Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[can88da]

Hi,

I have been going through the posts and it has been good news through out. However the final verdict will decide the outcome of the pre Feb 2008 applicants.

By the way shouldn't our status in the e-cas be changed from Decision Made to some other status till the court case is proceeding? Or is this only applicable to those people who are actual litigants?

 

[admin]

A message from Attorney David Cohen (co-counsel Attorney Mario Bellissimo)



We have just completed three days of hearings in the Federal Court of Canada. My co-counsel, Mario Bellissimo made oral submissions on behalf of our clients. Also making oral submissions on behalf of the applicants were Lorne Waldman, Rocco Galati, Matthew Jeffery and Lawrence Wong. Whether we ultimately win or lose this case, all participating counsel should be commended. They all provided compelling arguments. The hearings concluded with the judge asking both sides to submit questions that they feel should be certified for appeal. Briefly put, a certified question is one that is of national importance and there may be a number of questions that the court certifies. This part of the process will be completed by the end of next week. After that, we wait for the decision of the Court. There is no time limit for the decision but it will likely be handed down relatively soon. After that the losing side will decide if they wish to appeal. As events unfold I will make further posts on this thread.

Sincerely,
Attorney David Cohen

 

[warmest]

Thanks admin for the update.

 

[warmest]

As I found the entire content of the following article to be of great importance to we pre-February 2008 FSW applicants, I have not highlighted any particular sentence or paragraph this time.

Ottawa's immigration backlog wipeout illegal, lawyers argue before Federal Court

Nicholas Keung, Immigration Reporter, Published on Thursday January 17, 2013

The Federal Court has been asked to strike down legislation passed by the Conservative government last year to wipe out immigration backlogs because it breaches the Charter of Rights and the rule of law.

Lawyers representing 1,000 people affected by the move to toss out nearly 98,000 immigration applications allege that the Tory government had discriminated based on the national origins of the applicants.

While Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has the power to set priorities and policies, he must apply the rules equally, consistently and fairly, argued lawyers for the litigants, some of whom had waited in the immigrant queue for as long as eight years.

The court heard this week that 81.4 per cent of the files in the skilled worker backlog that were tossed out by Ottawa under the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act were from Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

“The backlog was not a function of volume (of applications),” said Mario Bellissimo, one of nine lawyers on the case. “It was a policy choice.”

On Feb. 28, 2008, Kenney launched so-called “ministerial instructions” to restrict eligibility for the skilled worker program to candidates in specific occupations. The new and old files were to be processed simultaneously. The backlog then was 229,457 files, representing 640,813 people.

In June, when the move to wipe out the backlog took effect, the remaining 97,715 cases, representing 278,391 people — all of them in the queue before Feb. 28, 2008 — were simply thrown out.

Government lawyer Keith Reimer argued that the lawsuit boiled down to “who gets to control Canada's immigration program.”

“The government is entitled to change the law and control Canada's immigration program,” said Reimer, adding that eliminating the backlog was crucial to a “just-in-time” system that responds to Canada's labour market needs.

Instead of long delays, skilled immigrants can benefit from quicker processing and better prospects from new, targeted selection criteria, he noted.

However, Justice Donald Rennie questioned why the backlog and just-in-time approach had to be “mutually exclusive” and warned Reimer to focus his arguments on the new law's benefits to Canada.

“I hope you are not taking a paternalistic approach to immigrants,” Rennie said.

Lawyer Matthew Jeffery said Kenney must follow the rule of law and cannot use his ministerial power to shield “arbitrary state action.”

“Ethically, he's in the wrong,” Jeffery told Rennie. “There is a clear and obvious unfairness here.”

Immigration department flip-flops on backlogs did not help, lawyers said.

Kenney initially ordered that all applications in the backlog would be terminated as of March 29, 2012, when the plan was announced. The cutoff was changed to June 29 after a legal challenge, because the bill had not become law at that time.

Lawyer Lorne Waldman said processing of the “terminated” applications had been inconsistent, with some being processed even when they did not have a selection decision before the old cutoff, and others offered permanent resident visas on humanitarian grounds.

The affected applicants were entitled to the right of notice, or they should be granted exemption on humanitarian grounds, Waldman said.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1316674--ottawa-s-immigration-backlog-wipeout-illegal-lawyers-argue-before-federal-court

 

[warmest]

Dear Warmest,
what is ur expert opinion now keep in view the expected judgment for litigants as well as for non litigants?

Dear jevan,

I think Justice Rennie will strike down the law (Bill C-50, s. 87.4) saying it is unlawful and unconstitutional. He will then order the government to quickly process all the warehoused applications. His ruling will benefit all the pre-February 2008 FSW applicants (even if they are not litigants).

In addition Justice Rennie, by not certifying any question of the government, will stop the government from appealing his decision in a higher court. So, that will be the 'dead-end' for the government in this case.

After Justice Rennie delivers his verdict, the prosecution lawyers (about 12 lawyers representing around 2000 litigants) will each move a motion for their clients in the court asking the court to direct the government (that is, CIC) to process their client's applications on a priority basis. The prosecution lawyers will do this just because it was the litigants who stood up for their rights and approached the courts and hence the litigants should be the first beneficiary of a favourable ruling.

 

[tuyen]

He will then order the government to quickly process all the warehoused applications.

And if he does that, do you know what will happen? A bunch of "rejected" stamps will be slapped on the majority of the applications. That's the only possible way that CIC can "quickly process" 260,000 applications - with swift and severe rejections on a mass scale. And when that happens, you won't have any further course of action or complaint, because CIC did exactly as they were told: they PROCESSED the applications. Hope you'll be happy.

In addition Justice Rennie, by not certifying any question of the government, will stop the government from appealing his decision in a higher court. So, that will be the 'dead-end' for the government in this case.

LOL
I've seen a lot of wishful thinking in this thread, but THAT has got to be the best one yet.

 

[Knight_Crusader]

I think the arguments of the litigants group has been widely reported here. The whole discussion here is one sided and a victory cannot be deciphered with just that.
I think the arguments of DOJ and the judge's remarks for the same have not been reported much yet.

Also, I appreciate what David Cohen , just said Whether we ultimately win or lose this case, all participating counsel should be commended. unlike a certain Mr T*m L***y who ate up all the money of the litigants after threats of 'arrow' attacks and an assurance of win and finally decided to back out of this one. May be he is in vegas now, blowing all the money or like some one rightly said, doing up his litigants sponsored new house

Atlease these guys 'tried' !

 

[Gaber1]

Tim clients, Cheers. He has bought a new House. Courtesy poor & cheated litigants.

 

[ofonzo]

The verdict would be out in a short while and whatever we say here will have no impact on the outcome.
It must have been a rollercoaster ride for the litigants and I can only wish them well. It takes courage to stand up for what you believe in.
Best regards

 

[Johnny31]

Hi,

I have been going through the posts and it has been good news through out. However the final verdict will decide the outcome of the pre Feb 2008 applicants.

By the way shouldn't our status in the e-cas be changed from Decision Made to some other status till the court case is proceeding? Or is this only applicable to those people who are actual litigants?

The only statuses that will appear on e-cas regardless of lawsuit or not are "Application Received, In-Process, and Decision Made"

 

[rajeshchoy]

The only statuses that will appear on e-cas regardless of lawsuit or not are "Application Received, In-Process, and Decision Made"

Dear Jonny,

In my case, from 'Inprocess' it changed to 'Decision made'.
Since yesterday the status has changed to blank (Disappeared).
Ref-April 2007 applicant.

 

[Johnny31]

Dear Jonny,

In my case, from 'Inprocess' it changed to 'Decision made'.
Since yesterday the status has changed to blank (Disappeared).
Ref-April 2007 applicant.

Yea, that happens sometime. Not sure what that means.

 

[noon]

rajeshchoy,
Do you belong to new delhi visa office or singapore?

 

[can88da]

Dear jevan,

I think Justice Rennie will strike down the law (Bill C-50, s. 87.4) saying it is unlawful and unconstitutional. He will then order the government to quickly process all the warehoused applications. His ruling will benefit all the pre-February 2008 FSW applicants (even if they are not litigants).

In addition Justice Rennie, by not certifying any question of the government, will stop the government from appealing his decision in a higher court. So, that will be the 'dead-end' for the government in this case.

After Justice Rennie delivers his verdict, the prosecution lawyers (about 12 lawyers representing around 2000 litigants) will each move a motion for their clients in the court asking the court to direct the government (that is, CIC) to process their client's applications on a priority basis. The prosecution lawyers will do this just because it was the litigants who stood up for their rights and approached the courts and hence the litigants should be the first beneficiary of a favourable ruling.

Surely hope that the result of the case is a positive verdict however one question that comes to mind is will the pre Feb 2008 applications be processed according to the old rules or the new rules in the event the judge orders CIC to go through each application? If they are according to the old rules then nearly all applicants may be processed however if they are according to the new rules then very few people may get approved.
My personal opinion is that the "certified question(s)" may become more important as any future legal battle with the CIC may be dependent on the answer of these questions.

 

[can88da]

OMG!

I tried logging into the CIC website today and I get this page. Where are my details?

Have I been deleted? Help !!!

We were not able to identify you using the information you provided. There could be three possible reasons:

Please be sure the information you entered is correct and then try again.
This service is only available to clients with applications in process. We may have received your application but not begun processing it yet. The following link may help you determine if your application is being processed:
Application Processing Times
At this time, you may use this on-line service if you have:
sponsored a member of the family class;
applied for permanent residence from within or outside Canada;
applied for a permanent resident card (replacement or renewal);
applied for Canadian citizenship (grant of citizenship);
applied for Canadian citizenship for a person adopted by a Canadian citizen (on or after January 1, 1947);
applied for a citizenship certificate (proof of Canadian citizenship);
applied to renounce Canadian citizenship; or
applied to resume Canadian citizenship.