Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit
- Thread starter admin
- Start date
Dear Pre-February 2008 FSW Applicants,
Here is a chance to voice your concern through an online petition. Just click on the weblink below and sign the petition.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/pre-feb-2008-fsw-cases-termination-a-blunder-by/
(Petition Pre Feb 2008 FSW Cases Termination: A Blunder By Canadian Conservative Government at www.ipetitions.com)
While you sign, please make it a point to also input your sufferings and grievances in the "Comments" space.
Join the movement! Sign now! Thanks!
Here is a chance to voice your concern through an online petition. Just click on the weblink below and sign the petition.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/pre-feb-2008-fsw-cases-termination-a-blunder-by/
(Petition Pre Feb 2008 FSW Cases Termination: A Blunder By Canadian Conservative Government at www.ipetitions.com)
While you sign, please make it a point to also input your sufferings and grievances in the "Comments" space.
Join the movement! Sign now! Thanks!
Got one more stupidJohnny31 said:
A court hearing challenging Canada’s anti-polygamy law on religious freedom grounds resumes Wednesday in British Columbia and will eventually include testimony from men and women who are living in multiple-partner marriages.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/4/anti-polygamy-law-challenged-in-canada-court/#ixzz2I2Yq3qw2
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
and more>>>wounderful said:
Bedford v. Canada was a legal challenge to Canada's prostitution laws.[1][2][3] The applicants, Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott, argued that Canada's prostitution laws were unconstitutional.[4] The Criminal Code of Canada includes a number of provisions outlawing public communication for the purposes of prostitution, operating a bawdy house or living off of the avails of prostitution. However, prostitution itself is legal. The applicants argued that the laws deprive sex workers of their right to security by forcing them to work in secret.[4] In 2012, the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled that some, but not all, of these prohibitions violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and were unconstitutional.
Still want more a law has been challanged ???
there you are
Legal challenge of Section 13 before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The most serious challenge ever filed. To date: 26 hearing days, 8 interveners and 11 witnesses in 4 cities. In Sept, 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that Section 13 was unconstitutional and an infringement of Charter rights to freedom of expression. [Nov 5, 2012: Marc Lemire Appeals to the Federal Court of Appeals for a ruling on Section 13]
>> more information
there you are
Legal challenge of Section 13 before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The most serious challenge ever filed. To date: 26 hearing days, 8 interveners and 11 witnesses in 4 cities. In Sept, 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that Section 13 was unconstitutional and an infringement of Charter rights to freedom of expression. [Nov 5, 2012: Marc Lemire Appeals to the Federal Court of Appeals for a ruling on Section 13]
>> more information
Find out some more stupids as per your defination ...
In 1997, Zeliotis and Chaoulli went to the Superior Court of Quebec, asking it to strike down Article 15 of the Hospital Insurance Act and Article 11 of the Health Insurance Act. One of their main arguments was that the limited access to private medical services violated the rights to life, liberty, and security of the person under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In 1997, Zeliotis and Chaoulli went to the Superior Court of Quebec, asking it to strike down Article 15 of the Hospital Insurance Act and Article 11 of the Health Insurance Act. One of their main arguments was that the limited access to private medical services violated the rights to life, liberty, and security of the person under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Now I just wondering why you are not part of this one ..Johnny31 said:
EDMONTON - A few Albertans who have lost their driver's licences under the province's new drunk driving law are challenging the legislation in court.
Edmonton lawyer Fred Kozak represents the group and expects the paperwork to be filed in court this week. He's not certain it's the first challenge to the law but hasn't heard of any others
Fianlly i got the reson of your birth.. ... reason ...... no challangeJohnny31 said:
Canada is one of the very few countries in the world that has NO criminal law restricting abortion at all. We first liberalized our law against abortion in 1969; then our Supreme Court threw it out completely in 1988. And we've been doing just fine without it. In the 11 years since we began our great experiment, we've found that doctors and women exercise the right to abortion responsibly, without the need for any legal restrictions. We don't need gestational limits. We don't need waiting periods. We don't need parental or spousal consent laws. And we don't need restrictions on certain types of abortions.
Driving is a privilege, not a RIGHT. If they were stupid enough to drive while drunk, then they have absolutely no path to victory with their lawsuit. Just another example of more idiots filing stupid lawsuits to waste the court's time.wounderful said:
On a similar note, immigration is also a privilege, not a right. Hmmm...what an interesting coincidence. Both cases involve challenges by people who are completely confused as to the difference between a privilege and a right.