Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[tuyen]

When I applied to immigrate to Canada back in 2007, the Canadian Skilled Worker Application guide that was provided by C.I.C states the following:

"There is currently a queue of federal skilled worker applications, creating a delay of several years. In order to avoid asking applicants to submit updated supporting documentation more than once, the Simplified Application Process has been introduced.
Under this process, applicants submit only a basic application form and fee. This guarantees a place in the processing queue, meaning that the regulations in effect on that date will apply to the application".

Perhaps I, like the other applicants were naive to assume that C.I.C's definition of the word guarantee was different to those of us that put our trust in the immigration administration.

Hi..

No, I don't think you were naive. I just think you misinterpreted what was being said. The wording that you quoted says that they will guarantee you a place in the queue with the simplified application. In other words, they will put you into the queue even without the original long application that was required up to that time. So as far as the wording goes, CIC kept their end of the deal. They put you into the queue with a simplified application.

My argument - as well as CIC's argument in court - is that they are able to enact new rules or change old ones when it's suitable or necessary. And their reasoning is that with a backlog of hundreds of thousands of applications resulting in several years of waiting, the only feasible way to fix the system is to clear the queue.

I actually wish they would go with a different - and much stronger - argument that they have to clear that queue because Canada's current economy simply can't absorb all those extra people when there's already 10% of the population without jobs. This is without a doubt the real reason why they're doing it, but they don't want to admit it publicly because they fear it will scare foreign investors, which would then result in even more problems for the Canadian economy.

 

[Johnny31]

Canada's current economy simply can't absorb all those extra people when there's already 10% of the population without jobs.

Agreed. Got to work harder on training Canadians to be able to qualify for jobs with/without education.

 

[UK.SkilledWorker]

Hi Tuyen

I agree that the C.I.C statement guarantees a place in the queue, but it also mentions that the regulations in effect on that date would apply to the application.

Indeed, I have another letter from C.I.C that states “procedural fairness requires that applications must be assessed in the order which they are received”.

What happened to procedural fairness?

 

[maran1976]

TBH , I feel the Judiciary should not involve in the working of the immigration department of any country, unless that country has a judicial tribunal in place to hear asylum appeals etc.
If the Canadian Parliament has given the rights to the minister why should the judiciary involve ! Isn't the the job of the judiciary to uphold the laws ?

 

[tuyen]

Hi Tuyen

Indeed, I have another letter from C.I.C that states “procedural fairness requires that applications must be assessed in the order which they are received”.

What happened to procedural fairness?

As I already said, I have absolutely no doubt that this whole thing seems completely unfair to anyone who was affected by it.

But procedural fairness must, during extenuating circumstances, give way to common sense.

For example, if you get an invitation to be part of a select group of people to come and be part of a super early-bird sale at the mall, of course you will probably want to go. The invitation says to show up three hours before normal opening hours, so by 5 o'clock in the morning, there's already a bunch of people lined up who got the same invitation as you. And after everyone waits for a couple hours, somebody comes to greet you and tells you he's sorry, but the sale has been cancelled, because in the middle of the night there was a fire that destroyed half the mall. Did they break their word? Yes, of course. Are people going to be sad, disappointed, and angry? Most probably. But there were extenuating circumstances which necessitated the change of plans, and it wouldn't really be reasonable to sue the mall for cancelling the event, given what happened.

 

[tuyen]

TBH , I feel the Judiciary should not involve in the working of the immigration department of any country, unless that country has a judicial tribunal in place to hear asylum appeals etc.
If the Canadian Parliament has given the rights to the minister why should the judiciary involve ! Isn't the the job of the judiciary to uphold the laws ?

In a sane system, you'd be absolutely right. Unfortunately, Canada is a country where - much like in the U.S. - the lawyers love to inject themselves into everything, especially when they see an opportunity to make money whether they win or lose. Then on top of that, we also have some judges who love to legislate from the bench, even though that is NOT their role. Rather than upholding the law, some of them love to create their own laws with their gavels. This is especially true with judges who are appointed, rather than elected, and they basically can do whatever they want because they're not afraid of losing their jobs if the voters see them as overstepping their bounds. Once a federal judge is appointed to the bench, he or she knows that they will have that position until the age of 75 (or age 70 for provincial judges). It's one of the greatest travesties in the Canadian legal system.

 

[hopeful4]

This is the last e mail from Tim
Good Day,

On Monday afternoon, all counsel involved in the FSW litigation are scheduled to meet with Justice Rennie, who presided over the June hearing and was selected to preside over the January 14th-16th hearing. At this point there are at least nine groups. (A tenth which is exclusively for those assessed after March 29th, requested on November 29th to be included.) On Tuesday morning, we will have a tele-conference with Justice Barnes, the managing judge. No agenda has been provided. I will let you know the results of both conferences -- most likely on Tuesday afternoon (Toronto time).

Regards,

Tim

 

[kau_shik_patel]

Good Day,


On Monday afternoon, all counsel involved in the FSW litigation are scheduled to meet with Justice Rennie, who presided over the June hearing and was selected to preside over the January 14th-16th hearing. At this point there are at least nine groups. (A tenth which is exclusively for those assessed after March 29th, requested on November 29th to be included.) On Tuesday morning, we will have a tele-conference with Justice Barnes, the managing judge. No agenda has been provided. I will let you know the results of both conferences -- most likely on Tuesday afternoon (Toronto time).


Regards,


Tim

 

[kau_shik_patel]

Latest Entry in IMM-7502-11

Oral directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 06-DEC-2012 directing that a teleconference be scheduled for 11-DEC-2012 at 4:00PM to discuss recent correspondence with all counsel. received on 06-DEC-2012.

 

[kau_shik_patel]

Latest Entry in IMM-7502-11.

Letter from RESPONDENT, DOJ TO THE COURT AND APPLICANT dated 06-DEC-2012 PLEASE PLACE LETTER BEFORE COURT IN ADVANCE OF PHC ON DEC 10/12; SEEKING CLARITY. received on 07-DEC-2012

 

[kau_shik_patel]

Latest Entry in IMM-8747-12

Applicant's Further Affidavit with indication of service upon Respondent on 07-DEC-2012 filed on 07-DEC-2012.

 

[kau_shik_patel]

Latest Entry in IMM-8747-12

Covering letter from Applicant-Mr Waldman dated 07-DEC-2012 concerning Doc. No. 29 with proof of service upon Respondent on 07-DEC-2012 placed on file on 07-DEC-2012

 

[kau_shik_patel]

Latest Entry in IMM-6165-12

Affidavit of Xiao Ming Zheng on behalf of the applicant sworn on 04-DEC-2012 in support of Doc #1 app for leave filed on 05-DEC-2012 with proof of service on the respondent

 

[kau_shik_patel]

Latest Entry in IMM-6165-12

Affidavit of Edna Chu on behalf of the applicant sworn on 05-DEC-2012 in support of Doc #1 app for leave with attached exhibit(s) A, filed on 05-DEC-2012 with proof of service on the respondent

 

[kau_shik_patel]

Latest Entry in IMM-6165-12

Affidavit of Edna Chu on behalf of the applicant sworn on 05-DEC-2012 in support of Doc #1 app for leave with attached exhibit(s) A, filed on 05-DEC-2012 with proof of service on the respondent