I already have a lawyer, and this was the first thing I asked. You can't sue them because of that, in fact you can't sue them at all for something like this. There is nothing that compels them to give you the citizenship under one year, two, or more. The best you can do is file a writ of mandamus, by law this forces them to move forward with your file, but not always guaranteed. Canada is not the United States.
Citizenship test: Collective action required, or expect endless delays, years. Example of the effective lobbyng of people awaiting spousal sponsorship
- Thread starter piotrqc
- Start date
For many of us citizenship would bring a sense of "security" that we deeply crave. Living in Quebec I feel a sense of anxiety all the time. An anxiety not too different from what felt I in 2016 when I used to live in the US.
Citizenship dramatically changes that.
It gives a voice to the voiceless.
A feeling of control over your destiny.
I find it unacceptable that the Trudeau government hasn't got its act together to implement a 20 question online test in over 8 months.
To me this screams that the current government doesn't care.
Not even the slightest shred.
We are literally at the bottom of the pile in their list of priorities.
We must make them care.
We asked nicely, now we have to take stronger steps.
Take control.
If you don't, no one else will.
So that the next time someone says "If you don't like it, go back to your country",
You can say politely yet sternly,
"This is my country. And I'm here to stay."
Citizenship dramatically changes that.
It gives a voice to the voiceless.
A feeling of control over your destiny.
I find it unacceptable that the Trudeau government hasn't got its act together to implement a 20 question online test in over 8 months.
To me this screams that the current government doesn't care.
Not even the slightest shred.
We are literally at the bottom of the pile in their list of priorities.
We must make them care.
We asked nicely, now we have to take stronger steps.
Take control.
If you don't, no one else will.
So that the next time someone says "If you don't like it, go back to your country",
You can say politely yet sternly,
"This is my country. And I'm here to stay."
CAUTION: As usual, my observations will go long. My object is to explain not argue. Those not interested in my explanations should skip, scroll on by. Scroll on by what will likely be multiple posts.
Some queries offer an opportunity to address and explain fundamental elements of the issues, and important distinctions. Perhaps it is ironic, but a so-called "quick question" can evoke, demand even, the not-so-quick answer. Especially questions which are dependent on flawed premises, as well as questions for which an answer can better illuminate the nature and scope of what the REAL issues are. A failure to stay focused on the latter tends to be a persistent problem (tangents far from the real issues) in this topic, which primarily regards efforts to motivate IRCC toward getting citizenship application processing back on track.
For example, many of the questions posed in this topic, and related posts, suggesting that the knowledge-of-Canada test be eliminated in order to get processing moving, are inherently flawed because IRCC has NO AUTHORITY, NO POWER, to grant citizenship without engaging in a procedure to verify applicants have the REQUIRED knowledge of Canada. (And there is a ZERO, or at least very near ZERO prospect, the law might be amended to exclude a knowledge-of-Canada requirement.)
No advanced degrees in political science necessary to recognize that activism demanding what cannot possibly be delivered tends to be so obviously futile as to be frivolous. (Indicating it may be about something else.)
In any event, again, these observations by me GO LONG and many will want to skip, to scroll on by . . .
PART ONE:
That said, the law does mandate that IRCC process citizenship applications. So, in addition to principles of fairness and justice generally, there is legal cause to advocate the government take appropriate steps to do what it is the law dictates it do, which includes processing citizenship applications.
Thus the primary cause advocated in this topic, that IRCC take steps to adapt to existing circumstances and adopt procedures to carry out its legislated duties, INCLUDING timely processing citizenship applications, INCLUDING the screening and verification of applicants' knowledge-of-Canada (the "testing" at issue), is both legitimate and well-founded. As I have often reiterated, we are far enough along in this pandemic situation that it is well past time for the government to adapt and do what it is legally mandated to do. It is time for IRCC to make appropriate accommodations in order to proceed with processing applications, including testing and interviewing citizenship applicants.
Which leads to some of the more complex elements of what is at stake, what the law prescribes, and what remedies are available.
Before diving into that . . .
"Canada is not the United States."
If I was of a certain religious bend, I'd utter a big, raucous even, "amen."
To be clear, in regards to the observation that "Canada is not the United States," that is something I emphatically agree with and applaud, and am otherwise very grateful it is the case.
But I do not see how this is relevant to the issue here.
If the suggestion is that better remedies would be available in the U.S. courts, compared to here, still NOT RELEVANT, but not likely true either. While I am not all that well-acquainted with litigation against government bodies in Canada (I am NOT a Canadian lawyer for example), generally, so cannot offer an extensive comparison with the U.S., I am actually rather well acquainted with litigation in the U.S. and enough so to recognize how difficult it can be to successfully sue government bodies or officials there, which generally enjoy what is called "governmental immunity," unless particular provisions in the law waive this immunity. And this has been bolstered by a near-blanket extension of privilege and immunity for certain governmental bodies and functions. A repeat abuser of constitutional rights, for example, can shoot and kill a black man without cause or justification, and notwithstanding what amounts to clear racism in the management and administration of the government body the murderer is employed by, allowing the murder to repeatedly perpetrate abuses of power motivated by racism, if that body is "law enforcement" in the U.S. it enjoys an amount of privilege and immunity from suit that is, simply, grotesque.
So, yeah, say it again, and applaud: "Canada is not the United States."
Beyond that . . .
Beyond that I'd quibble with some of the details. An application for a writ of mandamus is a type of lawsuit, for example, so it is a bit inconsistent to say IRCC cannot be sued but you can seek a writ of mandamus.
And, there is a difference between being able to sue and whether the suit will successfully result in the remedy sought. Thus, for example, yes you can sue IRCC. Whether you win or lose is a separate question. Even if you win, what you win is yet another question.
For example, if the facts show that IRCC is NOT processing an individual's citizenship application, not only can the individual "sue," but such proof should warrant an outcome in which a Federal Court issues an order compelling IRCC to proceed with processing. The applicable procedure for bringing such a lawsuit is an application for a Writ of Mandamus. The order compelling IRCC to proceed with processing is called a "Writ of Mandamus."
HOWEVER, where nothing in the provisions of law, those dictating what the government body must do, prescribe a time within which the thing must be done, the passage of time itself is NOT proof the government is not doing that thing.
So, yeah, as @sarafandee observes, there is nothing in the law compelling IRCC to complete processing a citizenship application within a specified period of time. So, correct, the passage of time, even two, three, or four years, is NOT enough to constitute proof the government has failed to do what it has a clear duty to do.
Very early on in this topic there was a false accusation that IRCC ceased processing citizenship applications. That was patently not true.
In certain circumstances an applicant could prove that the lack of proceeding with processing amounts to the same as denying the application, which would require a decision-making process meeting fair procedure requirements. Such proof could indeed establish grounds for a court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, an order compelling IRCC to properly process the application or render a proper decision denying it.
Some here have tried to dress up claims about the delays resulting from Covid-19 related measures by using certain Latin phrases, like asserting these delays in processing constitute a "de facto" denial. No fancy language necessary, the burden to prove that a delay in processing constitutes an in-fact denial is very difficult to meet. Especially since the Courts have ruled, time and time again, that the mere passage of time does not suffice to establish grounds for Mandamus.
Which, again, leads to some of the more complex elements of what is at stake, what the law prescribes, and what remedies may be available.
To be addressed further in Part Two.
Some queries offer an opportunity to address and explain fundamental elements of the issues, and important distinctions. Perhaps it is ironic, but a so-called "quick question" can evoke, demand even, the not-so-quick answer. Especially questions which are dependent on flawed premises, as well as questions for which an answer can better illuminate the nature and scope of what the REAL issues are. A failure to stay focused on the latter tends to be a persistent problem (tangents far from the real issues) in this topic, which primarily regards efforts to motivate IRCC toward getting citizenship application processing back on track.
For example, many of the questions posed in this topic, and related posts, suggesting that the knowledge-of-Canada test be eliminated in order to get processing moving, are inherently flawed because IRCC has NO AUTHORITY, NO POWER, to grant citizenship without engaging in a procedure to verify applicants have the REQUIRED knowledge of Canada. (And there is a ZERO, or at least very near ZERO prospect, the law might be amended to exclude a knowledge-of-Canada requirement.)
No advanced degrees in political science necessary to recognize that activism demanding what cannot possibly be delivered tends to be so obviously futile as to be frivolous. (Indicating it may be about something else.)
In any event, again, these observations by me GO LONG and many will want to skip, to scroll on by . . .
PART ONE:
I concur in the gist of this. In particular, there is no time frame within which IRCC must process a citizenship application.
That said, the law does mandate that IRCC process citizenship applications. So, in addition to principles of fairness and justice generally, there is legal cause to advocate the government take appropriate steps to do what it is the law dictates it do, which includes processing citizenship applications.
Thus the primary cause advocated in this topic, that IRCC take steps to adapt to existing circumstances and adopt procedures to carry out its legislated duties, INCLUDING timely processing citizenship applications, INCLUDING the screening and verification of applicants' knowledge-of-Canada (the "testing" at issue), is both legitimate and well-founded. As I have often reiterated, we are far enough along in this pandemic situation that it is well past time for the government to adapt and do what it is legally mandated to do. It is time for IRCC to make appropriate accommodations in order to proceed with processing applications, including testing and interviewing citizenship applicants.
Which leads to some of the more complex elements of what is at stake, what the law prescribes, and what remedies are available.
Before diving into that . . .
"Canada is not the United States."
If I was of a certain religious bend, I'd utter a big, raucous even, "amen."
To be clear, in regards to the observation that "Canada is not the United States," that is something I emphatically agree with and applaud, and am otherwise very grateful it is the case.
But I do not see how this is relevant to the issue here.
If the suggestion is that better remedies would be available in the U.S. courts, compared to here, still NOT RELEVANT, but not likely true either. While I am not all that well-acquainted with litigation against government bodies in Canada (I am NOT a Canadian lawyer for example), generally, so cannot offer an extensive comparison with the U.S., I am actually rather well acquainted with litigation in the U.S. and enough so to recognize how difficult it can be to successfully sue government bodies or officials there, which generally enjoy what is called "governmental immunity," unless particular provisions in the law waive this immunity. And this has been bolstered by a near-blanket extension of privilege and immunity for certain governmental bodies and functions. A repeat abuser of constitutional rights, for example, can shoot and kill a black man without cause or justification, and notwithstanding what amounts to clear racism in the management and administration of the government body the murderer is employed by, allowing the murder to repeatedly perpetrate abuses of power motivated by racism, if that body is "law enforcement" in the U.S. it enjoys an amount of privilege and immunity from suit that is, simply, grotesque.
So, yeah, say it again, and applaud: "Canada is not the United States."
Beyond that . . .
Beyond that I'd quibble with some of the details. An application for a writ of mandamus is a type of lawsuit, for example, so it is a bit inconsistent to say IRCC cannot be sued but you can seek a writ of mandamus.
And, there is a difference between being able to sue and whether the suit will successfully result in the remedy sought. Thus, for example, yes you can sue IRCC. Whether you win or lose is a separate question. Even if you win, what you win is yet another question.
For example, if the facts show that IRCC is NOT processing an individual's citizenship application, not only can the individual "sue," but such proof should warrant an outcome in which a Federal Court issues an order compelling IRCC to proceed with processing. The applicable procedure for bringing such a lawsuit is an application for a Writ of Mandamus. The order compelling IRCC to proceed with processing is called a "Writ of Mandamus."
HOWEVER, where nothing in the provisions of law, those dictating what the government body must do, prescribe a time within which the thing must be done, the passage of time itself is NOT proof the government is not doing that thing.
So, yeah, as @sarafandee observes, there is nothing in the law compelling IRCC to complete processing a citizenship application within a specified period of time. So, correct, the passage of time, even two, three, or four years, is NOT enough to constitute proof the government has failed to do what it has a clear duty to do.
Very early on in this topic there was a false accusation that IRCC ceased processing citizenship applications. That was patently not true.
In certain circumstances an applicant could prove that the lack of proceeding with processing amounts to the same as denying the application, which would require a decision-making process meeting fair procedure requirements. Such proof could indeed establish grounds for a court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, an order compelling IRCC to properly process the application or render a proper decision denying it.
Some here have tried to dress up claims about the delays resulting from Covid-19 related measures by using certain Latin phrases, like asserting these delays in processing constitute a "de facto" denial. No fancy language necessary, the burden to prove that a delay in processing constitutes an in-fact denial is very difficult to meet. Especially since the Courts have ruled, time and time again, that the mere passage of time does not suffice to establish grounds for Mandamus.
Which, again, leads to some of the more complex elements of what is at stake, what the law prescribes, and what remedies may be available.
To be addressed further in Part Two.
PART TWO:
(Again, many will want to skip this, to scroll on by.)
First, processing citizenship applications is NOT a "paid for service." Fees paid for citizenship application processing are based on a regulatory assessment related to cost-of-service generally, that is largely about agency operational costs overall (and even then only partially). Thus the fees paid do NOT constitute a contractual purchase, and moreover the fees paid are not even based on or related to the cost-of-service for any individual applicant.
Secondly, it is NOT correct that, in Canada, getting paid for a service a person or entity will not provide, is punishable by law. Contractual obligations are usually (not always) enforceable in the law, BUT (with some exceptions) a failure to perform is NOT punishable by law. Moreover, the remedy for failing to perform a contractual service (again with some exceptions), sometimes referred to as "breach of promise" claims, is generally limited to compensation for "damages." Thus, for example, generally a court will not order a plumber to install a sink the plumber has been paid to install. Even the failure to perform a contractual obligation regarding very specific deliverables, like the purchase of a specific automobile, generally (as always, with some exceptions) does NOT result in a court compelling the delivery of what was paid-for.
Thirdly, there is NO promise to complete processing within any particular time frame (let alone deliver a grant of citizenship). Rather difficult to go into court and demand a remedy for the failure to provide a paid-for-service, which has not been delivered as agreed or promised, unless it can be shown the time within which that service was to be provided has passed.
The latter, nonetheless, brings up another typically complicated aspect of law, what may be "implied" if not explicitly stated. In the contractual obligation situation (which does NOT apply to citizenship applications but is illustrative here), where a contract does not specify a particular time within which an obligation is to be performed, it is often said that this means the promisor is obligated to perform within a reasonable period of time. (Back to the plumber and sink example: the failure to specify a date of delivery does not mean the plumber can wait years to install the sink; on the other hand, even if the customer was expecting the sink to be installed by, say, Christmas, so kitchen renovations would be completed before a planned dinner party with an important business contact, a court is not likely to order the plumber to install the sink, at all, and moreover is not likely to grant relief based on a failure to timely perform, and almost for certain will not grant damages based on a lost business opportunity because the delayed installation sabotaged the dinner party plan.)
As I said, this does NOT apply as such to processing citizenship applications. There is NO provision in the law specifying a time period within which citizenship applications are to be processed. AND there is no provision or ruling or judicial decree specifying that the government must process applications within a reasonable period of time.
Which goes back to part of the discussion in Part One, regarding grounds for obtaining a Writ of Mandamus ordering IRCC to proceed with processing an application.
Leading to . . . Part Three . . .
(Again, many will want to skip this, to scroll on by.)
I am NOT a Canadian lawyer . . . but I can offer some observations in response to the query posed.
First, processing citizenship applications is NOT a "paid for service." Fees paid for citizenship application processing are based on a regulatory assessment related to cost-of-service generally, that is largely about agency operational costs overall (and even then only partially). Thus the fees paid do NOT constitute a contractual purchase, and moreover the fees paid are not even based on or related to the cost-of-service for any individual applicant.
Secondly, it is NOT correct that, in Canada, getting paid for a service a person or entity will not provide, is punishable by law. Contractual obligations are usually (not always) enforceable in the law, BUT (with some exceptions) a failure to perform is NOT punishable by law. Moreover, the remedy for failing to perform a contractual service (again with some exceptions), sometimes referred to as "breach of promise" claims, is generally limited to compensation for "damages." Thus, for example, generally a court will not order a plumber to install a sink the plumber has been paid to install. Even the failure to perform a contractual obligation regarding very specific deliverables, like the purchase of a specific automobile, generally (as always, with some exceptions) does NOT result in a court compelling the delivery of what was paid-for.
Note: What may be recovered as damages, for a breach of promise or breach of contract, is itself a big and complicated subject. Generally, although again it can get complicated, damages are limited to compensation for the value of the service. NOT consequential damages; NOT punitive damages. Consider the airline flight purchase example (raised by @anton1990); if the airline cancels the flight, the purchaser will NOT be compensated for the loss of a business opportunity due to his or her failure to arrive at a scheduled meeting.
Thirdly, there is NO promise to complete processing within any particular time frame (let alone deliver a grant of citizenship). Rather difficult to go into court and demand a remedy for the failure to provide a paid-for-service, which has not been delivered as agreed or promised, unless it can be shown the time within which that service was to be provided has passed.
The latter, nonetheless, brings up another typically complicated aspect of law, what may be "implied" if not explicitly stated. In the contractual obligation situation (which does NOT apply to citizenship applications but is illustrative here), where a contract does not specify a particular time within which an obligation is to be performed, it is often said that this means the promisor is obligated to perform within a reasonable period of time. (Back to the plumber and sink example: the failure to specify a date of delivery does not mean the plumber can wait years to install the sink; on the other hand, even if the customer was expecting the sink to be installed by, say, Christmas, so kitchen renovations would be completed before a planned dinner party with an important business contact, a court is not likely to order the plumber to install the sink, at all, and moreover is not likely to grant relief based on a failure to timely perform, and almost for certain will not grant damages based on a lost business opportunity because the delayed installation sabotaged the dinner party plan.)
As I said, this does NOT apply as such to processing citizenship applications. There is NO provision in the law specifying a time period within which citizenship applications are to be processed. AND there is no provision or ruling or judicial decree specifying that the government must process applications within a reasonable period of time.
Which goes back to part of the discussion in Part One, regarding grounds for obtaining a Writ of Mandamus ordering IRCC to proceed with processing an application.
Leading to . . . Part Three . . .
PART THREE: Length of Delay; Nature of Delay; Grounds for a Writ of Mandamus; Nature of Remedies:
(Again, many will want to simply scroll on by.)
As I noted, legal remedies for the failure to deliver a paid-for-service are mostly limited (with exceptions) to obtaining compensatory damages based on an enforceable contractual obligation. BUT this is NOT applicable to citizenship applications.
The government does not have a contractual obligation to deliver citizenship to an eligible applicant.
Bodies of government, and certain government officials in particular, are however bound by law to do what the law mandates they do.
And Canadians (which includes Canadian PRs), as well as others actually, have a Charter protected fundamental right to fair process.
What is "fair" is not easily defined. What is "fair" is rarely definitive but rather tends to be highly variable, fluid, dependent on the dynamics of many factors. Some, including more than a few expressing their views here, have hard and fast positions about what is not fair. Here too real life is not so hard and fast. It is one thing to be certain about what is fair and what is unfair. It is an entirely different thing to shape an argument which will influence others to recognize unfairness, an injustice, let alone to persuade others to do something about it.
Which brings this back to advocating the cause here, to influence the government to more aggressively tackle what needs to be done in order to do what the law mandates, which is to proceed with the processing of citizenship applications, including screening applicants to verify they meet the knowledge-of-Canada and other requirements. And the key venues for this. Political and judicial.
The Political Venue:
For now, and for at least much or most of the coming year, the best prospects for getting things going again remains in the sphere of political action, such as reminding Members of Parliament that the law mandates IRCC process citizenship applications and it is not fair or just to indefinitely suspend procedures necessary to carry out that mandate; and, as well, keeping the pressure on, emphasizing that IRCC has a legal duty and needs to address this and adapt to existing conditions, to make accommodations which will facilitate doing their job. This effort is more delicate than many here seem to appreciate. It is very easy to alienate rather than persuade. It is too easy to hurt the effort by exaggerating claims, making offensive accusations (especially unfounded or hyperbolic accusations), or pushing arguments dependent on personal needs which are outside the scope of the law's purpose (I have previously addressed, for example, why the need-citizenship-to-travel argument tends to carry little weight and tends to be a lightning-rod attracting controversy which in turn tends to be a distraction if not overtly disruptive and counter-productive).
There will be no tsunami of action in response to this effort. At best, those affected can anticipate incremental progress. No point in exploding in dissent. This is not a cause which will generate widespread sympathy let alone support. Sorry if the latter is disappointing. In the meantime, though, many can and should continue to exert REASONABLE pressure . . . again, reminding MPs they should press the government to do what the law mandates, what is fair and just . . . and OCCASIONAL, polite communications directly to IRCC asking for action be taken to advance one's application through the process. And it will take time. Wish we knew more about how long. But we don't.
By the way, my sense is that efforts to explain to IRCC how to do their job are a waste of time. The crux of this situation is that IRCC needs to employ its resources to figure out and implement whatever accommodations can be made to get processing FULLY back on track. They can figure out how to do it, within the parameters of their internal procedures. Reminding someone they have a job to do is one thing, difficult enough to do in a way that is persuasive, but trying to tell someone how to do their job, that tends to be abrasive . . . and here, not likely close to logistical realities in any way that could be useful.
The Judicial Venue:
Access to the courts and potentially obtaining a Writ of Mandamus ordering IRCC to proceed with processing an application is a REAL REMEDY. Yes, one can sue IRCC. One can even win a lawsuit against IRCC. BUT this claim is NOT yet ripe. This is in the range of later if not last resorts.
While the mere passage of time is NOT sufficient proof that an agency is, in effect (or "de facto" as some might pompously phrase it) declining or failing to process an application, a lengthy delay is evidence which can support an argument the agency's failure to proceed with processing an application amounts to an unfair procedure and a breach of an individual's Charter Rights.
This is a complicated case to make. It is difficult to make. It requires meeting some formal prerequisites BEFORE making such an application. BUT MOST OF ALL, FOR NOW, IT IS NOT RIPE, IT IS NOT TIME FOR THIS YET.
Probably not a viable approach for at least another year. Perhaps more. BUT the eventual availability of this remedy nonetheless imposes some limitations on how long IRCC can essentially fail to process applications. The timeline for this is undoubtedly much longer than most pushing this cause now would like, and perhaps longer than many "accept" (albeit without effect, except for those who do indeed choose to take their toys and set up in another country). It is, nonetheless, real enough that this is not going to fall into forever-range, and real enough it will for sure preclude summary rejections or denials -- which is NOT at all likely anyway, but the availability of Mandamus offers another layer of insurance.
In the meantime, as already suggested, an OCCASIONAL, polite communication (even via webform) to IRCC which ASKS IRCC to proceed with the application can (1) help keep the pressure on, and thus (2) encourage IRCC to generally address this, and (3) perhaps increase the applicant's chances that he or she will be among those whose application is advanced sooner, BUT also, perhaps eventually importantly, depending on how long the situation persists, constitute the requisite demand (for a Mandamus action, if things were to get to that) that IRCC do what there is a clear duty, in the law, to do.
And then there is Part Four . . .
(Again, many will want to simply scroll on by.)
As I noted, legal remedies for the failure to deliver a paid-for-service are mostly limited (with exceptions) to obtaining compensatory damages based on an enforceable contractual obligation. BUT this is NOT applicable to citizenship applications.
The government does not have a contractual obligation to deliver citizenship to an eligible applicant.
Bodies of government, and certain government officials in particular, are however bound by law to do what the law mandates they do.
And Canadians (which includes Canadian PRs), as well as others actually, have a Charter protected fundamental right to fair process.
What is "fair" is not easily defined. What is "fair" is rarely definitive but rather tends to be highly variable, fluid, dependent on the dynamics of many factors. Some, including more than a few expressing their views here, have hard and fast positions about what is not fair. Here too real life is not so hard and fast. It is one thing to be certain about what is fair and what is unfair. It is an entirely different thing to shape an argument which will influence others to recognize unfairness, an injustice, let alone to persuade others to do something about it.
Which brings this back to advocating the cause here, to influence the government to more aggressively tackle what needs to be done in order to do what the law mandates, which is to proceed with the processing of citizenship applications, including screening applicants to verify they meet the knowledge-of-Canada and other requirements. And the key venues for this. Political and judicial.
The Political Venue:
For now, and for at least much or most of the coming year, the best prospects for getting things going again remains in the sphere of political action, such as reminding Members of Parliament that the law mandates IRCC process citizenship applications and it is not fair or just to indefinitely suspend procedures necessary to carry out that mandate; and, as well, keeping the pressure on, emphasizing that IRCC has a legal duty and needs to address this and adapt to existing conditions, to make accommodations which will facilitate doing their job. This effort is more delicate than many here seem to appreciate. It is very easy to alienate rather than persuade. It is too easy to hurt the effort by exaggerating claims, making offensive accusations (especially unfounded or hyperbolic accusations), or pushing arguments dependent on personal needs which are outside the scope of the law's purpose (I have previously addressed, for example, why the need-citizenship-to-travel argument tends to carry little weight and tends to be a lightning-rod attracting controversy which in turn tends to be a distraction if not overtly disruptive and counter-productive).
There will be no tsunami of action in response to this effort. At best, those affected can anticipate incremental progress. No point in exploding in dissent. This is not a cause which will generate widespread sympathy let alone support. Sorry if the latter is disappointing. In the meantime, though, many can and should continue to exert REASONABLE pressure . . . again, reminding MPs they should press the government to do what the law mandates, what is fair and just . . . and OCCASIONAL, polite communications directly to IRCC asking for action be taken to advance one's application through the process. And it will take time. Wish we knew more about how long. But we don't.
By the way, my sense is that efforts to explain to IRCC how to do their job are a waste of time. The crux of this situation is that IRCC needs to employ its resources to figure out and implement whatever accommodations can be made to get processing FULLY back on track. They can figure out how to do it, within the parameters of their internal procedures. Reminding someone they have a job to do is one thing, difficult enough to do in a way that is persuasive, but trying to tell someone how to do their job, that tends to be abrasive . . . and here, not likely close to logistical realities in any way that could be useful.
The Judicial Venue:
Access to the courts and potentially obtaining a Writ of Mandamus ordering IRCC to proceed with processing an application is a REAL REMEDY. Yes, one can sue IRCC. One can even win a lawsuit against IRCC. BUT this claim is NOT yet ripe. This is in the range of later if not last resorts.
While the mere passage of time is NOT sufficient proof that an agency is, in effect (or "de facto" as some might pompously phrase it) declining or failing to process an application, a lengthy delay is evidence which can support an argument the agency's failure to proceed with processing an application amounts to an unfair procedure and a breach of an individual's Charter Rights.
This is a complicated case to make. It is difficult to make. It requires meeting some formal prerequisites BEFORE making such an application. BUT MOST OF ALL, FOR NOW, IT IS NOT RIPE, IT IS NOT TIME FOR THIS YET.
Probably not a viable approach for at least another year. Perhaps more. BUT the eventual availability of this remedy nonetheless imposes some limitations on how long IRCC can essentially fail to process applications. The timeline for this is undoubtedly much longer than most pushing this cause now would like, and perhaps longer than many "accept" (albeit without effect, except for those who do indeed choose to take their toys and set up in another country). It is, nonetheless, real enough that this is not going to fall into forever-range, and real enough it will for sure preclude summary rejections or denials -- which is NOT at all likely anyway, but the availability of Mandamus offers another layer of insurance.
In the meantime, as already suggested, an OCCASIONAL, polite communication (even via webform) to IRCC which ASKS IRCC to proceed with the application can (1) help keep the pressure on, and thus (2) encourage IRCC to generally address this, and (3) perhaps increase the applicant's chances that he or she will be among those whose application is advanced sooner, BUT also, perhaps eventually importantly, depending on how long the situation persists, constitute the requisite demand (for a Mandamus action, if things were to get to that) that IRCC do what there is a clear duty, in the law, to do.
And then there is Part Four . . .
Last edited:
Finally, the last . . .
PART FOUR: What Matters; The Cause.
What ultimately matters is how to effectively advance the cause here: getting the government to take real steps toward resuming citizenship application processing, including adopting whatever accommodations are necessary to proceed with verification that applicants meet the knowledge-of-Canada requirement.
As oft said, IT IS TIME.
Unfortunately this topic too often tends to get bogged down in a lot of noise and false dichotomies. The latter is rife with misplaced or exaggerated warnings about what is at stake. And confusion relative to what can be achieved. Much of what populates the many pages here seems premised on all or nothing propositions, take control or be submissive/passive, there must be action now or it will not happen for so long as to essentially be never.
Real life falls in-between the extremes and, usually, rather not-at-all close to the extremes. So, for example, rather obviously so, there is NO prospect that IRCC is going to fully resume processing citizenship applications NOW. Not going to happen NOW. But that does NOT mean IRCC will not process pending applications. That does not mean it will take four years or more to process pending applications, let alone that IRCC will never process pending applications or will summarily deny pending applications.
For example: advocating for full resumption of processing NOW is pointless, a distraction. And arguing that what is at stake is IRCC never processing current applications or summarily denying them is so unfounded it is overtly ineffective if not blatantly disruptive and counter-productive.
My effort to offer some explanations has already gotten weedy and dense enough. So I will not endeavor to further address the disruptive noise-making and false dichotomies in detail.
I will urge, however, that those who are genuinely interested in advancing this matter, take the time and make the effort to separate the noise from the substance, to focus on what is real and what is practical, to recognize that the nature of the injustice here (further delaying application processing beyond what is reasonable and necessary) does not bear the same weight or have the same impact as scores of many other injustices our society is dealing with (here in Canada and elsewhere). For those actually, genuinely interested in the effort to influence the government, it is important to realize that a failure to recognize this and, in contrast, advocate this cause as if this is on the same scale as, say, injustices like the U.S. wresting children from their parents and holding them in cages, this WILL HURT, and HURT the cause a lot, lot more than it helps.
This is not a cause in which the-louder-we-shout, the-better-result-we'll-get. I realize many assert the contrary, and strenuously so. I am sure that is misguided.
This is a cause for which the law is on the side of pushing the government to do what it has a mandate to do. This will take time. There is no immediate solution. This is not an issue for which complaints will bring about drastic action in the government. But it is an issue with the weight of law in its favour. And even if not on the scale of injustices like taking children from their parents and putting them in cages, it is nonetheless a denial of fair process and thus an injustice warranting affirmative action, an injustice warranting correction.
PART FOUR: What Matters; The Cause.
What ultimately matters is how to effectively advance the cause here: getting the government to take real steps toward resuming citizenship application processing, including adopting whatever accommodations are necessary to proceed with verification that applicants meet the knowledge-of-Canada requirement.
As oft said, IT IS TIME.
Unfortunately this topic too often tends to get bogged down in a lot of noise and false dichotomies. The latter is rife with misplaced or exaggerated warnings about what is at stake. And confusion relative to what can be achieved. Much of what populates the many pages here seems premised on all or nothing propositions, take control or be submissive/passive, there must be action now or it will not happen for so long as to essentially be never.
Real life falls in-between the extremes and, usually, rather not-at-all close to the extremes. So, for example, rather obviously so, there is NO prospect that IRCC is going to fully resume processing citizenship applications NOW. Not going to happen NOW. But that does NOT mean IRCC will not process pending applications. That does not mean it will take four years or more to process pending applications, let alone that IRCC will never process pending applications or will summarily deny pending applications.
For example: advocating for full resumption of processing NOW is pointless, a distraction. And arguing that what is at stake is IRCC never processing current applications or summarily denying them is so unfounded it is overtly ineffective if not blatantly disruptive and counter-productive.
My effort to offer some explanations has already gotten weedy and dense enough. So I will not endeavor to further address the disruptive noise-making and false dichotomies in detail.
I will urge, however, that those who are genuinely interested in advancing this matter, take the time and make the effort to separate the noise from the substance, to focus on what is real and what is practical, to recognize that the nature of the injustice here (further delaying application processing beyond what is reasonable and necessary) does not bear the same weight or have the same impact as scores of many other injustices our society is dealing with (here in Canada and elsewhere). For those actually, genuinely interested in the effort to influence the government, it is important to realize that a failure to recognize this and, in contrast, advocate this cause as if this is on the same scale as, say, injustices like the U.S. wresting children from their parents and holding them in cages, this WILL HURT, and HURT the cause a lot, lot more than it helps.
This is not a cause in which the-louder-we-shout, the-better-result-we'll-get. I realize many assert the contrary, and strenuously so. I am sure that is misguided.
This is a cause for which the law is on the side of pushing the government to do what it has a mandate to do. This will take time. There is no immediate solution. This is not an issue for which complaints will bring about drastic action in the government. But it is an issue with the weight of law in its favour. And even if not on the scale of injustices like taking children from their parents and putting them in cages, it is nonetheless a denial of fair process and thus an injustice warranting affirmative action, an injustice warranting correction.
This simple assertion is simply misleading. Everything that follows should be altered and tainted.
It's really sad to see these methods ... It has already been demonstrated several times in this thread that there has really been an abuse of vacancy code 699 (And by extension, an abuse of the public funds of the payers of taxes).
This Kafkaesque situation could only be stopped by the intervention of the secretariat of the Treasury Board of Canada, which raged, and forced people to return to work if they are in good health (Effective since November 9, therefore still very recent). I am copying here a previous intervention where I demonstrated all this with proof.
You twist my words to condition them to your advantage and feed your arguments to discourage people ...
It's really sad, I'm really frustrated and sad to see this.
... I have NEVER talked about denial. You are the one talking about this concept now. I have NEVER used the reasoning that you want me to take responsibility for me ... I challenge you to find the moment when I spoke clearly of denial in relation to the current blocking situation.
You fixate on Latin expressions. You seem to like this little fantasy, I'll make you happy:
What I was saying is that, in fact, citizenship is canceled, de facto, for all candidates who have not yet passed their knowledge test. Exception made for people over the age of 55, as well as those who were lucky enough to get past it with the IRCC lockdown.
** (And now recently, and probably thanks to our pressures that you try to discredit by all means, also people in urgent procedure, they have just started since the 9th to do online tests for people in urgent situation. No test for an urgent request has been postponed before this date).
I remember our exchange very well. I never spoke of de jure denial ... On the other hand, I remember you very well that you replied by telling me that the ceremonies continued online. And I replied that when the pool of candidates who had already had the chance to take their knowledge tests before the IRCC lockdown will be filled, and they would all have received their citizenship certificate, the numbers you were putting forward would certainly go go down to a few units per week (There will only be candidates over 55 years old) ...
In other words, yes, we can say that as long as the test lockdown is stopped, ad vitam aeternam, citizenship is de facto canceled (on stand by) for candidates awaiting the test, except for the few exeptions already cited.
No test = no citizenship. It is a legal obligation.
The few people who still have ceremonies are a group that has shrunk over time. They will definitely end with them at some point. So it's just a smokescreen. Applications are not progressing, and the backlog is growing.
The more we are silent, the more the backlog will be enormous, the more we add additional years to our expectations.
Regarding the efficiency of a legal action, I would say this: The outcome of the proceeding is not important:
In fine, what matters is the pressure that will be exerted by this means (and the media noise that will come with it).
We notice that the fancy language, it is you who use it (I would not speak about the fact that you distort the words of the people as you wish ... I am rather sad and disappointed like that).
My words have always been simple and intelligible, unlike your long, interminable ... and discouraging texts.
The equation is very simple.
No test = No citizenship.
IRCC does not test = The situation is blocked for the majority of candidates, de facto.
I am of the opinion that we must continue the pressure by all possible and legitimate and legal means.
... Otherwise our expectation will be increased by several more years.
Last edited:
The protest was held on November 7th and the first onljne test that we heard of was held on November 9th, if anything this was a result from online pressure, not public demonstrations.
Thanks for your detailed post. I agree with your legal analysis, however the suggestion that we do nothing is hard to digest given the small size of the ask.
The specific ask is that the government create an online citizenship test with 20 questions. This can be easily achieved by a small committed team with minimal reallocation of headcount. We believe that making noise by protesting and pursuing a legal route will help jolt the government out of its ennui. Injustices are relative, however denying the vote to 100,000 - 200,000 otherwise eligible candidates seems pretty shocking to me.
While some may disagree. To me its clear that focused campaigns highlighting the following will certainly deliver results :
(1) Grave Injustice - Disenfranchisement of 100,000+ eligible voters.
(2) Small Ask- Implementation of an online test with 20 questions given 8 months have passed.
I was referring to the date of resumption imposed by the secretariat of the Treasury Board, and not to the demonstration ... Of course, this is certainly one of the results of various pressures ... This is why I think and I remain convinced that we must continue to maintain the pressure, relentlessly.
This is what I was referring to when speaking of the date of November 9. The pressures surely contributed to this call to order from the Treasury Board, to avoid abuses of public money (and therefore forced, among other federal employees, those of IRCC to resume work):
https://www.canada.ca/en/government/publicservice/covid-19/message-chro-covid-19-other-leave-with-pay-guidance.html
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat said: