Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[sbernados]

Today 29th Sept Is it all over or still hope is left? What happened to Tim case? Any news from justice Bernes.

Here's latest post of Tim's case, i found this at the linkin:

Hi Tim ,
any update from Jus. Barnes about enforcement motion ??

Regards.
Tim
Tim L. •Yes: The cows will come home before he does his duty. To my query on Thursday: "When do you think the motion will be decided", he replied testily, saying, in effect, he has other priorities and the motion will be decided whenever he has nothing else to do.

He also stated that he has yet to put in writing his September 18th order, refusing to enjoin CIC from acting on the closure of the files. Justice Barnes attitude is as revealing as it is disillusioning.

 

[avijitsg]

I have got the following from the federal court, if any one understand please explain to understand people like me:
quote:
Order rendered by Chief Justice Crampton at Ottawa on 26-SEP-2012 IT IS
2012-09-27
ORDERED pursuant to Rule 383 that Justice Robert L. Barnes is assigned as Case Management Judge in this matter. This Order also applies to the following files and any subsequent files filed thereafter under this mandamus group: IMM-5481-12 and others... Decision filed on 27-SEP-2012 Considered by the Court without personal appearance entered in J. & O. Book, volume 571 page(s) 225 - 226 Copy of the order sent to all parties Transmittal Letters placed on file.

2012-09-26

Letter from counsel for Keith Reimer, counsel for the Respondent re: IMM-3801-12 and IMM-5635-12 to be brought to the attention of Justice Barnes, concerning the direction dated September 24, 2012 and enquiring about the issues to be discussed at the CMC on September 27, 2012. Counsel notes another CMC may be required. dated 25-SEP-2012 . received on 26-SEP-2012

2012-09-24
Written directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 24-SEP-2012 directing The Court directs that the motions filed in YIN v MCI, docket IMM-8747-12 and TABINGO v MCI, docket IMM-5635-12 to certify those proceedings as class proceedings will be heard on Friday, the 23rd day of November, 2012 and Friday, the 30th day of November, 2012, to commence at 9:30 a.m. at the Federal Court, 180 Queen Street West, in the City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, for a duration not exceeding two (2) days; received on 24-SEP-2012 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)
unquote

 

[avijitsg]

Dear all,
The following is continuation of my last posting. If any one understand or get any positive PLEASE share with us.
Thanks

Quote:
2012-09-27
Order rendered by Chief Justice Crampton at Ottawa on 26-SEP-2012 IT IS
2012-09-27 ORDERED pursuant to Rule 383 that Justice Robert L. Barnes is assigned as Case Management Judge in this matter. This Order also applies to the following files and any subsequent files filed thereafter under this mandamus group: IMM-5481-12 and others... Decision filed on 27-SEP-2012 Considered by the Court without personal appearance entered in J. & O. Book, volume 571 page(s) 225 - 226 Copy of the order sent to all parties Transmittal Letters placed on file.

2012-09-26
Letter from counsel for Keith Reimer, counsel for the Respondent re: IMM-3801-12 and IMM-5635-12 to be brought to the attention of Justice Barnes, concerning the direction dated September 24, 2012 and enquiring about the issues to be discussed at the CMC on September 27, 2012. Counsel notes another CMC may be required. dated 25-SEP-2012 . received on 26-SEP-2012

2012-09-24
Written directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 24-SEP-2012 directing The Court directs that the motions filed in YIN v MCI, docket IMM-8747-12 and TABINGO v MCI, docket IMM-5635-12 to certify those proceedings as class proceedings will be heard on Friday, the 23rd day of November, 2012 and Friday, the 30th day of November, 2012, to commence at 9:30 a.m. at the Federal Court, 180 Queen Street West, in the City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, for a duration not exceeding two (2) days; received on 24-SEP-2012 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)

2012-09-26
Letter from counsel for Keith Reimer, counsel for the Respondent re: IMM-3801-12 and IMM-5635-12 to be brought to the attention of Justice Barnes, concerning the direction dated September 24, 2012 and enquiring about the issues to be discussed at the CMC on September 27, 2012. Counsel notes another CMC may be required. dated 25-SEP-2012 . received on 26-SEP-2012

2012-09-24
Letter from Respondent dated 24-SEP-2012 clarifying submissions filed on 19-SEP-2012, indicating that its submissions rely on the Affidavit of James McNamee contained in the 14-SEP-2012 Motion Record opposing injunctive relief. received on 24-SEP-2012

2012-09-24
Written directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 24-SEP-2012 directing Upon receipt of a letter from Martin Anderson dated September 21, 2012 and the reply from Mr. Bellissimo of the same day, the Court directs that a further case management meeting will be convened by teleconference from Halifax on Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 3:00 pm (Atlantic) and 2:00 pm (Eastern) to discuss the issues raised by Mr. Anderson. received on 24-SEP-2012 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)

2012-09-24
Written directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 24-SEP-2012 directing The Court directs that the motions filed in YIN v MCI, docket IMM-8747-12 and TABINGO v MCI, docket IMM-5635-12 to certify those proceedings as class proceedings will be heard on Friday, the 23rd day of November, 2012 and Friday, the 30th day of November, 2012, to commence at 9:30 a.m. at the Federal Court, 180 Queen Street West, in the City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, for a duration not exceeding two (2) days; received on 24-SEP-2012 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)

2012-09-24
Written directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 24-SEP-2012 directing The Court requests that, in order to streamline consistent processing, correspondence and Court filings should be filed directly with the Ottawa Registry as follows: Attention: SRO-IMMIGRATION, Ann Murphy and/or Jean-Francois Rochon The Registrar, Thomas D'Arcy McGee Building 90 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H9 Fax: 1-613-947-2141 Email: OTTAWA-MANDAMUS@cas-satj.gc.ca The Court directs that counsel make reference to their lead file docket number when making future court filings. Counsel cooperation is greatly appreciated. received on 24-SEP-2012 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)

2012-09-24
Letter from Respondent dated 24-SEP-2012 refers to letter from Mr Bellissimo dated Sept 21, 2012. The respondent remains prepared to argue a certification motion on the dates that have been discussed. The respondent submits that there are various issues that should be discussed at a case management conference. The respondent are available for a CMC on Thursday and Friday of this week as requested by Mr Bellissimo. received on 24-SEP-2012

Unquote

 

[sac]

Hello Everyone,

Now that the court has decided not to stay the return of applications and refund for those that applied prior to February 2008, what shall we do? What steps could we possibly take? Wait for the certification for the class suit? Hope there are other options

 

[maintarget]

Hello there
Any news?

 

[hopeful4]

Here's latest post of Tim's case, i found this at the linkin:

Hi Tim ,
any update from Jus. Barnes about enforcement motion ??

Regards.
Tim
Tim L. •Yes: The cows will come home before he does his duty. To my query on Thursday: "When do you think the motion will be decided", he replied testily, saying, in effect, he has other priorities and the motion will be decided whenever he has nothing else to do.

He also stated that he has yet to put in writing his September 18th order, refusing to enjoin CIC from acting on the closure of the files. Justice Barnes attitude is as revealing as it is disillusioning.

Very disappointing. On whose side is judge Barnes, Kenny or the absolute clear justice?

 

[hopeful4]

I want to join the case of tim leahy though my name is allready in the case of Cohen . The lawsuit of Tim seems more advanced and there might be a ruling soon.
I contacted Tim and he said there is no problem to be in 2 lawsuits,,,,
do you think there will be a problem if I do that ?

 

[erdavid]

I want to join the case of tim leahy though my name is allready in the case of Cohen . The lawsuit of Tim seems more advanced and there might be a ruling soon.
I contacted Tim and he said there is no problem to be in 2 lawsuits,,,,
do you think there will be a problem if I do that ?

I don't think there are any issues joining two counsel, it's up to the applicant although it will be costly for you. Tim's case is currently challenging the previous agreement while other lawyers are pursuing the class action 87.4.

One reason why the court is not providing any decision to Tim's litigant was because it will potentially affect the status of other applicant from other lawyer.

I belong to Tim's team though.

regards, erdavid

 

[hopeful4]

Thank you for your reply. The problem is that there is a difference between those who joined the lawsuit before and after June 14th. If the agreement does not cover those who joined after , they will join the class action,,,,thus there would be no difference in my case,,,


On the other hand CIC does not want to be clear about my file status,,,they still insists that it is in the background check, as it was one year ago. I sent them a direct question to whether my file will be closed,,,no answer till now.

I can not believe this is an official body of a first world country,,,they take advantage of us completely.

 

[hopeful4]

This is an email from Tim answering my question whether he represents those whose files were closed or those whose files are still open .



Thank you, May, for telling me what you were told. What you were told, however, is far closer to intentional misrepresentation than to the truth. I would appreciate your telling these people to cease and desist from misrepresenting my litigation.

First, on October 28th I launched my litigation, asking the Court to order CIC to assess these files. In that sense, what you have been told is true. And, pray tell, what were the other lawyers doing from October 28th to March 30th? Given that the Minister only announced his plan on March 30th, three weeks after my written arguments were in, clearly I cannot currently be fighting against something which did not exist at the time I presented my case.

However, on February 3rd, CIC and I signed an Agreement, where in CIC agreed to "be guided by" the lead decision in dealing with the other litigants in this group. On June 14th, we won a total victory in Liang. However, CIC has refused to honour the Agreement with respect to those whose files were closed on June 26th. For those whose were not, CIC has promised to finalize their files within six months. The Court is currently faced with my motion asking the Court to enforce the agreement because, on June 14th, my litigants' right to have their files finalized became a vested right -- an argument, incidentally, CIC did not contest. If the Court agrees CIC will be required to finalize my litigants' files within six months. .

On June 26th, Justice Barnes said that I may add more people to my group. DoJ, however, has objected to their being included in the Agreement, an issue the Court must decide if it grants my motion. Therefore, at this point, if you join our group, you might have your file finalized within six months.

Second, on August 3rd, CIC agreed that, if the Court does not grant my motion, it will consent to my litigants becoming a part of the so-called class-action. In other words, the litigation in which you are currently involved is our fall back. My litigants have two chances for success; you currently have only one -- as does anyone who has retained any other other nine lawyers involved in the 87.5 litigation.

I do not care if you want to join one of the lawyers who entered the arena five months after I did. However, I do very strenuously object to people intentionally misrepresenting my litigation's objective. It is not less than
the Campbell/Cohen litigation but, rather, significantly more because it includes the chance of having your file finalized within six months of the Court's ruling on my motion and, if it does not grant my motion, the same result as you will get with Campbell/Cohen and or any of the other lawyers.

Regards,

Tim

 

[kiwi1]

I always thought that the Minister cannot just simply apply the new FSW rules retrospectively to old applications, such as pre-Feb 2008 simply because the criteria is different from when he introduced his OWN rules, hence, applications needed to be processed according to the rules applicable at the time of the application....good news....

the following were quoted from posts of Mancilla from the thread Omnibus Budget Bill, C-38

Has anyone heard of this?

"Sing Tao reported that the Minister said that he had changed his mind and would not apply the new criteria retrospectively."

Yes, that's TRUE!!!

Dear Mancilla,
i couldn't find the original source from Sing Tao! mind if you share it with us if you have.
Tq

Dear MBII,
I have got the info from reliable sources and it has come from CIC.

The Minister's head of propaganda flatly denied the intention, and Sing Tao reported that the Minister said that he had changed his mind and would not apply the new criteria retrospectively. Yesterday morning, DoJ faxed a letter stating that the “Minister had confirmed” that he won't do so.

 

[baqar65]

Hello every one, am a new member and also a victim of Canadian backloggers, I need all memberes help in understanding the latest information shared in conversation and also hope to get the correct guidence time to time. THKS for taking time.

 

[hopeful4]

I always thought that the Minister cannot just simply apply the new FSW rules retrospectively to old applications, such as pre-Feb 2008 simply because the criteria is different from when he introduced his OWN rules, hence, applications needed to be processed according to the rules applicable at the time of the application....good news....

the following were quoted from posts of Mancilla from the thread Omnibus Budget Bill, C-38

Kiwi thanks. But I fail to find the good news about that ,,,,probably the minister means that he will not apply the new criteria,,because the files are going to be closed anyway!!

 

[sbernados]

guys, do you think will have the chance of winning this battle? :'( im starting to loose hope.

 

[hopeful4]

I think we have the chances of winning it. But time frame is important as well. What if we win it after 2 or 3 years and then CIC is given an additional period to process the files. Would you be still interested to go?
And I Believe this is what CIC is playing.
1-Notll pre 2008 applicants will join the lawsuit
2- THose who join will be fed up soon and will not continue
3-THose who win will not be interested in going to Canada anymore after 10 or more yaers of their application


SO even if we win you will find a maximum of 5000 applicants will really make it to CANADA. Of the original 80,000,,,,,,this is alone a big win for CIC