, https://canlii.ca/t/4nmr

For a good example of how the Apotex criteria apply in the context of a citizenship application see Tumarkin v. Canada, 2014 FC 915, https://canlii.ca/t/gdq1d where the criteria or necessary conditions, that an applicant must allege and prove in order to qualify for mandamus relief are stated as follows:

1. There must be a public legal duty to act . . .

2. The duty must be owed to the applicant . . .

3. There is a clear right to performance of that duty, in particular:

(a) the applicant has satisfied all conditions precedent giving rise to the duty;

(b) there was (i) a prior demand for performance of the duty; (ii) a reasonable time to comply with the demand unless refused outright; and (iii) a subsequent refusal which can be either expressed or implied, e.g. unreasonable delay;

5. No other adequate remedy is available to the applicant;

6. The order sought will be of some practical value or effect;

7. The Court in the exercise of its discretion finds no equitable bar to the relief sought;

8. On a "balance of convenience" an order in the nature of mandamus should (or should not) issue.

It is a tall order. A very tall order in regards to seeking mandamus relief for slow processing of a citizenship application because there is NO timeline requirement for processing citizenship applications.

Anaar · Sep 10, 2024

gustoronto said:
To be honest, I do not know. I am still drafting my mandamus, was very busy in past week. Could you please guide me and provide correct procedure/urls I include it in the first post and revise it?

Hi! Did you end up filing your mandamus?

Search

Search

Writing The Writ of Mandamus by ChatGPT and Representing Ourselves

gustoronto

Full Member

xf2278389393

Star Member

xf2278389393

Star Member

destiny2016

Star Member

gustoronto

Full Member

xf2278389393

Star Member

canada2025

Star Member

xf2278389393

Star Member

dpenabill

VIP Member

dpenabill

VIP Member

dpenabill

VIP Member

Anaar

Star Member