Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[GNPLC]

Plaran Thanks for the insight this law stated below will vindicate the litigants. . 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Clearly says: every individual

 

[tuyen]

You should see the posts that have been deleted. I think the mod has this thread on the short list.

Yeah...it's really pathetic the way somebody just deletes whole posts like that where it was clearly humor-filled and sarcastic.

But I love the way they always seem to overlook - by pure accident, I'm sure - the personal attacks and insults directed at me. Those are fine - no reason to delete them. :

 

[amikety]

Yeah...it's really pathetic the way somebody just deletes whole posts like that where it was clearly humor-filled and sarcastic.

But I love the way they always seem to overlook - by pure accident, I'm sure - the personal attacks and insults directed at me. Those are fine - no reason to delete them. :

The mods know you love the abuse

 

[tuyen]

The mods know you love the abuse

No, I think it's their new attempt to shut me up. They figure banning me didn't work, because I just came back and gave a little reminder about something called "freedom of speech" as guaranteed in our constitution, and how incredibly absurd it would be to try and silence somebody in an IMMIGRATION FORUM of all places, where people should be allowed to speak while at the same time showing would-be immigrants that we DO have such a thing here. We respect it, and adhere to it, and we allow people to exercise their freedom to speak even when we may disagree with each other.

But I guess some people's personal feelings and power trips matter more than rights handed down to us in the constitution.

 

[PMM]

Hi

No, I think it's their new attempt to shut me up. They figure banning me didn't work, because I just came back and gave a little reminder about something called "freedom of speech" as guaranteed in our constitution, and how incredibly absurd it would be to try and silence somebody in an IMMIGRATION FORUM of all places, where people should be allowed to speak while at the same time showing would-be immigrants that we DO have such a thing here. We respect it, and adhere to it, and we allow people to exercise their freedom to speak even when we may disagree with each other.

But I guess some people's personal feelings and power trips matter more than rights handed down to us in the constitution.

Bravo.

I guess as Tim said that he had "more arrows in his" bow, and can't practise for the next 2 months, I guess the only option with his "arrows" is to play cupid on Valentine's day.
I agree with a fair amount of what you have said, but the telling thing is that I really think it is a cash grab by the lawyers. The last "class action" filed against Immigration was in 2002, regarding fees, it still hasn't been settled. This case will probably go on forever (or as long as the claimants money lasts) as both sides will appeal if the decision doesn't go their way.

 

[sac]

[size=10pt][size=10pt]15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Clearly says: every individual[/size][/size]

If you go there as a tourist you are not citizen nor permanent resident, you don't have any rights? Could an ordinary Canadian do any thing to you without being prosecuted because you are not Canadian?If they can, Canada is not a suitable place to immigrate. Could you believe that?

I do not know if the above quote in blue describes the heart of multiculturalism that Canada adheres to, a rights-based principle that recognizes, respects and honors the right of every individual no matter the color, creed, ethnicity, gender, age and etc. If the law of Canada indeed has this, and the judge presiding over this litigation sees this law, and if the lawyers litigating the case for and in behalf of the pre Feb 2008 can successfully argue its case that the latter are disenfranchised in violation of this right then perhaps there is reason to hope for a positive outcome of this litigation.

 

[tuyen]

Constitution Act, 1982 (80) 1982, c.11 (UK), Schedule B, Part I
MOBILITY RIGHTS
Marginal note:Mobility of citizens
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Marginal note:Rights to move and gain livelihood
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
o (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
o (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
CLEARLY STATES: Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent
EQUALITY RIGHTS
Marginal note:Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Clearly says: every individual

If you go there as a tourist you are not citizen nor permanent resident, you don't have any rights? Could an ordinary Canadian do any thing to you without being prosecuted because you are not Canadian?If they can, Canada is not a suitable place to immigrate. Could you believe that?

Do you not understand the distinction between a tourist INSIDE the country, versus a person on the other side of the planet who has never been in the country?

Also, pay special attention to the various qualifiers:

"Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Do you notice anything in there about the laws of Canada applying to you if you're somewhere OUTSIDE of Canada when you're not a citizen or permanent resident? I don't.

If it said, "every individual is equal before and under the law ... without discrimination based on race, colour, religion, geographic location on the planet, sex, age", then yeah, you would have a valid point. But I don't see anything in there that leads me to think that Canada's laws or constitution applies to EVERYONE IN THE WORLD.

 

[maran1976]

kenny boy, let the parliament amend the charter, lol

 

[plaran]

Plaran Thanks for the insight this law stated below will vindicate the litigants. . 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Clearly says: every individual

Thanks.
We will be happy on the day verdict comes out:
If the rulling is in our favour , demonstrates our thoughts were right.
If the rulling is not in our favour meaning that the government can do anything by passing a law in parliament no matter what the constitution says. Just forget about moving to Canada. Others who are there are in danger of being deported any time by just passing a law during annual budget approval every year. They can say all immigrants coming after a specific date are not entiteled to stay here anymore. We will be happy not to be in a position with such uncertainty and unpredictable situation.

We are not Canadians but the Constitution Act sevtion 15 applies to them and the government acts should be according to that. They can not behave discriminatory with any individual.

Anyhow we will be happy on the day of verdict no matter what the result is.

 

[CANripon]

Thanks.
We will be happy on the day verdict comes out:
If the rulling is in our favour , demonstrates our thoughts were right.
If the rulling is not in our favour meaning that the government can do anything by passing a law in parliament no matter what the constitution says. Just forget about moving to Canada. Others who are there are in danger of being deported any time by just passing a law during annual budget approval every year. They can say every immigrant coming after a specific date are not entiteled to stay here anymore. We will be happy not to be in a position with such uncertainty and unpredictable situation.

We are not Canadians but the Constitution Act sevtion 15 applies to them and the government acts should be according to that. They can not behave discriminatory with any individual.

Anyhow we will be happy on the day of verdict no matter what the result is.

 

[noon]

I am copying here the preamble of constitution of India. Indian constitution clearly states that it applies only to its citizens. But such a sentence is absent in Canadian constitution.We all will be seeing Kenney ammend constitution of Canada ;D

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PREAMBLE

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India
into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and
to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and
integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of
November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO
OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

 

[tuyen]

Indian constitution clearly states that it applies only to its citizens. But such a sentence is absent in Canadian constitution.

The reason Canada never needed that kind of a specification is because I can guarantee that never in a million years did the writers of the constitution ever think that one day in the future, somebody would be so retarded as to think that Canada's constitution would be challenged in court on the basis that it should be applied to everyone on the planet. They never thought that such stupidity would ever come about, but obviously they were mistaken.

And I agree - it definitely should be amended to prevent these kinds of time-wasting, money-wasting, court-abusing lawsuits in the future.

 

[wounderful]

Below is the latest update from Counsel Leahy


Good day,

As some of you have noted, Justice Rennie has directed counsel involved in challenging the the closure of the FSW files to address the issue of whether the Charter (Bill of Rights) applies to those not residing in Canada. Written arguments are due February 22nd and any reply, March 1st. Thus, the decision from the January 14th-16th hearing will not come until mid-March at the earliest. (See http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=IMM-5635-12)

While you undoubtedly are disappointed at the delay, the news is actually positive because it implies that Justice Rennie is prepared to strike down s. 87.4 if he can be persuaded that Charter rights protect anyone dealing with the Government of Canada (in any of its guises) irrespective of where they reside. I am far from being an expert in Canadian constitutional law. However, I remember being taught that, unlike US constitutional rights (which apply only to those within the borders of the US), the Canadian Charter of Rights applies to Canadian officials wherever they are acting in their official capacity. (Besides, some of the FSW applicants are already residing in Canada, in which case, they enjoy Charter rights.) So, I am somewhat puzzled that, what I thought was clear, Justice Rennie wants argued before him because I am confident that he is far better versed in Charter law than I am.

Is he doing so because he questions the extend of the Charter's reach or because he wants to write a decision addressing this potential challenge to his decision and wants to be current on the issue? I do not know. However, whichever, if he were prepared to dismiss the case, he would not be asking for further arguments. He would just rule in CIC's faour. So, while the delay is disappointing, Justice Rennie's having revealed his inclination to rule against the Minister in this case is good news for everyone except the Minister and his allies.

Regards,

Tim

 

[st-cnncomes]

CIC is The Immigration dept of the Govt of Canada, and we are the applicants who have applied as per the rules and regulations of CIC. Since CIC has to follow the laws of Canada we automatically come under the charter of Freedoms and rights because we have followed the rule of law as per CIC and have been dealing with it for the past 8 years. If a similar situation had occurred in India would this act of termination been legal or illegal? If it is illegal can a foreign govt carry out its own lawful duty in India, of which is deemed to be illegal in the country?

 

[noon]

says who ? the lawyers who interpreted the charter? What happened cannot be justified. But I agree with Kenny on that harsh steps were the only solution for reforms.

I don't wish to argue with any one. Tomorrow if Kenny terminates the remaining MI1 as the occupations are not in demand (Its been 3 years since I applied, understand that pain of backloggers who have been waiting 8+ yrs), I will not be up in arms. Although it is unfair (coz he shoul know how much he can chew) but was necessary. Thousands like me, will find it difficult to have a break in their career if the occupations are not in demand. I suppose, they dont want an UK like situation where docs/phds work in corner stores and gas stations.

Those who applied in MI1,2 & 3 are doing the survival jobs which would otherwise have gone to pre feb applicants , had their applications were processed. In Canada survival jobs are preliminary for every one.Be confirmed that the issue is not related to economics of Canada. It is some what like applicants applied under somebody's regime got processed faster.