Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[st-cnncomes]

Ok, I suppose it all comes down to interpretation .I wonder how the judge will read it. This new law, was passed by a free and democratically elected representatives . The problem with this is, its very vague and I feel the lawyers use it to their benefit to rope in more litigants. The first point made my maran1976 , that I have underlined makes more sense to me.

In the process of abiding by Canadian law one cannot overide their responibilites to the applicants who have been waiting in the queue after submitting all required doc, paying a fee and receiving a file number from CIC in accordance with the procedural rules laid down by CIC.

 

[wounderful]

from the other forum it is found that there are three kind of applicants

1. Applicants with Ecase "In Process"
2. Applicants with Ecase "Blank"
3. Applicants with Ecase "Not Accessable"

Can any one comments what will be the reason behind it ? I belong to No. 2

 

[maran1976]

In the process of abiding by Canadian law one cannot overide their responibilites to the applicants who have been waiting in the queue after submitting all required doc, paying a fee and receiving a file number from CIC in accordance with the procedural rules laid down by CIC.

says who ? the lawyers who interpreted the charter? What happened cannot be justified. But I agree with Kenny on that harsh steps were the only solution for reforms.

I don't wish to argue with any one. Tomorrow if Kenny terminates the remaining MI1 as the occupations are not in demand (Its been 3 years since I applied, understand that pain of backloggers who have been waiting 8+ yrs), I will not be up in arms. Although it is unfair (coz he shoul know how much he can chew) but was necessary. Thousands like me, will find it difficult to have a break in their career if the occupations are not in demand. I suppose, they dont want an UK like situation where docs/phds work in corner stores and gas stations.

 

[tuyen]

They have infringed on our rights, by paying a fee and getting a receipt we have a right to believe we have made the payment for someting. What is that SOMETHING ? Do you give a fee for nothing ?

The payment was to process your application. Now that your application is not being processed, your payment is being returned to you.

Really, it's not rocket science.

 

[so_wa12]

from the other forum it is found that there are three kind of applicants

1. Applicants with Ecase "In Process"
2. Applicants with Ecase "Blank"
3. Applicants with Ecase "Not Accessable"

hello
I suppose they chenged all " in process" to "Decision made" not to be compled to return our fee without even assess our application! it means we are rejected not canceled / just maybe maybe

 

[sac]

Below is the latest update from Counsel Leahy


Good day,

As some of you have noted, Justice Rennie has directed counsel involved in challenging the the closure of the FSW files to address the issue of whether the Charter (Bill of Rights) applies to those not residing in Canada. Written arguments are due February 22nd and any reply, March 1st. Thus, the decision from the January 14th-16th hearing will not come until mid-March at the earliest. (See http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=IMM-5635-12)

While you undoubtedly are disappointed at the delay, the news is actually positive because it implies that Justice Rennie is prepared to strike down s. 87.4 if he can be persuaded that Charter rights protect anyone dealing with the Government of Canada (in any of its guises) irrespective of where they reside. I am far from being an expert in Canadian constitutional law. However, I remember being taught that, unlike US constitutional rights (which apply only to those within the borders of the US), the Canadian Charter of Rights applies to Canadian officials wherever they are acting in their official capacity. (Besides, some of the FSW applicants are already residing in Canada, in which case, they enjoy Charter rights.) So, I am somewhat puzzled that, what I thought was clear, Justice Rennie wants argued before him because I am confident that he is far better versed in Charter law than I am.

Is he doing so because he questions the extend of the Charter's reach or because he wants to write a decision addressing this potential challenge to his decision and wants to be current on the issue? I do not know. However, whichever, if he were prepared to dismiss the case, he would not be asking for further arguments. He would just rule in CIC's faour. So, while the delay is disappointing, Justice Rennie's having revealed his inclination to rule against the Minister in this case is good news for everyone except the Minister and his allies.

Regards,

Tim

 

[tuyen]

While you undoubtedly are disappointed at the delay, the news is actually positive because it implies that Justice Rennie is prepared to strike down s. 87.4 if he can be persuaded that Charter rights protect anyone dealing with the Government of Canada (in any of its guises) irrespective of where they reside.

Or, it could've been Justice Rennie's way of politely asking the lawyers, "What are you guys smoking? How could you even THINK that Canada's constitution would be applied to people who have never even set foot into Canada??"

So, I am somewhat puzzled that, what I thought was clear, Justice Rennie wants argued before him because I am confident that he is far better versed in Charter law than I am.

Apparently, Tim also seems to be puzzled by the fact that lawyers are required to pay for insurance, as well as being puzzled by the fact that they need to cooperate with an investigation when documents are being requested of them.

Is he doing so because he questions the extend of the Charter's reach or because he wants to write a decision addressing this potential challenge to his decision and wants to be current on the issue? I do not know. However, whichever, if he were prepared to dismiss the case, he would not be asking for further arguments. He would just rule in CIC's faour.

Not necessarily. He could still rule in CIC's favour, after giving the lawyers their chance to humiliate themselves with ridiculous arguments about how the Canadian constitution should be applied to everyone in the world. That way, he can rule in CIC's favour while at the same time making it obvious to the litigants and their lawyers that he gave them every possible avenue to argue their case fairly.

 

[maran1976]

Tuyen, you forget, Tim is psychic ! He has seen the future.

 

[tuyen]

Tuyen, you forget, Tim is psychic ! He has seen the future.

Oh he's definitely a special person...

 

[belitang]

Below is the latest update from Counsel Leahy


Good day,

As some of you have noted, Justice Rennie has directed counsel involved in challenging the the closure of the FSW files to address the issue of whether the Charter (Bill of Rights) applies to those not residing in Canada. Written arguments are due February 22nd and any reply, March 1st. Thus, the decision from the January 14th-16th hearing will not come until mid-March at the earliest. (See http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=IMM-5635-12)

While you undoubtedly are disappointed at the delay, the news is actually positive because it implies that Justice Rennie is prepared to strike down s. 87.4 if he can be persuaded that Charter rights protect anyone dealing with the Government of Canada (in any of its guises) irrespective of where they reside. I am far from being an expert in Canadian constitutional law. However, I remember being taught that, unlike US constitutional rights (which apply only to those within the borders of the US), the Canadian Charter of Rights applies to Canadian officials wherever they are acting in their official capacity. (Besides, some of the FSW applicants are already residing in Canada, in which case, they enjoy Charter rights.) So, I am somewhat puzzled that, what I thought was clear, Justice Rennie wants argued before him because I am confident that he is far better versed in Charter law than I am.

Is he doing so because he questions the extend of the Charter's reach or because he wants to write a decision addressing this potential challenge to his decision and wants to be current on the issue? I do not know. However, whichever, if he were prepared to dismiss the case, he would not be asking for further arguments. He would just rule in CIC's faour. So, while the delay is disappointing, Justice Rennie's having revealed his inclination to rule against the Minister in this case is good news for everyone except the Minister and his allies.

Regards,

Tim

Frankly Speaking, reading this message, I am questioning that Tim is a lawyer, or, maybe, it was not written by Tim himself. The message seems try to influence the reader that Justice Rennie is intense to strict down the law. Following the statements that are really questioning:
"Justice Rennie is prepared to strike down s. 87.4"
"Justice Rennie's having revealed his inclination to rule against the Minister"
The message try to say that actually Justice Rennie is not neutral...???? :-\

 

[plaran]

The applicants are not in Canada but the minister is there and the constitution is applied to him. For exapmle a Canadian doctor can't prescribe marijuana for a person with mental disorder living outside Canada saying negative things to attract other's attention (for example one in this forum) without being charged. If applicants didn't have any rights they would not be able to even have the right to have representatives to sue the government. The applicants for immigration to Newzealand did the same when the NZ government decided to eliminate the backlog and the court rulling was in favour of them pretty boy.

 

[Sujman]

I do not agee with the comment on Judge`s neutrality a post before above. Judge has called the matter for argument as he is a neutral person. Both parties ahs given equall opportunity to justify their case and judge will take final decision based on facts. We ahve to wait some more time for the judgement

 

[tuyen]

The applicants are not in Canada but the minister is there and the constitution is applied to him.

Yes, but the lawsuit is based partly on the fact that Canada's constitution should be applied to people scattered all over the world. By definition, that very notion is idiotic.

The applicants for immigration to Newzealand did the same when the NZ government decided to eliminate the backlog and the court rulling was in favour of them pretty boy.

ROFL

Okay then.

P.S. Of the people who sued the New Zealand government, how many of them actually made it INTO New Zealand after the lawsuit?

 

[noon]

The applicants are not in Canada but the minister is there and the constitution is applied to him. For exapmle a Canadian doctor can't prescribe marijuana for a person with mental disorder living outside Canada saying negative things to attract other's attention (for example one in this forum) without being charged. If applicants didn't have any rights they would not be able to even have the right to have representatives to sue the government. The applicants for immigration to Newzealand did the same when the NZ government decided to eliminate the backlog and the court rulling was in favour of them pretty boy.

Here lies the point. I congratulate you plaran. Minister is a Canadian and he used his powers to frame a law that is against Canadian charter. Also the applicants filed applications under Canadian rules and paid in Canadian dollars. Minister cannot do anything against Canadian constitution.

 

[tuyen]

Minister is a Canadian and he used his powers to frame a law that is against Canadian charter.

Just because YOU think that, doesn't make it so.

Ultimately, that determination will be made by the Supreme Court a few years from today.