Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit
- Thread starter admin
- Start date
These are the latest updates from Tim Leahy regarding his Pre-February 2008 FSW Processing Litigation:
22 January 2013
Justice Barnes, consistent with his constant stalling of our litigation, dutifully did DoJ's bidding by suspending our litigation until after Justice Rennie renders a decision on the legality of s. 87.4. Until he has done so, DoJ will not have to file its written opposition to the written submissions I had filed on November 30th. A proper ruling would have been to have directed DoJ to serve and file its arguments and at long last to have complied with s. 74 and set the matter down for a hearing in May. If, in the meantime, Justice Rennie rules in our favour and DoJ agrees to settle, that hearing date could be cancelled. Instead, true to form, Justice Barnes opted to drag our litigation on for as long as he can.
14-16 January 2013
Counsel argued before Justice Rennie on the legality (or lack thereof) of s. 87.4, the provision which closed the unassessed, pre-Bill C-50 FSW files. Justice Rennie reacted to DoJ's defence in the manner one would expect of a Canadian: he was not favourably impressed. Whether his sympathy for those whom Jason Kenney sacrificed on his alter of self-promotion will translate into the a ruling declaring s. 87.4 to be unlawful remains to be seen. The most impressive arguments were those which Rocco Galatti made, stressing the constitutional imperative that the courts are an independent body, whose authority comes for the Constitution Act 1867, not from Parliament or from a minister. Justice Rennie, unlike Justices Barnes, Hughes and Henaghan and other members of the Federal Court, appeared to grasp the concept.
22 January 2013
Justice Barnes, consistent with his constant stalling of our litigation, dutifully did DoJ's bidding by suspending our litigation until after Justice Rennie renders a decision on the legality of s. 87.4. Until he has done so, DoJ will not have to file its written opposition to the written submissions I had filed on November 30th. A proper ruling would have been to have directed DoJ to serve and file its arguments and at long last to have complied with s. 74 and set the matter down for a hearing in May. If, in the meantime, Justice Rennie rules in our favour and DoJ agrees to settle, that hearing date could be cancelled. Instead, true to form, Justice Barnes opted to drag our litigation on for as long as he can.
14-16 January 2013
Counsel argued before Justice Rennie on the legality (or lack thereof) of s. 87.4, the provision which closed the unassessed, pre-Bill C-50 FSW files. Justice Rennie reacted to DoJ's defence in the manner one would expect of a Canadian: he was not favourably impressed. Whether his sympathy for those whom Jason Kenney sacrificed on his alter of self-promotion will translate into the a ruling declaring s. 87.4 to be unlawful remains to be seen. The most impressive arguments were those which Rocco Galatti made, stressing the constitutional imperative that the courts are an independent body, whose authority comes for the Constitution Act 1867, not from Parliament or from a minister. Justice Rennie, unlike Justices Barnes, Hughes and Henaghan and other members of the Federal Court, appeared to grasp the concept.
noon
Hero Member
- Mar 9, 2012
- 5
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- New Delhi
- NOC Code......
- 3113
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 28-07-2004
- Doc's Request.
- 11-10-2008
- Nomination.....
- NA
- AOR Received.
- 28-07-2004
- IELTS Request
- november 2006
- File Transfer...
- NA
- Interview........
- I think it is waived
My advice to you: Dont put all eggs in Canadian basket. You r young and good at studies. You r wanted in many growing economies all over the world. Some times you have to follow your brain, not heart. If you get immigration it is good .Even after immigration Canada should not be your last resort.Sushil Shankar said:
These are the latest updates from Tim Leahy regarding his Stalled Investor–class Processing Litigation:
26 January 2013
A press conference was held in Beijing to raise awareness of the likelihood that the Minister will add a provision to the next Budget Bill (expected in February or March) to abolish the IIP files just as he did last year to the FSW files, whose backlog was under three years, whereas the IIP backlog (at the 1,400 files per year quota) is a 16-year backlog. Passage of the 2013 Budget Bill may be expected to occur before the end of June.
25 January 2013
The litigation appears to have awaken the Canadian Embassy at Paris which directed our IIP litigant to update his forms and submit all required documents. If the request was sincere, it means that that file should be assessed before the matter is heard in Court. Similarly, the Canadian Embassy at Guatemala had reacted earlier by setting a February 13th interview for our IIP litigant from Belize and scheduling one of its officers to go to Belize to interview him. Whether that move reflects a willingness to act properly at long last, likewise, remains to be seen.
24 January 2013
Written arguments were served on DoJ in our second lead case. DoJ has until February 24th to provide its opposing arguments.
7 January 2013
Written arguments for our lead case was served on the Department of Justice (DoJ). DoJ has until February 8th to submit its opposing arguments.
26 January 2013
A press conference was held in Beijing to raise awareness of the likelihood that the Minister will add a provision to the next Budget Bill (expected in February or March) to abolish the IIP files just as he did last year to the FSW files, whose backlog was under three years, whereas the IIP backlog (at the 1,400 files per year quota) is a 16-year backlog. Passage of the 2013 Budget Bill may be expected to occur before the end of June.
25 January 2013
The litigation appears to have awaken the Canadian Embassy at Paris which directed our IIP litigant to update his forms and submit all required documents. If the request was sincere, it means that that file should be assessed before the matter is heard in Court. Similarly, the Canadian Embassy at Guatemala had reacted earlier by setting a February 13th interview for our IIP litigant from Belize and scheduling one of its officers to go to Belize to interview him. Whether that move reflects a willingness to act properly at long last, likewise, remains to be seen.
24 January 2013
Written arguments were served on DoJ in our second lead case. DoJ has until February 24th to provide its opposing arguments.
7 January 2013
Written arguments for our lead case was served on the Department of Justice (DoJ). DoJ has until February 8th to submit its opposing arguments.
annel
Star Member
- May 7, 2010
- 2
- 123
- Category........
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 11-12-2007
- AOR Received.
- 27-12-2007
Hello,
Does anyone know or heard something as to when we can expect a ruling from the judge. I’ve tried to search something on the federal court site and some of the lawyers, (Cohen & Bellissimo) but everyone seems tight lip. I know it was said 1st or 2nd week of Feb (as per joe07), but do you have proof.
I’m desperate to know for personal reasons. ???
Does anyone know or heard something as to when we can expect a ruling from the judge. I’ve tried to search something on the federal court site and some of the lawyers, (Cohen & Bellissimo) but everyone seems tight lip. I know it was said 1st or 2nd week of Feb (as per joe07), but do you have proof.
I’m desperate to know for personal reasons. ???
This is the posting of David Cohen on his website (it is almost the same as we read from Bellissimo Law Group website, but in a bit detail).
Pre-February 28th, 2008 Applicants Have Had Their Day in Court
January 30th, 2013
Earlier this month, the Federal Court heard arguments in a number of joined cases against the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in relation to the government’s plan to terminate almost 98,000 Skilled Worker permanent resident applications. Including dependents, some 280,000 people will be affected by the court’s decision.
The lawyers who appeared before Justice Rennie on behalf of the applicants were my co-counsel Mario Bellissimo as well as Lorne Waldman, Rocco Galati, Matthew Jeffery and Lawrence Wong. I commend all of them for their demeanor and persuasive presentations.
Each lawyer attacked the government’s position on separate grounds but with the common goal of striking down the legislation that permits the Immigration Minister to toss out the applications before assessing them. Bear in mind that some applicants have been waiting in line for more than seven years.
Mr. Bellissimo’s main argument, put forth on behalf of our clients, is that the enabling legislation, subsection 87.4 (I) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) violates subsection 15 (I) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter).
It is submitted that the manner in which Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) processes applications for permanent residence leads to discrimination on the basis of an applicant’s national origin, an enumerated ground under subsection 15 (I) of the Charter. This is so because applicants may only submit their application to specified visa offices for processing, depending upon either their country of legal residence or their country of citizenship.
Processing times at different visa offices vary greatly and as a result an individual’s national origin will determine the rate at which his or her application is processed. CIC prioritizes certain visa offices – and thus certain nationalities – over others and therefore termination of applications at this stage will disproportionately affect those applicants who submitted to visa offices not prioritized by CIC. Consequently, it is argued that subsection 87.4 (I) is contrary to the Charter and should be struck down as having no force or effect.
To support his position, Mr. Bellissimo relied upon statistics which indicate that visa offices in the Americas and Europe managed to process approximately 90% of their backlogged applications while visa offices in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia only processed about 40% of their backlogged inventory.
To be fair, it should be noted that the Immigration Minister, through counsel, has responded to all of the arguments raised by the applicants and has asserted the right of Parliament to pass legislation it deems proper in the circumstances.
Now we await Justice Rennie’s decision. Even that may not bring this saga to an end, as the losing side will have the opportunity to appeal.
Pre-February 28th, 2008 Applicants Have Had Their Day in Court
January 30th, 2013
Earlier this month, the Federal Court heard arguments in a number of joined cases against the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in relation to the government’s plan to terminate almost 98,000 Skilled Worker permanent resident applications. Including dependents, some 280,000 people will be affected by the court’s decision.
The lawyers who appeared before Justice Rennie on behalf of the applicants were my co-counsel Mario Bellissimo as well as Lorne Waldman, Rocco Galati, Matthew Jeffery and Lawrence Wong. I commend all of them for their demeanor and persuasive presentations.
Each lawyer attacked the government’s position on separate grounds but with the common goal of striking down the legislation that permits the Immigration Minister to toss out the applications before assessing them. Bear in mind that some applicants have been waiting in line for more than seven years.
Mr. Bellissimo’s main argument, put forth on behalf of our clients, is that the enabling legislation, subsection 87.4 (I) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) violates subsection 15 (I) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter).
It is submitted that the manner in which Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) processes applications for permanent residence leads to discrimination on the basis of an applicant’s national origin, an enumerated ground under subsection 15 (I) of the Charter. This is so because applicants may only submit their application to specified visa offices for processing, depending upon either their country of legal residence or their country of citizenship.
Processing times at different visa offices vary greatly and as a result an individual’s national origin will determine the rate at which his or her application is processed. CIC prioritizes certain visa offices – and thus certain nationalities – over others and therefore termination of applications at this stage will disproportionately affect those applicants who submitted to visa offices not prioritized by CIC. Consequently, it is argued that subsection 87.4 (I) is contrary to the Charter and should be struck down as having no force or effect.
To support his position, Mr. Bellissimo relied upon statistics which indicate that visa offices in the Americas and Europe managed to process approximately 90% of their backlogged applications while visa offices in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia only processed about 40% of their backlogged inventory.
To be fair, it should be noted that the Immigration Minister, through counsel, has responded to all of the arguments raised by the applicants and has asserted the right of Parliament to pass legislation it deems proper in the circumstances.
Now we await Justice Rennie’s decision. Even that may not bring this saga to an end, as the losing side will have the opportunity to appeal.
Several people (myself included) have already stated very clearly that NOBODY KNOWS when the judge will announce his ruling.annel said:
There are no web sites, no newspapers, no "secret group of people" who can give you the answers you want.
Nobody knows when the decision will come EXCEPT THE JUDGE.
What possible "personal reasons" could you have that make it so you desperately need to know?
annel
Star Member
- May 7, 2010
- 2
- 123
- Category........
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 11-12-2007
- AOR Received.
- 27-12-2007
thanks for the feedback, my personal reasons has got nothing to do with you. If I wanted to disclose it to others don't you think I would have been more specific on my personal reasons………………duhtuyen said:
annel
Star Member
- May 7, 2010
- 2
- 123
- Category........
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 11-12-2007
- AOR Received.
- 27-12-2007
I'm so happy to see that you admit for ones that you are SILLYtuyen said:Yeah...how silly of me to think that you'd divulge your reasons for wanting "desperately" to know something... :
maran1976
Hero Member
- Feb 22, 2010
- 37
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- New Delhi
- NOC Code......
- 0111
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 14 April 2010
- AOR Received.
- 26 Nov 2010 (2nd Aor Date)
- Med's Request
- 28-02-2013
- Med's Done....
- 6th March 2013
- Interview........
- hopefully waived
- Passport Req..
- Recvd by CHC Mar 13th
I like this chap. He is atleast honest. Not assuring of a victory. So even if the controversial law is stuck down, kenny will go in for an appeal.warmest said:
Yeah but that was a given. Regardless of which side would win, the other was going to appeal no matter what.maran1976 said:
That's why I've been telling people to forget about this lawsuit, because it's going to be YEARS before it's finally settled.