Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[Jatt_warrior]

We have Lost


Good day,




Rocco finally called me back yesterday afternoon to tell me that Justice Russell ruled against us. (I also reached his assistant, who was home ill, and he said that he'd hoped to get to the office in the afternoon and, if he did, he'd scan it to me.) However, I still do not have a copy of the decision. When I do, I'll send it to you.




Justice Russell has, however, given us a week to propose a "question for certification", which, if he accepts one (or more), will allow the case to be appealed. In order to qualify, (1) the question must be one (a) on which the decision turned; i.e., if the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) rules the opposite of Justice Russell, we will win; and (b) which answer would benefit others in a similar position; and (2) the judge willing to risk having his/her ruling overturned.




Our agreement only covers up to this point. I have already paid Rocco nearly $200,000 to handle this case, the investor case and two other minor cases and, I am sorry to say, do not have the means for paying him what he will want to continue the case. (It will be at least $50,000 to the FCA and, if we have to go to the Supreme Court, $75,000 more.) We have not, however, discussed how much he wants because yesterday he suddenly got off the phone before I could raise that issue and never called me back. So, you need to ask yourself if you're willing to invest further in this project. (If enough of you pay $100 USD, enough money will be raised.)




I am very, very sorry. It's more than disappointing; it's downright disgusting. I, too, was banking on our winning, not only for justice and for your future, but also because I have virtually no income. If I had known in advance that we'd encounter yet another corrupt judge, I would have saved the money I paid Rocco for this case. So, I am nearly as upset as you are.




Until I have read the case, I cannot suggest to Rocco any certified questions; and, only if one is certified, will the issue of an appeal arise. So, you do not need to offer to pay for the appeal yet, but please do think about it. I do not expect that Rocco will file the notice of appeal unless he is first assured of payment.




Sorry,


Tim

 

[Jatt_warrior]

jigs_india
Full Member
***

Posts: 29
Ratings: +0
[Good] [Poor]



*****************************************************************************************************************************
Re: Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit
« Reply #4247 on: August 25, 2014, 01:30:35 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: hopefulever on August 24, 2014, 09:15:49 am
Rest of the cases for which reslt is awaited, will srely be rejected (Tim cases). Be ready to bear a repeat shock.


Tim's turn should be last after all the other are rejected.., we can keep our figures crossed as decision of his litigation should be saviour of Canadian judicial system from being blamed of being biased and favoring CIC
*********************************************************************************************************************************

very truly said by this man.Canadian judicial system is crap and their judges thugs and so is their government.

 

[warmest]

jigs_india
Full Member
***

Posts: 29
Ratings: +0
[Good] [Poor]



*****************************************************************************************************************************
Re: Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit
« Reply #4247 on: August 25, 2014, 01:30:35 pm »
Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: hopefulever on August 24, 2014, 09:15:49 am
Rest of the cases for which reslt is awaited, will srely be rejected (Tim cases). Be ready to bear a repeat shock.


Tim's turn should be last after all the other are rejected.., we can keep our figures crossed as decision of his litigation should be saviour of Canadian judicial system from being blamed of being biased and favoring CIC
*********************************************************************************************************************************

very truly said by this man.Canadian judicial system is crap and their judges thugs and so is their government.

I am upset, as the news of that draft court decision is disappointing and disgusting. Let us wait for Tim Leahy to provide us with a copy of that draft court decision.

Be positive and not lose hope as it is not the end of the road and the journey is not over yet. Our lawyers will help us tide over this adversity with the least discomfort.

In the meantime, I request fellow boarders to NOT pass any harsh comments on the Canadian system, judges and government at this time of our adversity. Let us be magnanimous, true to our culture.

Please keep calm because God has a better plan for us than we do have for ourselves.

 

[jigs_india]

Hi Sir,

We respect your respect for Canada, but now it, should be understood that, even lawyers of this country are having no faith in their judicial system, how can we ???

About this, government too failed for us, when it had to deliver. It opposed previous govt decision to close backlog files, but when ball came to their court they too acted in sameway ...corrupting judge as commented by Tim and getting decision in their favour.


Moral of the story, never trust any Government, as they are run by politcians and they are corrupted everywhere.
Like in our case where they signed an agreement and then they and their judges just threw it away.

One thing, what about that Mr. Liang from China our first lead case......will he be deported ????, s

 

[jigs_india]

One more thing

We should take pride in Judicial system of our country.

It delivers when everybody fails and atleast does not make anybody to sign agreement which it self cannot honour.

 

[Jatt_warrior]

Friends,

No need to be polite with corrupt people. When a Canadian lawyer is using this language ("If I had known in advance that we'd encounter yet another corrupt judge, I would have saved the money I paid Rocco for this case. So, I am nearly as upset as you are."), what stops us to call "thugs" as "Thugs". The judge deliberately took 5 months to deliver this crap verdict. He waited to see the new Government policy towards on going litigations, and on seeing that new government is not interested in closing or withdrawing the past Government cases, he gave the verdict against us. These Canadian judges only toe the line of Government.

I have confirmed Tim that i will pay $100 for Appeal, but honestly, after seeing one litigation after another meeting the same fate, i am not hopeful.

The only reason i have decided to fight is in the hope , that there is a new Government in Place. Our Litigation happened during last Government Tenure, with only Decision delivered during new Government arrival.

 

[Jatt_warrior]

I agree with you Jigs

***********************************************************************************************************
One more thing

We should take pride in Judicial system of our country.

It delivers when everybody fails and atleast does not make anybody to sign agreement which it self cannot honour.

***********************************************************************************************************

 

[Jatt_warrior]

I am upset, as the news of that draft court decision is disappointing and disgusting. Let us wait for Tim Leahy to provide us with a copy of that draft court decision.

Be positive and not lose hope as it is not the end of the road and the journey is not over yet. Our lawyers will help us tide over this adversity with the least discomfort.

In the meantime, I request fellow boarders to NOT pass any harsh comments on the Canadian system, judges and government at this time of our adversity. Let us be magnanimous, true to our culture.

Please keep calm because God has a better plan for us than we do have for ourselves.

I request everyone to agree for appeal. In parallel we all can write to the new Government to honor the agreement of 2012. Anyone among you can draft a letter and address to new Immigration minister. before sending the letter the content can shared with everyone so that everyone agrees. We have to find alternate ways to pressurize the Govt apart from Legal course.

 

[warmest]

Tim Leahy has just now sent me a copy of Justice Russell's draft decision. Tim's email read as follows:
"Attached is the decision Justice Russell issued. I only received it at the end of the day yesterday and have not yet waded through it. After I have, I will give you my analysis of it. In the meantime, if you want to read it, you may. Regards, Tim"

As Justice Russell's draft decision runs to 47 pages, I have only extracted and posted below those portions that you might wish to read.

IV. ISSUES
[15] As argued before me at the hearing of this application, the principal issues to be addressed by this Court are:
1. The enforceability of the Protocol signed by the parties;
2. The applicability and constitutionality of s 87.4 of the Act;
3. Whether the Applicants relied to their detriment on the legitimate expectation that their applications would be processed to completion;
4. Whether the Minister can be compelled by s 25.2 of the Act to process the Applicants' FSW applications;
5. Whether s 87.4 of the Act breaches judicial independence and the Applicants' access to justice rights; and,
6. Whether the application of s 87.4 of the Act is an abuse of process.

VIII. ANALYSIS
A. The Protocol
[43] In my view, then, there is no basis upon which the Court could order mandamus based upon the Protocol alone. The Applicants must convince the Court that either s 87.4 does not apply to their FSW applications or, if it does, that the provision is unconstitutional.
B. Applicability of s 87.4
[50]. It is difficult to see how the Protocol could qualify as a "final determination" of an "application" that was made "on or after March 29, 2012." The Protocol is nothing more than a case management device, created to deal with a large number of cases that have similar legal issues. If it finally determines anything, it determines the process that will be followed to lead to a final determination. It is not a final determination of the "application" and, as I have already discussed, the Protocol contemplates in paragraph 14, the "possible disposition" of remaining cases. In short, I cannot find that s 87.4(2) exempts the Applicants from s 87.4(1).
C. Constitutionality of s 87. 4
[57] Despite the Applicants' insistence that they are raising new constitutional issues to challenge the validity of s 87.4, it seems to me that many of their arguments have already been addressed by this Court and the Federal Court of Appeal so that I am bound to follow and apply those precedents.
D. Omnibus Legislation
[62] There is nothing before me to suggest that Bill C-38 or the Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, SC 2012, c 19 were not enacted in accordance with normal legislative procedures and safeguards.
E. Legitimate Expectations
[65] As Justice Rennie made clear in Liang, above, each application had to be considered on its own merits. Therefore, the decision in Liang could not have given rise to any expectations in the Applicants.
[66] In addition, as I have already discussed, the terms of the Protocol itself refer to "possible disposition" and, in my view, contemplate that, for whatever reasons, it may not be possible to process applications to completion even if these cases provide guidance.
[67] In my view then, the doctrine of legitimate expectations does not arise in this case. As has been pointed out on many occasions, it is, in any event, a procedural doctrine and does not give rise to substantive rights.
F. Subsection 25.2 of the Act
[71] It seems obvious why the Minister would not, and could not, exercise a public policy exemption under s 25.2 in favour of the Applicants. To do so would directly contradict the will of Parliament as embodied ins 87.4(1) which expresses a clear intent to terminate all FSW applications, including the Applicants', that fall within its ambit. The Court cannot now order the Minister to do something that would, in effect, be counter to Parliament's clearly expressed will.
[73] The Applicants are asking the Court to order or direct the Minister to use s 25.2 because, as the section says, to do so would be "justified by public• policy considerations." Public policy considerations are not humanitarian and compassionate considerations and the Court is in no position to second guess or order the Minister to do anything on the basis of public policy.
G. Access to Justice and Judicial Independence
[93] It seems to me that the Applicants' constitutional and judicial independence arguments are masking their real arguments which are that, in deciding these mandamus applications, the Court must ignore the impact of s 87.4, as confirmed by Justice Rennie and the Federal Court of Appeal, and assess the availability of mandamus on the basis of the law as it existed prior to s 87.4 coming into force. In other words, they are asking the Court to disregard the clear will and intent of Parliament. In doing so, they have provided me with no supporting jurisprudence which says I must apply prior law irrespective of Parliament's clear will and intent. The Applicants have simply not established that the Court can, as a matter of law, do what they ask. While the result may appear unfair to some, it is the one that Parliament specifically provided for in plain and ordinary language; it is not the role of the Court to override such an intention.
H. Abuse of Process
[97] At the time of the signing of the Protocol, Bill C-38 had not even been introduced in Parliament and the executive can only act in accordance with existing law. It also seems to me, as already discussed, that the Protocol itself, in paragraph 14, raises future contingencies when it refers to the "possible" disposition of the remaining cases held in abeyance. The Protocol was a case management tool put together to manage the situation in accordance with the law as it existed at that time. There is nothing in it that says it will prevail if the law changes. If that was a concern to the Applicants, they could have addressed it.
[98] Given the vociferous accusations of misconduct on the parts of the Minister and the Court by Applicants' former Counsel that appear throughout the file, it has to be borne in mind that it was he who worked out the Protocol and agreed to the wording, which includes "guided by" and "possible disposition." This is terminology that is not precise and that obviously leaves the door open for future contingencies. I do not say this to criticize former counsel, but merely to point out that both sides were obviously aware that the Protocol could only deal with the law as it stood at the time it was entered into and that the future might change the situation.
[100] Even if the Applicants could establish some form of abuse, the Court could not, as a matter of public interest, grant the relief requested and simply ignore a statutory provision that the Federal Court of Appeal has said terminates "the applications on June 29, 2012" and, after that date, ''the Minister had no legal obligation to continue to process the applications." See Austria, above, at para 100. The Court cannot simply ignore a statutory provision that is directly applicable.

 

[eb_babak]

In my view, the judge was just looking into his pension when ruling, nothing else
Judge has ignored the condition that the parliament has authorized Jason kenney to implement his personal agenda, impacting so many people, hiding it in budget bill.
Anyways, appeal should be a way to go based on Tim's take on this.
Furthermore, a petition should be signed by Canadian resident friends and family members of those who have impacted and given to the parliament
A letter with as many signature as possible should be sent to minister of immigration
And finally,
We should find somebody in a national newspaper to write about this unjust justice and expose how liberals have followed the footsteps of Conservatives.
The main reason this so-called judge tossed around the case and eventually shot it dead was that we did not raise our voice. Judges listen to socity's pulse before ruling.

 

[warmest]

"This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
"It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive." -- Earl Warren
"One can only imagine how effective justice might be if admissible in a court of law." -- Robert Brault
"Law is not justice and a trial is not a scientific inquiry into truth. A trial is the resolution of a dispute." -- Edison Haines
"The law should be a shield for the weak and powerless, not a club for the powerful." -- Gov. Roy Barnes
"The course of justice often prevents it." -- Edward Counsel
"There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts." -- Mahatma Gandhi

 

[warmest]

I hope Tim Leahy and Rocco Galati will modify the questions for certification in such a way that Justice Russell accepts them to allow the case to be appealed.

 

[PMM]

Hi

I hope Tim Leahy and Rocco Galati will modify the questions for certification in such a way that Justice Russell accepts them to allow the case to be appealed.

1. Keep in mind that Tim Leahy has been disbarred as a lawyer.

 

[warmest]

Hi


1. Keep in mind that Tim Leahy has been disbarred as a lawyer.

So what? We clients of Tim Leahy already knew even before you said this for the first time long time ago. Now tell us what is your problem: Tim Leahy or we applicants? By the way, what is at stake for you in this lawsuit? Are you here to derive sadistic pleasure on our difficult situation or misfortune or suffering? Clarify.

 

[warmest]

In my view, the judge was just looking into his pension when ruling, nothing else
Judge has ignored the condition that the parliament has authorized Jason kenney to implement his personal agenda, impacting so many people, hiding it in budget bill.
Anyways, appeal should be a way to go based on Tim's take on this.
Furthermore, a petition should be signed by Canadian resident friends and family members of those who have impacted and given to the parliament
A letter with as many signature as possible should be sent to minister of immigration
And finally,
We should find somebody in a national newspaper to write about this unjust justice and expose how liberals have followed the footsteps of Conservatives.
The main reason this so-called judge tossed around the case and eventually shot it dead was that we did not raise our voice. Judges listen to socity's pulse before ruling.

We applicants do not want to attribute any motive to the decision of Honourable Justice James Russell. Even at this time of our adversity, we still continue to hold the Canadian system, judges and government in high esteem. We loved Canada and hence made the application for permanent residency more than 10 years ago. Even now, our love for Canada has not diminished at all. Come what may, we will still love Canada for what it stands for, irrespective of how our prayers get answered.

We trust our lawyers. We are sure they will take care of our interests. I personally do not believe in getting onto streets to fight anyone. I have full faith in God and I know God will take care of all of us.