[1] The principal applicant, Ms. Tala Ghaddar, her husband, Mr. Mohamad Saad, and their three children, Aya Saad, Lilas Saad, and Mirabelle Saad [together, the Saad family], are citizens of Lebanon. They ask the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] to process their application for permanent residence [Application], which was filed more than six years ago, in 2016.
[1]主要申请人塔拉·加达尔女士，她的丈夫穆罕默德·萨阿德先生，以及他们的三个孩子艾雅·萨阿德、莉拉斯·萨阿德和米拉贝尔·萨阿德[统称萨阿德家庭]，是黎巴嫩公民。他们请求法院发出强制令，迫使加拿大移民、难民和公民事务部[IRCC]处理他们于 2016 年提交的永久居留申请[申请]，该申请已提交超过六年。

[2] The Saad family submits that IRCC has unreasonably delayed their Application. They seek the following reliefs:
[2]萨德家族提交称 IRCC 不合理地延迟了他们的申请。他们寻求以下救济：

[3] For the reasons that follow, the Saad family’s application for judicial review will be granted in part. Having considered the evidence and the applicable law, I am satisfied that the Saad family meets the requirements of the test for an order of mandamus. The delay incurred for the treatment of their Application is clearly unacceptable and unreasonable in the circumstances, as IRCC has been unable to provide any explanation or justification for it. This situation warrants the Court’s intervention and the issuance of an order requiring IRCC to complete the processing of the Saad family’s Application within 90 days. However, the Court does not need to grant the other declaratory remedies requested by the Saad family, since an order of mandamus will suffice to correct the unfortunate situation created by the failure to process their permanent residency Application in a timely manner.
[3]基于以下原因，Saad 家族的司法审查申请将部分获准。在考虑了证据和适用法律后，我确信 Saad 家族符合发布强制令的测试要求。由于 IRCC 未能对此延误提供任何解释或理由，因此在这种情况下，处理他们申请的延误显然是不可接受和不合理的。这种情况需要法院的干预，并发布命令要求 IRCC 在 90 天内完成对 Saad 家族申请的处理。然而，法院不需要批准 Saad 家族请求的其他声明性救济，因为发布强制令足以纠正因未能及时处理他们的永久居留申请而造成的不幸情况。

[4] In 2016, Ms. Ghaddar applied for permanent residence in Canada through the economic immigration class, under the Provincial Nominee Program [PNP]. She listed Mr. Saad and her then only daughter, Aya Saad, as accompanying dependants.
[4]在 2016 年，Ghaddar 女士通过经济移民类别申请了加拿大的永久居留，属于省提名计划[PNP]。她将 Saad 先生和她当时唯一的女儿 Aya Saad 列为随行家属。

[5] On December 31, 2016, after submitting her information into the “Express entry pool”, Ms. Ghaddar received a letter from the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration — as it then was, confirming that she had been nominated under the PNP.
[5]2016 年 12 月 31 日，在将她的信息提交到“快速入境池”后，Ghaddar 女士收到了安大略省公民和移民部（当时的名称）发来的信件，确认她已被提名为省提名计划（PNP）下的候选人。

[6] On January 4, 2017, Ms. Ghaddar received an invitation to apply for permanent residence under the PNP, through the Express Entry System.
[6]2017 年 1 月 4 日，Ghaddar 女士收到了一份通过快速入境系统申请省提名计划（PNP）永久居留的邀请。

[7] After Ms. Ghaddar, Mr. Saad, and their first daughter Aya completed the medical examinations required by IRCC, Ms. Ghaddar received a letter on February 22, 2017, confirming that the Application had been received.
[7]在 Ghaddar 女士、Saad 先生及他们的长女 Aya 完成 IRCC 要求的医疗检查后，Ghaddar 女士于 2017 年 2 月 22 日收到一封信，确认申请已被接收。

[8] On May 13, 2017 and on August 22, 2017, respectively, IRCC requested Saudi Arabian police certificates for Ms. Ghaddar and her husband, and copies of passport biodata pages along with information regarding their height and eye colour. The requested documents and information were submitted to IRCC on September 27, 2017.
[8]2017 年 5 月 13 日和 2017 年 8 月 22 日，加拿大移民、难民和公民事务部（IRCC）分别要求沙特阿拉伯警方提供 Ghaddar 女士及其丈夫的无犯罪证明，以及护照生物数据页的复印件和他们的身高及眼睛颜色信息。所请求的文件和信息于 2017 年 9 月 27 日提交给 IRCC。

[9] In November 2017, Ms. Ghaddar and her husband submitted an updated “Schedule A form” to provide missing information, as requested by IRCC. From that moment, IRCC had all the relevant information to process the Saad family’s Application.
[9]在 2017 年 11 月，Ghaddar 女士和她的丈夫提交了一份更新的“附表 A 表格”，以提供 IRCC 要求的缺失信息。从那时起，IRCC 拥有处理 Saad 家庭申请的所有相关信息。

[10] On August 2, 2019, Ms. Ghaddar gave birth to her second daughter, Lilas Saad. On November 4, 2019, Ms. Ghaddar requested that Lilas be added to the Application. After submitting the required information, Ms. Ghaddar received a confirmation on January 10, 2020 that Lilas had been added to the Application.
[10]2019 年 8 月 2 日，Ghaddar 女士生下了她的第二个女儿，Lilas Saad。2019 年 11 月 4 日，Ghaddar 女士请求将 Lilas 添加到申请中。在提交所需信息后，Ghaddar 女士于 2020 年 1 月 10 日收到了确认，Lilas 已被添加到申请中。

[11] On April 21, 2022, Ms. Ghaddar gave birth to her third daughter, Mirabelle Saad. Similarly, Ms. Ghaddar requested that Mirabelle be added to the Application. Ms. Ghaddar requested an extension of time in order to provide the required documents to IRCC because of delays in obtaining Mirabelle’s passport. As of October 2022, Mirabelle’s documents were still unavailable.
[11]2022 年 4 月 21 日，Ghaddar 女士生下了她的第三个女儿，Mirabelle Saad。同样，Ghaddar 女士请求将 Mirabelle 添加到申请中。由于获得 Mirabelle 护照的延迟，Ghaddar 女士请求延长时间以便向 IRCC 提供所需文件。截至 2022 年 10 月，Mirabelle 的文件仍然不可用。

[12] Since May 2018, Ms. Ghaddar requested updates from IRCC on numerous occasions. The only replies she ever received from the Canadian immigration authorities were that background checks were still ongoing, or that further delays were to be expected due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
[12]自 2018 年 5 月以来，Ghaddar 女士多次向 IRCC 请求更新。她从加拿大移民当局收到的唯一回复是背景调查仍在进行中，或者由于 COVID-19 大流行，预计会有进一步的延迟。

[13] On July 19, 2022, the Saad family filed this application for judicial review.
[13]2022 年 7 月 19 日，萨德家族提交了此项司法审查申请。

[14] In an affidavit dated May 17, 2023 [Bishop affidavit], Keri Bishop, the Unit Manager of the Economic Class Unit in the London Migration Office, mentioned that she had knowledge of the Saad family’s file being in their team’s inventory of files in process.
[14]在 2023 年 5 月 17 日的宣誓书中[Bishop affidavit]，伦敦移民办公室经济类别单位的单位经理 Keri Bishop 提到，她知道 Saad 家庭的档案在他们团队的待处理档案清单中。

[15] The Bishop affidavit indicated that as of May 2023, the security screening of Mr. Saad remained pending, but that IRCC did not have control over the duration or timelines of the security screening process, as it is coordinated by IRCC’s institutional partners.
[15]主教宣誓书指出，截至 2023 年 5 月，萨阿德先生的安全审查仍在待处理状态，但 IRCC 对安全审查过程的持续时间或时间表没有控制权，因为该过程由 IRCC 的机构合作伙伴协调。

[16] Keri Bishop also stated that in her experience, “security screenings take on average 12 months,” but that on some occasions they might be of different lengths due to the complexity of the case and of the individuals involved.
[16]凯莉·比肖普还表示，根据她的经验，“安全审查平均需要 12 个月”，但在某些情况下，由于案件的复杂性和相关个人的不同，审查时间可能会有所不同。

[17] Finally, Keri Bishop declared that the processing of the Application might have been affected by the lockdowns and other restrictions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
[17]最后，凯莉·比肖普声明，由于 COVID-19 大流行导致的封锁和其他限制，申请的处理可能受到了影响。

[18] An order of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy pursuant to which the Court “can compel the performance of a clear affirmative legal duty by a public authority” (Ahousaht First Nation v Canada (Fisheries, Oceans and Coast Guard), 2019 FC 1116 [Ahousaht] at para 73). An order of mandamus is “the Court’s response to a public decision-maker that fails to carry out a duty, on successful application by an applicant to whom the duty is owed and who is currently entitled to the performance of it” (Wasylynuk v Canada (Royal Mounted Police), 2020 FC 962 [Wasylynuk] at para 76). As summarized by Justice Little in Wasylynuk, the test for mandamus thus “requires careful consideration of the statutory, regulatory or other public obligation at issue, to determine whether the decision-maker has an obligation to act in a particular manner as proposed by an applicant and whether the factual circumstances have triggered performance of the obligation in favour of the applicant” (Wasylynuk at para 76).
[18]强制令是一种非常规救济，法院“可以强制公共机关履行明确的法律义务”（Ahousaht First Nation 诉加拿大（渔业、海洋和海岸警卫队），2019 FC 1116 [Ahousaht] 第 73 段）。强制令是“法院对未能履行义务的公共决策者的回应，基于申请人成功申请，该申请人对该义务有权并且目前有权要求其履行”（Wasylynuk 诉加拿大（皇家骑警），2020 FC 962 [Wasylynuk] 第 76 段）。正如 Little 法官在 Wasylynuk 中总结的，强制令的测试“因此需要仔细考虑相关的法定、监管或其他公共义务，以确定决策者是否有义务按照申请人提出的特定方式行事，以及事实情况是否触发了对申请人有利的义务履行”（Wasylynuk 第 76 段）。

[19] In Apotex Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 1993 CanLII 3004 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 742 [Apotex], aff’d [1994] 3 SCR 110, the Federal Court of Appeal stated that the following cumulative conditions must be satisfied before a court can issue a writ of mandamus:
在 Apotex Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 1993 CanLII 3004 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 742 [Apotex]，维持 [1994] 3 SCR 110，联邦上诉法院指出，在法院可以发出强制令之前，必须满足以下累积条件：

[20] These criteria have been confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal in Hong v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 241 at paragraph 10, in Canada (Health) v The Winning Combination Inc, 2017 FCA 101 at paragraph 60, and in Lukacs v Canada (Transportation Agency), 2016 FCA 202 at paragraph 29.
[20]这些标准已在香港诉加拿大（总检察长）一案中得到联邦上诉法院的确认，案号 2019 FCA 241，第 10 段，在加拿大（健康）诉胜利组合公司一案中，案号 2017 FCA 101，第 60 段，以及在卢卡斯诉加拿大（运输局）一案中，案号 2016 FCA 202，第 29 段。

[21] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [Minister] submits that the Saad family has not established that IRCC has failed to discharge its public duty, that the delay in the processing of their Application is unreasonable, or that the balance of convenience favours the issuance of an order of mandamus. The Minister does not dispute the remainder of the conditions set out in Apotex, and I am satisfied that the Saad family meets them. Therefore, I will only examine the three conditions at issue below.
[21]公民和移民部长[部长]提交，萨阿德家庭未能证明 IRCC 未能履行其公共职责，处理其申请的延迟是不合理的，或便利的平衡支持发布强制令。部长不对 Apotex 中列出的其余条件提出异议，我满意萨阿德家庭符合这些条件。因此，我将仅在下面审查有争议的三个条件。

[22] The Saad family claims that they have a clear right to the performance of the public duty that IRCC owes them, since they performed all the conditions precedent for the consideration of their permanent residency Application.
[22]萨阿德家族声称，他们有权要求 IRCC 履行其对他们的公共职责，因为他们已满足考虑其永久居留申请的所有先决条件。

[23] For his part, the Minister submits that the Saad family has not demonstrated that IRCC failed to discharge its public duty to act on the Application because IRCC has been active in processing it. According to the Minister, the Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes demonstrate that since receiving the Application, “IRCC conducted numerous assessments and verifications, including criminality, medical, education, employment, eligibility for the program and security” (Respondents’ Memorandum of fact and law at para 11).
[23]部长表示，萨阿德家族并未证明 IRCC 未能履行其公共职责来处理申请，因为 IRCC 一直在积极处理该申请。根据部长的说法，全球案件管理系统[GCMS]的记录表明，自收到申请以来，“IRCC 进行了多项评估和验证，包括犯罪、医疗、教育、就业、项目资格和安全性”（被告的事实和法律备忘录第 11 段）。

[24] I am not persuaded by the Minister’s arguments.
[24]我对部长的论点并不信服。

[25] First, it should be noted that the Saad family completed all conditions precedent giving rise to IRCC’s public duty, in that they filed relevant information and documents and paid the applicable processing fees in a timely manner. They also repeatedly demanded that the duty be performed (Dragan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (TD), 2003 FCT 211 (CanLII), [2003] 4 FC 189 [Dragan] at para 45). Thus, the Minister owes them the performance of a public duty according to subsection 11(1) of the IRPA (Bidgoly v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 283 [Bidgoly] at para 30; Singh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 757 at paras 50, 54; Dragan at para 43).
[25]首先，应注意萨阿德家族已完成所有先决条件，从而产生了 IRCC 的公共职责，他们及时提交了相关信息和文件，并支付了适用的处理费用。他们还多次要求履行该职责（Dragan 诉加拿大（公民和移民部长）（TD），2003 FCT 211（CanLII）， [2003] 4 FC 189 [Dragan] 第 45 段）。因此，部长根据 IRPA 第 11(1)款对他们负有履行公共职责的义务（Bidgoly 诉加拿大（公民和移民），2022 FC 283 [Bidgoly] 第 30 段；Singh 诉加拿大（公民和移民部长），2010 FC 757 第 50、54 段；Dragan 第 43 段）。

[26] Second, despite the initial steps that IRCC took to advance the Application, IRCC still has not processed it. The public duty is not to issue permanent residence applications, but rather to process them and provide a final result to the applicants, whether positive or negative (Bidgoly at para 30). This has not happened yet for the Saad family’s Application, and the jurisprudence has established that “[n]eglect to perform the duty or unreasonable delay in performing it may be deemed an implied refusal to perform [the public duty]” (Dragan at para 45).
[26]其次，尽管 IRCC 采取了初步措施来推进申请，但 IRCC 仍未处理该申请。公共职责不是发放永久居留申请，而是处理这些申请并向申请人提供最终结果，无论是积极的还是消极的（Bidgolyat 第 30 段）。对于 Saad 家庭的申请，这尚未发生，法 jurisprudence 已确立“[n]eglect to perform the duty or unreasonable delay in performing it may be deemed an implied refusal to perform [the public duty]”（Draganat 第 45 段）。

[27] Therefore, I am satisfied that the Saad family is still owed a clear public duty that the Minister impliedly refused to perform.
[27]因此，我满意地认为，萨阿德家族仍然有一个明确的公共职责，而部长暗示拒绝履行该职责。

[28] To determine whether a delay in performing a public duty is unreasonable, the Court must look at the following three criteria:
[28]为了确定履行公共职责的延迟是否不合理，法院必须考虑以下三个标准：

[29] As mentioned above, the Minister’s affiant, Keri Bishop, mentioned in her affidavit that the average timeframe for processing security screenings is 12 months, but that it varies depending on the complexity of each case. This delay has clearly been exceeded in the case of the Saad family, by a material margin. Moreover, nothing in the evidence nor in the Minister’s submissions points to any complex or particular features of the Saad family’s Application that could shed light on the unusual delay they have been facing. There is simply nothing to explain the notable gap in the delay imposed on the Saad family compared to the average delay.
[29]如上所述，部长的宣誓人 Keri Bishop 在她的宣誓书中提到，安全审查的平均处理时间为 12 个月，但根据每个案件的复杂性而有所不同。在 Saad 家庭的案件中，这一延迟显然已经大大超过了这一时间。此外，证据和部长的陈述中没有任何内容指向 Saad 家庭申请的复杂或特殊特征，这些特征可能会解释他们所面临的异常延迟。与平均延迟相比，Saad 家庭所遭受的显著延迟没有任何解释。

[30] Further, I cannot accept the Minister’s submissions that the delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic accounts for a significant part of what was imposed on the Saad family. In Almuhtadi at paragraph 47, Justice Ahmed held the following:
[30]此外，我无法接受部长的主张，即 COVID-19 大流行造成的延误占据了对萨阿德家庭施加的重大部分。在 Almuhtadiat 第 47 段中，阿赫迈德法官持有以下观点：

[31] Similarly, in the present case, the Saad family had been waiting nearly 28 months before the COVID-19 pandemic hit in March 2020. The circumstances of the pandemic only account for a short part of the total delay incurred, especially considering that “[a]ll institutions throughout Canada have […] adapted to addressing backlogs and delays” (Bidgoly at para 41), although to various degrees of success. Therefore, I am satisfied that the delay in the Saad family’s case is prima facie much longer than the nature of the process required, despite the slowed IRCC processing times incurred by the COVID-19 pandemic (Almuhtadi at para 34).
[31]同样，在本案中，萨阿德家族在 2020 年 3 月 COVID-19 大流行之前已经等待了近 28 个月。大流行的情况仅占总延误的一小部分，特别是考虑到“加拿大各机构都已……适应处理积压和延误”（Bidgolyat para 41），尽管成功程度各不相同。因此，我相信萨阿德家族案件中的延误表面上远远超过所需程序的性质，尽管由于 COVID-19 大流行导致 IRCC 处理时间减缓（Almuhtadiat para 34）。

[32] Furthermore, nothing indicates or suggests that the Saad family is responsible for the delay. On the contrary, the affidavit of Ms. Ghaddar eloquently illustrates how diligent they have been in following up on the status of their Application for permanent residence. As she pointed out, the addition of their children to the Application was merely the result of the initial delays resulting from the IRCC process. The Saad family had already been waiting almost two years when Ms. Ghaddar added her second daughter Lilas to the Application. Thus, the delay in the processing of their Application had already exceeded the average processing time, which was of 15 months as of October 2022. In any event, the addition of Ms. Ghaddar’s second and third daughters was rapidly processed and completed by IRCC.
[32]此外，没有任何迹象表明萨阿德家族对延误负责。相反，Ghaddar 女士的宣誓书生动地说明了他们在跟进永久居留申请状态方面的勤奋。如她所指出的，将他们的孩子添加到申请中仅仅是由于 IRCC 流程导致的初始延误。萨阿德家族在 Ghaddar 女士将她的第二个女儿 Lilas 添加到申请时，已经等待了将近两年。因此，他们的申请处理延误已经超过了截至 2022 年 10 月的平均处理时间 15 个月。无论如何，Ghaddar 女士的第二和第三个女儿的添加都被 IRCC 迅速处理并完成。

[33] Finally, the Minister provided no satisfactory justification for the delay. I do not dispute the Minister’s contention that background checks are a prime tool to alleviate security concerns. Of course, this is a process that IRCC has to conduct with caution and rigour. However, “blanket statements” that delays are incurred because of pending security assessments are inadequate, as this Court determined in multiple instances (Bidgoly at paras 37–38; Almuhtadi at para 40; Kanthasamyiyar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1248 at paras 49–50; Abdolkhaleghi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 729 at para 26). Even if I accept that IRCC’s processing timeframe depends on the complexity of each case, no evidence whatsoever has been provided by the Minister showing that the Saad family’s Application raises any particular complexity.
[33]最后，部长没有提供令人满意的延迟理由。我不否认部长的观点，即背景调查是缓解安全担忧的主要工具。当然，这个过程是 IRCC 必须谨慎和严格进行的。然而，关于延迟是由于待处理的安全评估而产生的“笼统说法”是不够的，正如本法院在多个案例中所确定的（Bidgolyat 第 37-38 段；Almuhtadiat 第 40 段；Kanthasamyiyar 诉加拿大（公民与移民），2015 FC 1248 第 49-50 段；Abdolkhaleghi 诉加拿大（公民与移民部长），2005 FC 729 第 26 段）。即使我接受 IRCC 的处理时间框架取决于每个案件的复杂性，部长也没有提供任何证据表明 Saad 家庭的申请存在任何特定的复杂性。

[34] I pause to underline that this suffices to distinguish the present case from Jaballah v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1051 [Jaballah], on which the Minister relies to support his argument that the importance of security screenings renders the delays reasonable. In Jaballah, the delay was nowhere near the same magnitude as in the present case. Furthermore, in that case, Justice Elliott highlighted that the security concerns at play were due to the applicant’s inadmissibility on security grounds described in paragraphs 34(1)(b), (c), (d) and (f) of the IRPA, which created a certain level of complexity and concern that allowed the Minister to justify the above-average delay incurred in that case. There are no similar security or inadmissibility concerns with respect to the Saad family.
[34]我暂停强调，这足以将本案与 Jaballah 诉加拿大（公民及移民），2019 FC 1051 [Jaballah]区分开来，部长依赖该案来支持他的论点，即安全审查的重要性使得延误是合理的。在 Jaballah 案中，延误的程度远不及本案。此外，在该案中，艾略特法官强调，安全问题源于申请人在 IRPA 第 34(1)(b)、(c)、(d)和(f)段落中所描述的安全原因而被拒绝入境，这造成了一定程度的复杂性和担忧，使部长能够为该案中所经历的超出平均水平的延误辩护。关于 Saad 家庭并不存在类似的安全或不可入境问题。

[35] The Saad family’s Application has now reached a total processing time of nearly 68 months since its completion in November 2017. Neither the addition of the children to the Application, the security screening process nor the COVID-19 pandemic can explain or justify such a sizable delay. As a result, I am satisfied that the Saad family has established the unreasonableness of the delay.
[35]萨阿德家族的申请自 2017 年 11 月完成以来，处理时间已接近 68 个月。无论是将孩子添加到申请中、安全审查过程，还是 COVID-19 大流行，都无法解释或证明如此巨大的延迟是合理的。因此，我满意地认为萨阿德家族已证明该延迟的不合理性。

[36] In her affidavit, Ms. Ghaddar describes in detail the hardship that she and her family have endured because of the delay in the processing of their Application. Aside from the additional fees they incurred, they had to pursue their higher education and will have to deal with the disadvantages of a foreign education on the Canadian labour market if their Application is ever approved. Further, Ms. Ghaddar describes the disruption her older daughter will have to face if they move to Canada since she had to begin school and will have to adapt to a new education system. Ms. Ghaddar also mentions the disadvantages suffered by her two youngest daughters, who could have obtained Canadian citizenship at birth had the delay not been so great. Overall, Ms. Ghaddar describes the uncertainty her family had to endure because of the delay in the processing of their Application, which has forced them to put their lives on hold for several years while waiting for a response from IRCC.
[36]在她的宣誓书中，Ghaddar 女士详细描述了她和她的家人因申请处理延迟而遭受的困难。除了他们产生的额外费用外，他们还不得不追求高等教育，并且如果他们的申请最终获得批准，他们将不得不面对外国教育在加拿大劳动力市场上的劣势。此外，Ghaddar 女士描述了她的大女儿如果他们移居加拿大将面临的干扰，因为她必须开始上学，并且需要适应新的教育体系。Ghaddar 女士还提到她的两个最小女儿所遭受的劣势，如果延迟没有那么严重，她们本可以在出生时获得加拿大国籍。总体而言，Ghaddar 女士描述了她的家庭因申请处理延迟而不得不忍受的不确定性，这迫使他们在等待 IRCC 的回复期间将生活搁置了数年。

[37] The Minister argues that his statutory duty to ensure the integrity of the immigration system justifies the delays in processing applications for permanent residence. With respect, I disagree. If this were true in all cases, applicants would not be able to enforce their right to the performance of the Minister’s public duty to process applications for permanent residence.
[37]部长辩称，他有法定职责确保移民系统的完整性，这就证明了处理永久居留申请的延迟是合理的。对此，我表示不同意。如果在所有情况下都是这样，申请人将无法强制执行部长处理永久居留申请的公共职责。

[38] The Minister also indicates that the Saad family’s Application is processing toward finalization, which should tilt the balance of convenience in the Minister’s favour. Respectfully, just as much as no evidence was provided to support any security concerns regarding the Saad family, the Minister has failed to adduce any clear and compelling evidence or to identify any element in the record suggesting that the Application will be finalized shortly with no further unreasonable delays.
[38]部长还表示，萨阿德家族的申请正在处理之中，应该有利于部长的便利平衡。恭敬地说，正如没有提供任何证据来支持关于萨阿德家族的安全担忧一样，部长也未能提出任何明确且有说服力的证据，或在记录中识别出任何元素，表明该申请将很快得到最终处理，而不会有进一步的不合理延误。

[39] Just as in Bidgoly, there is also no evidence on the difficulties associated with security assessments or on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the IRCC process (Bidgoly at para 46). Accordingly, I am unable to determine the real impact of these factors on the IRCC process, or to assess whether the situation will improve in the near future for the Saad family.
[39]正如在 Bidgoly 案中一样，关于安全评估相关的困难或 COVID-19 大流行对 IRCC 流程的影响也没有证据（Bidgolyat para 46）。因此，我无法确定这些因素对 IRCC 流程的真实影响，或评估 Saad 家庭的情况在不久的将来是否会改善。

[40] In light of those findings, I find that the hardship faced by the Saad family clearly tilts the balance of convenience in favour of the issuance of an order of mandamus.
[40]鉴于这些发现，我认为萨阿德家庭面临的困难显然使便利平衡倾向于发布强制令。

[41] In any event, the objectives of the IRPA with respect to maintaining the security of Canadians can still be pursued by the Minister despite the order that the Court will grant in this case. Since the delay to act will be 90 days, the Minister will have ample time to complete the on-going security assessments, especially since the Minister claims that the processing of the Application is already “toward finalization” (Almuhtadi at para 53).
[41]无论如何，尽管法院将在本案中作出裁定，部长仍然可以追求《移民和难民保护法》（IRPA）关于维护加拿大人安全的目标。由于采取行动的延迟将为 90 天，部长将有充足的时间完成正在进行的安全评估，特别是因为部长声称申请的处理已经“接近最终确定”（Almuhtadi 第 53 段）。

[42] I would also add that, as Mr. Saad confirmed at the hearing before the Court, the mandamus order sought will clearly be of some practical value or effect since obtaining permanent resident status in Canada remains the primary objective and plan of the Saad family.
[42]我还要补充一点，正如萨阿德先生在法庭听证会上确认的那样，所寻求的强制令显然将具有一定的实际价值或效果，因为获得加拿大的永久居民身份仍然是萨阿德家庭的主要目标和计划。

[43] However, I fail to see how the declaratory orders requested by the Saad family would have a practical value similar to a mandamus, or why they should be granted by the Court. The issuance of declaratory orders requires the Court to have jurisdiction to hear the issue, a real dispute, a genuine interest in the resolution of the issue by the moving party, and an interest by the respondents to oppose the declaration (Ewert v Canada, 2018 SCC 30 at para 81). In the present case, declaratory orders would go farther than the Court needs to. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, similarly to what the Court did in Bidgoly and Almuhtadi, an order of mandamus requiring IRCC to determine the Saad family’s Application within a delay of 90 days will suffice.
[43]然而，我无法理解萨阿德家族请求的宣告性命令为何会具有类似于强制令的实际价值，或者为何法院应当批准它们。发布宣告性命令要求法院有权审理该问题，存在真实的争议，申请方对解决该问题有真正的利益，以及被申请方有反对该声明的利益（Ewert v Canada, 2018 SCC 30，第 81 段）。在本案中，宣告性命令将超出法院所需的范围。在这种情况下，我认为，类似于法院在 Bidgoly 和 Almuhtadi 案中所做的，要求 IRCC 在 90 天内决定萨阿德家族申请的强制令将足够。

[44] The Saad family also asks for an order of costs. In immigration matters, an award of costs is subject to Rule 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.” The provision reads as follows:
[44]萨阿德家族还请求判决费用。在移民事务中，费用的裁定受《联邦法院公民、移民和难民保护规则》（SOR/93-22）第 22 条的约束，该条规定，除非有“特殊原因”，否则不应对请愿和司法审查的申请判决费用。该条款的内容如下：

[45] The threshold for establishing the existence of “special reasons” is high (Aleaf v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 445 at para 45). In Almuhtadi at paragraph 56, Justice Ahmed described the requirements for such order of costs as follows:
[45] 确立“特殊原因”存在的门槛很高（Aleaf 诉加拿大（公民身份和移民），2015 FC 445，第 45 段）。在 Almuhtadiat 第 56 段中，阿赫迈德法官描述了此类费用命令的要求如下：

[46] “These ‘special reasons’ can pertain, among others, to the nature of the case, the behaviour of the applicant, the behaviour of the Minister or of an immigration official, or to the behaviour of counsel” (Radiyeh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1234 at para 34, citing Ndungu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FCA 208 at para 7). It has also been held that issuing a decision only after an unreasonable or unjustified delay can be a valid reason for a cost award (Monge Contreras v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FC 282 at para 11; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Suleiman, 2015 FC 891 at para 48).
[46]“这些‘特殊原因’可以涉及案件的性质、申请人的行为、部长或移民官员的行为，或律师的行为”（Radiyeh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1234，第 34 段，引用 Ndungu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FCA 208，第 7 段）。还曾裁定，仅在不合理或无正当理由的延迟后作出决定，可以成为费用裁决的有效理由（Monge Contreras v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FC 282，第 11 段；Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Suleiman, 2015 FC 891，第 48 段）。

[47] Here, I am satisfied that this matter warrants an award of costs to the Applicants. I accept that, based on the evidence, it cannot be said that the Minister acted in an unfair, oppressive or improper manner or that the Minister had a conduct actuated by bad faith. However, the Minister and IRCC can be the cause of unreasonable delays leading to “special reasons” within the meaning of Rule 22 without having acted in bad faith. In the case of the Saad family, they have waited far beyond the average processing time for a permanent residency application. At more than 68 months, their situation resides at the very high end of the spectrum. And yet, the Minister could not utter any compelling explanation or justification for such an exceptional delay. Even the security concerns that the Minister keeps brandishing are not anchored in any form of evidence regarding the past behaviour of the Saad family.
[47]在这里，我认为此事值得对申请人授予费用。我接受，根据证据，不能说部长的行为是不公平、压迫或不当的，或者部长的行为是出于恶意。然而，部长和 IRCC 可能是导致不合理延误的原因，这种延误在规则 22 的意义上构成“特殊原因”，而不必表现出恶意。在萨阿德家庭的案例中，他们等待的时间远远超过了永久居留申请的平均处理时间。超过 68 个月，他们的情况处于非常高的范围内。然而，部长无法对如此异常的延误提出任何令人信服的解释或理由。即使是部长不断提及的安全问题，也没有任何关于萨阿德家庭过去行为的证据作为支撑。

[48] In the circumstances, keeping the Saad family in the dark for so long, and not being able to provide any explanation for the patently unreasonable delay they have faced — even after they filed an application for judicial review — rises to the level of “special reasons” warranting an award of costs against the Minister.
[48]在这种情况下，长时间让萨阿德家族不知情，并且无法对他们所面临的显然不合理的延迟提供任何解释——即使在他们提交了司法审查申请之后——达到了对部长裁定费用的“特殊理由”的程度。

[49] Accordingly, I am of the view that the Saad family is entitled to receive costs in the all-inclusive, lump-sum amount of $1,000.
[49]因此，我认为萨阿德家族有权获得总额为 1,000 美元的全包一次性费用。

[50] For the above-mentioned reasons, the Saad family’s application for judicial review is granted in part. An order of mandamus will be issued, requiring IRCC to determine the Saad family’s permanent residency application within 90 days from the date of this decision, or from the date of IRCC’s receipt of the requested documentation pertaining to the addition of Mirabelle Saad to the Application, if such documentation has not been received yet.
[50] 基于上述原因，Saad 家庭的司法审查申请部分获准。将发出强制令，要求 IRCC 在本决定之日起 90 天内，或在 IRCC 收到与 Mirabelle Saad 加入申请相关的请求文件之日起 90 天内，决定 Saad 家庭的永久居留申请，如果尚未收到该文件。

[51] The parties proposed no question of general importance for certification and I agree that none arises in this case. The style of cause is modified to reflect the correct name of the Applicant Mohamad Saad.
[51]各方未提出任何具有普遍重要性的问题以供认证，我同意在本案中没有此类问题。案件标题已修改以反映申请人 Mohamad Saad 的正确名称。