Thanks for that. As for whether they are freaking out, well, I doubt it - but a longer response would touch on the topic of the extent to which such decisions are binding precedent and all that (beyond my knowledge).
The biggest point is obviously what constitutes reasonable delays. Agree IRCC has been playing fast and (very) loose with the definitions here.
I'd flag a slightly different point that this mandamus request only touches upon - my /impression/ is that IRCC likes to kick the can to the security screening partners (i.e. CSIS) and sort of hide behind them. Clearly this particular judge is not having that if there's no reason of any kind returned to the court to explain 'unreasonable' delays.
But I know of (off-forum) a few cases of people who (through lawyers) have written to CSIS for ATIP-type info. And response has been a different kind of non-answer than before , specifically, now just stating "speak to IRCC, we only provide them advice." (No confirm or deny that there's ever been a file or current open/closed status).
My pure speculation is that there is an internal tussle going on - roughly along lines of CSIS unhappy with workload and lack of resources for low priority cases referred by IRCC, kick back more of the pain to IRCC, and it will turn up in more things like this. (And IRCC being gunshy about wearing any gaps in clearance for public cases, as always).
Okay - it's not pure speculation but an inference based on very little info - and one department unhappy at workload/resource implications of work referred by another department is more a constant state of bureaucratic siege adminfare than a change. And so are CYA efforts by one department vis a vis another. So perhaps just a new front in an ongoing tussle.
