Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit
- Thread starter admin
- Start date
Thanks PMM!
I read the ruling by Justice Phelan. I can understand and see through all the things that are going on. I know I am nobody and I cannot change anything in the process of law or litigation that is going on between applicants/litigants and CIC/Government of Canada.
But there are certain things which I want to bring to the notice of the people involved with all this.
It is clear that there was delay in the processing of the pre-February 2008 applications and that the delay was not due the fault or con-compliance on the part of the applicants. If an applicant applied according to the rules set by the CIC, only then his application was received and his payment was accepted. Now, after the application has been accepted into the system, the applicant is not allowed to do any enquiry till he is called by the visa officer of CIC until the estimated time for processing shown on the CIC website has surpassed and that time keeps on changing.
It is also clear that terminating the pre-February 2008 applicants' files without assessment is unfair. If after 4 to 8 years of application, no assessment has been done or no decision has been made by the visa officer, it is due to their departmental delay & due to the reasons well known to them. The applicant is not responsible for that at all. If he would have been called in the first month of application, he would have submitted the required documents and would have fulfilled all the formalities for sure within the stipulated time. Appicants have not failed or refused to fulfill the formalities by their stipulated date! They are not the cause of the delay or indecision!
It is unfair and wrong on the part of CIC in making a law in the parliament that those applications are terminated by the law if they were not assessed and no decision was made by the visa officer till a particular date because it was not any failure or fault on the part of the applicant. It is unfair on the part of legal system to allow anybody to do this type of unfairness with anybody.
If their system has failed they should correct it. It is like if software gets hanged up and does not respond you break the hardware. If a doctor has admitted a patient and has failed to treat him till a date, will the court accept a law which says that hospital administration should not say anything to the doctor, but discharge the patient without treatment. If a criminal case is pending in a court and decision is not made by any judge for 4 to 8 years, will the court allow that they make a law in the parliament that they can dismiss the case and let the criminal scot free or punish him without trial!
Then why the law allows CIC to frame a law in the parliament to terminate applicants without assessing and processing due to the departmental delay by the CIC. How is framing 87.4(1) acceptable by the law in spite of knowing the unfairness behind all this? They say that the termination of those files may be unfair to the applicants but is not illegal because it is according to the law framed in the parliament. This means in Canada anyone can be unfair to any degree to anybody else but it should be within legal limits. Then what is the definition of law!
Or the courts or judges are no-brainers and are compelled to just follow what has been passed in the parliament and the parliament can pass anything which is convenient or beneficial for them and is supported by their majority! They are not concerned with this thing that how and why a law was framed and this type of law is fair or unfair to anybody!
They have started a new trend that any future bill can override the previous bill and ignore any previous agreements or accords! Then, another bill should be passed next time or as soon as possible that any unfair law should be struck down immediately! Then 87.4(1) of Bill C-38 can also be struck down by the future Bills! If a law of unfairness can be passed then why not a law of fairness be passed; which breaks the previous law of unfairness!
Can Federal Court of Appeal or Supreme Court of Canada see through the unfairness and struck down any law supporting such unfairness or it is also helpless and obliged to follow blindly the written words?
Then what is the use of the courts if they are not above all and cannot do anything against unfairness! Whatever is passed in the parliament should be accepted by all and all the courts should be shut down forever! All the lawyers and judges should take rest or go and become the parliamentarians!
I read the ruling by Justice Phelan. I can understand and see through all the things that are going on. I know I am nobody and I cannot change anything in the process of law or litigation that is going on between applicants/litigants and CIC/Government of Canada.
But there are certain things which I want to bring to the notice of the people involved with all this.
It is clear that there was delay in the processing of the pre-February 2008 applications and that the delay was not due the fault or con-compliance on the part of the applicants. If an applicant applied according to the rules set by the CIC, only then his application was received and his payment was accepted. Now, after the application has been accepted into the system, the applicant is not allowed to do any enquiry till he is called by the visa officer of CIC until the estimated time for processing shown on the CIC website has surpassed and that time keeps on changing.
It is also clear that terminating the pre-February 2008 applicants' files without assessment is unfair. If after 4 to 8 years of application, no assessment has been done or no decision has been made by the visa officer, it is due to their departmental delay & due to the reasons well known to them. The applicant is not responsible for that at all. If he would have been called in the first month of application, he would have submitted the required documents and would have fulfilled all the formalities for sure within the stipulated time. Appicants have not failed or refused to fulfill the formalities by their stipulated date! They are not the cause of the delay or indecision!
It is unfair and wrong on the part of CIC in making a law in the parliament that those applications are terminated by the law if they were not assessed and no decision was made by the visa officer till a particular date because it was not any failure or fault on the part of the applicant. It is unfair on the part of legal system to allow anybody to do this type of unfairness with anybody.
If their system has failed they should correct it. It is like if software gets hanged up and does not respond you break the hardware. If a doctor has admitted a patient and has failed to treat him till a date, will the court accept a law which says that hospital administration should not say anything to the doctor, but discharge the patient without treatment. If a criminal case is pending in a court and decision is not made by any judge for 4 to 8 years, will the court allow that they make a law in the parliament that they can dismiss the case and let the criminal scot free or punish him without trial!
Then why the law allows CIC to frame a law in the parliament to terminate applicants without assessing and processing due to the departmental delay by the CIC. How is framing 87.4(1) acceptable by the law in spite of knowing the unfairness behind all this? They say that the termination of those files may be unfair to the applicants but is not illegal because it is according to the law framed in the parliament. This means in Canada anyone can be unfair to any degree to anybody else but it should be within legal limits. Then what is the definition of law!
Or the courts or judges are no-brainers and are compelled to just follow what has been passed in the parliament and the parliament can pass anything which is convenient or beneficial for them and is supported by their majority! They are not concerned with this thing that how and why a law was framed and this type of law is fair or unfair to anybody!
They have started a new trend that any future bill can override the previous bill and ignore any previous agreements or accords! Then, another bill should be passed next time or as soon as possible that any unfair law should be struck down immediately! Then 87.4(1) of Bill C-38 can also be struck down by the future Bills! If a law of unfairness can be passed then why not a law of fairness be passed; which breaks the previous law of unfairness!
Can Federal Court of Appeal or Supreme Court of Canada see through the unfairness and struck down any law supporting such unfairness or it is also helpless and obliged to follow blindly the written words?
Then what is the use of the courts if they are not above all and cannot do anything against unfairness! Whatever is passed in the parliament should be accepted by all and all the courts should be shut down forever! All the lawyers and judges should take rest or go and become the parliamentarians!
You probably should go and study the Canadian Government with particular emphasis on the roles of the Legislature versus the Judiciary. It would seem that you don't understand it.
GUYS i worked for a small demoltion company as a forman
for like two years i figured out noc code wise im ok but what
about paper stuff do i have to show off LMO and i dont
have all pay checks several times i work self employed and
i threw some away. i have also some tax returns shall i show
that too? .. best regards baktash from Germany
for like two years i figured out noc code wise im ok but what
about paper stuff do i have to show off LMO and i dont
have all pay checks several times i work self employed and
i threw some away. i have also some tax returns shall i show
that too? .. best regards baktash from Germany
Actually I wanted a response from PMM for my previous message!
Okay thanks Zardoz!
I want to know the opinions of all senior members of this blog. You are also one of them!
What does this mean?
Bill C-38 Section 87.4(3) The fact that an application is terminated under subsection (1) does not constitute a decision not to issue a permanent resident visa.
And you know subsection (1) is as follows:
Bill C-38 Section 87.4(1) An application by a foreign national for a permanent resident visa as a member of the prescribed class of federal skilled workers that was made before February 27, 2008 is terminated if, before March 29, 2012, it has not been established by an officer, in accordance with the regulations, whether the applicant meets the selection criteria and other requirements appli-cable to that class.
Please clarify!
Also, I want to ask:
Can Section 87.4(1) of Bill C-38 be challenged in a future parliamentary session or in higher courts and ultimately be struck down? Can a section of a Bill be amended or struck down if it is unfair to any person or group of persons? Or if it was framed with intent of being unfair to them? Has any section of any bill of IRPA been challenged and amended or struck down in the past?
If no, why? Then what is the use of appeal in Federal Court?
If yes, why and how?
Thanks!
Okay thanks Zardoz!
I want to know the opinions of all senior members of this blog. You are also one of them!
What does this mean?
Bill C-38 Section 87.4(3) The fact that an application is terminated under subsection (1) does not constitute a decision not to issue a permanent resident visa.
And you know subsection (1) is as follows:
Bill C-38 Section 87.4(1) An application by a foreign national for a permanent resident visa as a member of the prescribed class of federal skilled workers that was made before February 27, 2008 is terminated if, before March 29, 2012, it has not been established by an officer, in accordance with the regulations, whether the applicant meets the selection criteria and other requirements appli-cable to that class.
Please clarify!
Also, I want to ask:
Can Section 87.4(1) of Bill C-38 be challenged in a future parliamentary session or in higher courts and ultimately be struck down? Can a section of a Bill be amended or struck down if it is unfair to any person or group of persons? Or if it was framed with intent of being unfair to them? Has any section of any bill of IRPA been challenged and amended or struck down in the past?
If no, why? Then what is the use of appeal in Federal Court?
If yes, why and how?
Thanks!
It means nothing more than a "negative decision" was NOT made, thereby not prejudicing any future applications from that applicant. It's saying that NO decision was made at all and that the application was essentially withdrawn.
OK, the second section means that if processing of an existing application had not already proceeded to a certain point, it would be included in the list of those to be terminated.
Finally, Laws are made by the Legislature. They can make any law that they like, as long as it doesn't conflict with established International Law. They could, if they so chose, make a law that required everybody to wear a hat on Sundays between 08:00 and 22:00. They could, if they so chose, make the penalty for failing to wear that hat, life imprisonment. (reductio ad absurdum).
The Judiciary are there to interpret, apply and enforce the laws. They also resolve legal conflicts, where laws appear to clash. The normal rule is that later laws overrule earlier laws.
This is extremely simplified by the way. It's actually much more complicated than this. As I said, some study might be a good idea.
Finally, Laws are made by the Legislature. They can make any law that they like, as long as it doesn't conflict with established International Law. They could, if they so chose, make a law that required everybody to wear a hat on Sundays between 08:00 and 22:00. They could, if they so chose, make the penalty for failing to wear that hat, life imprisonment. (reductio ad absurdum).
The Judiciary are there to interpret, apply and enforce the laws. They also resolve legal conflicts, where laws appear to clash. The normal rule is that later laws overrule earlier laws.
This is extremely simplified by the way. It's actually much more complicated than this. As I said, some study might be a good idea.
Thanks Zardoz!
I was asking:
Can Section 87.4(1) of Bill C-38 be challenged in a future parliamentary session or in higher courts and ultimately be struck down? Can a section of a Bill be amended or struck down if it is unfair to any person or group of persons? Or if it was framed with intent of being unfair to them? Has any section of any bill of IRPA been challenged and amended or struck down in the past?
If no, why? Then what is the use of appeal in Federal Court?
If yes, then what is the process and what are the chances of success?
Regards!
I was asking:
Can Section 87.4(1) of Bill C-38 be challenged in a future parliamentary session or in higher courts and ultimately be struck down? Can a section of a Bill be amended or struck down if it is unfair to any person or group of persons? Or if it was framed with intent of being unfair to them? Has any section of any bill of IRPA been challenged and amended or struck down in the past?
If no, why? Then what is the use of appeal in Federal Court?
If yes, then what is the process and what are the chances of success?
Regards!
I answered that with
So, yes. But that's nothing to do with the Federal Court. They are there in support of the laws that are already in existence.zardoz said:
msaeed
VIP Member
- Nov 7, 2012
- 178
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- LVO
- NOC Code......
- 0111
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 18-11-2009
- VISA ISSUED...
- الحمد لله رب العالمين - 27-06-2014
- LANDED..........
- الحمد لله رب العالمين March 28, 2015.
SirDramebaaz said:
Lawyers are not challenging this bill on moral high grounds, they are claiming relief.
Any bill that is passed by parliament becomes law.
Like Gay marriages are never permitted y any religion nor by general social traditions , but some parliaments permit this.
Stay Blessed
May Al Mighty help you and your family , now & always.
Stay Blessed
Thanks Msaeed for your concern and best wishes! Same to you Sir!msaeed said:
It seems to me that CIC and immigration minister have got Bill C-38 passed and nobody can challenge it through higher courts to change it or strike it down. Inspite of intent behind its passing and inspite of its being unfair; it is here to stay.
The pre-February 2008 FSW applicants will never get their terminated applications re-instated and re-opened or processed in future by any proceedings of appeals in Federal or higher courts. It is just wastage of time and money for the applicants and litigants now!
There is no hope for the applicants who are not litgants even! There is no use even waiting and watching! There is no use discussing this closed chapter again and again in this forum also!
They should just forget it like a dream or nightmare! They should wake up and plan for their future afresh!
Best wishes for them all!
If there is no hope from the Canadian courts, then I suggest we files cases of immigration fraud in the courts of respective countries and claim a compensation that would make the termination of our files futile.
Who would you file against? You have zero chance against the Canadian embassies or high commissions.st-cnncomes said: