Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[noon]

Hi


IMHO I think that the judges reasoning that 87.4 is the "law of the land" in that it was passed by parliament and proclaimed. Although the case was about Mandamus and the writ was filed before 87.4 but not heard to after 87.4 was proclaimed and the applicant wanted a decision on Mandamus that could/would have been made IF 87.4 had not been proclaimed. What I am trying to point out is that the judge is saying 87.4 is the law and terminated pre 2008 applications. I think that the same reasoning will be used on the those applicants who want to have their applications processed although 87.4 terminated those applications.

Sir ,
Thanks for taking your time and prompt response. I want to ask you few more points.

Certification

[45] The Respondent says that it is trite and settled law that the Court has no power to extend its jurisdiction and go against the express intent of Parliament.

[46] The Respondent also says that, in the present case, the Applicant does not challenge the validity of subsection 87.4 of the Act; he simply says that it should not apply to him for no principled reason.

[48] I have to agree with the Respondent. I see no analogy between this case and the situations that arose in Silver or any cases cited therein. In addition, the back-dating that the Applicant requests would be an assumption of jurisdiction in a situation where Parliament has made its intentions clear, so that the Court would be attempting to thwart the clear and express intent of Parliament. I know of no principal or authority that would allow me to do this and I think the law on point is clear. There would be no purpose in certifying the proposed question.

My questions
The words in the judgement is "I have to agree" not "I agree". Is there a differnce in using "have to agree"?
Why the respondent asserts the fact that the applicant did not challenge the validity of the 87.4?.
Sir dont you think that the judgement occured in this way because the applicant did not argue that the law was against constitution.?
pls reply.

 

[st-cnncomes]

Ultimately the delay in processing will rule the day. CIC has deliberately warehoused our files while this law was being debated. They hadn’t taken any action with regards to our files. The onus to prove otherwise is on CIC. This law cannot be applied to anyone who has updated his documents. This was a predetermined act by CIC and JK.
All those who still wish to immigrate to Canada should fight tooth and nail for their visas, under no condition and under no circumstance should we allow CIC to delete our files. To make matters worse we have to start suing CIC for negligence, immigration fraud, cheating and stealing. The only logical conclusion to this issue is, all those who challenged this law (litigants) should be processed and all the spectators should have their files shredded, the reason being they accepted the law, and believe you me this will be the ruling.

 

[bcone]

FWS Processing

10 December 2012

Justice Rennie, who will be presiding over the January hearing, met with opposing counsel to allocate the time between the parties and to narrow the focus of the hearing. At this point, Justice Rennie has adopted DoJ's position that the only issue on which he will rule in January is the constitutionality of s. 87.4, the provision which abolished the files. Justice Rennie appears to have accepted DoJ's view that it dictates what the parties initiating the litigation may argue and whom they may represent at the hearing.

I think the canadian dream is OVER now for all Tim's clients who were never assessed. i was in this case for more than a year. Despite Liang winning and getting visa for all other 900 or so litigants who were pre 14th june & never assessed the winning of LIang is meaningless. It is not win but LOSS. Just see the facts who have actually got visa----Liang and the others who were assessed and whose files were not terminated. Even if they were not litigants , they would have been eventually processed , maybe liang win made it little faster for them , But for all others like me it is just hoping for good everyday but only darkness and misery at the end. It was better that we were not litigant of TIM . atleast we would not have had this hope everyday since the 14th june win. I had told all my friends and relatives about the win and that my turn is also v soon , they were all appreciating Canadian justice , but it seems all is false.
I think adding more litigants after 14th june win by Tim for money and greed's sake is the real reason of Barnes not enforcing agreement . I may be wrong and other litigants in my situation can offer their views on this.
I just look back on 15th june (when i came to know about win) and remember how happy i was that day. I even had a small party....... and now....... sad and only tears..... Shame on you TIM and CANADIAN Justice.

 

[noon]

Hi bcone,

It is difficult for the court to give positive decision only to a group of litigants . Wait till january hearing. Let us know whether 87.4 is in compliance with canadian justice and fairness. Be positive .

 

[Gaber1]

I think the canadian dream is OVER now for all Tim's clients who were never assessed. i was in this case for more than a year. Despite Liang winning and getting visa for all other 900 or so litigants who were pre 14th june & never assessed the winning of LIang is meaningless. It is not win but LOSS. Just see the facts who have actually got visa----Liang and the others who were assessed and whose files were not terminated. Even if they were not litigants , they would have been eventually processed , maybe liang win made it little faster for them , But for all others like me it is just hoping for good everyday but only darkness and misery at the end. It was better that we were not litigant of TIM . atleast we would not have had this hope everyday since the 14th june win. I had told all my friends and relatives about the win and that my turn is also v soon , they were all appreciating Canadian justice , but it seems all is false.
I think adding more litigants after 14th june win by Tim for money and greed's sake is the real reason of Barnes not enforcing agreement . I may be wrong and other litigants in my situation can offer their views on this.
I just look back on 15th june (when i came to know about win) and remember how happy i was that day. I even had a small party....... and now....... sad and only tears..... Shame on you TIM and CANADIAN Justice.


You are one hundred percent right. Had Justice rennie discourged and rejcted the rest of the litigants the rest of the litigants who entered into the fray could not have happened and their money saved. But in the greed of money Tim get the ambigious justice and get additinal litigants not only for him but other consultants also. Very shame ful act on all of those who have played this dirty game with innocents .I condemn this cowdarly act of non sence

 

[wounderful]

I fully agree with Bcone and Gaber1 that if Tim keep his applicants as it is it may lead to a judgement and an easier approach to Justice, however, Tim has open his shop for business on his partial ruling to make him rich, now in current suitation judge allow him to only present one lead case like others, so what will be use of making so many members with different categories the judgement will be on simple one fact "the section 87.1 is to be or not to be a law" and all other things of making money e.g. according to Tim that my applicants will process faster than others, my agreement will be separate from others.... they are all money making things and I feel sorry for the bcone and stand with him. Hope that every one will be happy after January 2013.

 

[wounderful]

Dear Members:

I am afraid also that after we win from this we have to file another case for "Mandamus" against CIC to process our cases and finalized them. As the ruling in our favor will be only for Section 87.1 that it is against natural justice and against IRPA. Therefore, next time we all should get togather to slash the lawyer fee to min US$ 100 not more (and exclude Tim ). What you say ?

 

[Deekay09]

Hi to All Knowledgeable Forum Mebers,

I am new to this forum. Is it advisable to join the Class Action Law Suite at this point or it is too late?

Please advise.

 

[IndianPNP]

Bad News
CIC is starting to pay return fee to all applicants including litigants in next 30 days and CIS has completed all process to pay return fee and CIC also going to announce new Immigration policy from Jan 2013 and presenting new law that all 20000 backlog applications FSW Pre-2008 and M1,M2,M3 must be selected according to proposed and implementing new immigration system means a minimum language proficiency IELTS 6.0 and work experience total 15 points and age max 12 points till 35 years old.

No hope for the best in coming days.

 

[hopeful4]

and presenting new law that all 20000 backlog applications FSW Pre-2008 and M1,M2,M3 must be selected according to proposed

can you tell us what you mean by that? also what is your source?

 

[hopefulever]

WE WILL WIN IN THE END FIGHTING ALL THE ODDS. THESE ARE ALL RUMOURS AND RUMOUR MONGERS MUST HAVE THEIR DAY. BELIEVE IN GOD AND YOUR CAPABLE COUNSELS.

 

[sohail-khan86]

Regretfully, I have to say this litigation was a bad idea from the very start... No chance of winning imo..I feel real sorry for you guys.. (

 

[sac]

good day forumers. I just received email form Chris Colette secretary of David Cohen. Pls see message below. What should I do??? thnx in advance

Dear Immanuel,

We have just received notice from the court that you have also filed an application through Tim Leahy's office.

I have been informed that one of those applications must be withdrawn. Our associates have recommended withdrawing your file with Leahy as ours was filed first. However the choice is yours, please let us know as soon as possible which you would like to withdraw.

Best Regards,

Hello Immanuel: You better drop one filed case. You cannot have two litigation from two different lawyers. I am with the group of Tim Leahy.

Sam - Manila

 

[singhmkb]

Hello Immanuel: You better drop one filed case. You cannot have two litigation from two different lawyers. I am with the group of Tim Leahy.

Sam - Manila

Tim Lahey is better Option.

 

[umerrais79]

Today I get my Caip Notes can any one read it and let me know what is written in it PSDEC=1 ON 30-05-2012 SELDEC=0, specially the point IMM 1017S REQUESTED: 3-08-2012 and in the last line File BF'D TO: TER ON 05-02-2013. It is so confusing because they requested me for my medical on 03-08-2012 but i dont get it until now and the last line ter on 05-02-2013, please any1 explain this