zardoz said:
I think that this subject has been beaten to death. There are two opposing views which are not going to be reconciled here.
I suggest we all wait for a legal ruling from somewhere that has the authority to make it or relay it.
Just hope that the "implied status" proponents don't come to regret their choices.
I don't think you can only have two views on the matter. Clearly, there are both legal questions and practical questions involved.
I think if we take what's been reported by all sides in this matter at face value, we can only arrive at the following conclusions:
- CIC has not put out any clear language spelling out the rules for people in this situation. For some people, this has had serious consequences.
- CIC itself is inconsistent in its interpretation of the regulations.
- Nothing has come to light, at least in this thread, that would indicate definitively what would happen if a decision by CIC against someone was challenged.
Personally, I can't blame James for taking the advice of his lawyer above the advice he has gotten on an internet forum. This is what people normally do. I also don't think there's any reason for him not to share his information with people here, because any light that can be shed on the issue is useful. I welcome his input.
To summarize the issue for people in this situation, I would say:
- there is a lot of confusion and disagreement surrounding the issue.
- the majority opinion on the forum is that IEC pemit holders can't get implied status
- others report having received contrary advice from their lawyers
- some people have reported being told by CIC that they were in non-compliance for continuing to work
- it's not clear to me whether CIC has a legal basis for acting in this way.
- there don't appear to have been any legal challenges that we know of.