Vaziri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Home » Case Law » Vaziri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
  1. Case Title & Citation
    Vaziri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1159 (Federal Court).

  2. Decision Summary (Neutral Overview)
    The applicant in Vaziri sought mandamus to compel immigration authorities to process his application. The Federal Court reviewed when mandamus is appropriate in the administrative context.

The Court affirmed that:

  • Mandamus requires a public legal duty to act, owed to the applicant.

  • There must be a request and either a refusal or unreasonable delay.

  • There must be no other adequate remedy.

  • Granting the order must have practical utility.

On the facts, the court analyzed whether immigration authorities had delayed unreasonably and whether the duty was sufficiently clear.

  1. Historical & Legal Context
    Vaziri is part of a line of immigration cases that sharpen the mandamus test after McArthur, making it widely cited in Federal Court practice.

  2. Key Legal Principles Identified in the Case

  • Clear articulation of the mandamus criteria.

  • Emphasis on reasonableness of delay and the existence of alternative remedies.

  1. Implications for Haldimand, Loyalist, and Mohawk Questions

  • Vaziri supplies detailed, modern language courts use when deciding whether to issue mandamus.

  • It helps shape the argument that Canada and Ontario have clear, unmet duties regarding:

    • Recognizing Haldimand in their constitutional architecture,

    • Creating hereditary registries,

    • Clarifying jurisdiction and taxation on the tract.

  1. Points of Interest to Mohawk of Grand River Posterity

  • The case is practical: it shows how petitioners can frame their situation in terms judges recognize—duty, request, refusal, delay, and lack of remedy.

  • It underlines that mandamus is not exotic; it is a standard remedy when governments sit on their hands.

  1. Unresolved Questions / Future Research Directions

  • How will courts weigh “no other remedy” when the harm is systemic (land, jurisdiction, taxation) rather than a single application?

  • Can mandamus be used to compel structural actions, such as setting up a registry or halting unlawful taxation, rather than processing one file?

  1. Sources

  • Vaziri v. Canada (MCI), 2006 FC 1159.

  • Federal Court mandamus practice notes and commentary.

318 words

Sign up to the Newsletter!
Get the latest articles and news delivered to your mailbox.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Categories


About Benjamin Doolittle U.E.

listen to BLOODLINE

“Bloodline” follows the Haldimand Proclamation from its original promise to the present fight to have it honoured. The track moves through Crown grants, broken commitments, and the legal and political road back to enforcement, asking listeners to hear the Proclamation not as a relic of the past, but as a living obligation that still binds the Crown to the Mohawk Nation of Grand River.

Artist: One Way Current
Writer: Benjamin Doolittle UE
Producer: One Way Current
Publisher: Corn Press Publications
Affiliation: Six Miles Deep / Mohawk Nation of Grand River

WHITE PAPER

CROWN PLUS

Crown Plus is an initiative of the Mohawk University, dedicated to restoring truth, lawful continuity, and honour in the interpretation and application of the Haldimand Proclamation of 1784 — the foundational covenant between the Mohawk Nation and the British Crown.

This paper is divided into three parts, each exploring a distinct dimension of the Haldimand covenant: its legal origins, its modern violations, and the path toward lawful restoration. Together, they form the living record of a truth that has been long buried beneath colonial misinterpretation.Crown Plus stands for the principle that the Mohawk Nation is not a subject of the Crown, but a co-sovereign pillar upon which the Canadian state itself rests.

The phrase “Crown Plus” reclaims the language of Canada’s political history — a response to the White Paper (1969) and Red Paper (1970) — and reframes it in the Mohawk context. Where others spoke of “citizens plus,” we assert “Crown Plus”: the indivisible bond of alliance, honour, and hereditary right between the Mohawk and the Crown.

Part I — The Legal Foundations and Historical Continuity

Explores the origins of the Haldimand Proclamation, the Dorchester correction, the Mohawk–Crown alliance since Queen Anne, and the constitutional distinctiveness of the Mohawk Loyalist posterity.

Part II — Modern Violations, Fiduciary Duties, and Institutional Responsibility

Documents the breach of fiduciary duty by Crown agents, the propagation of false land acknowledgements, and the complicity of academic, corporate, and judicial institutions in sustaining unlawful occupation.

Part III — Framework for Restoration, Recommendations, and the Path Forward

Outlines a ten-year restoration plan, proposes the Mohawk Posterity Registry and Royal Commission of Continuity, and reaffirms the spiritual and legal covenant through the Crown Plus Initiative.