Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[warmest]

Hi


1. Well the lawsuit is over.. The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that 87.4(1) terminating the Skilled Worker applications is legal. See: http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/73144/index.do

The Justices answered the following certified questions

IV. Conclusion

[100] I would answer the certified questions as follows:

(a) Does subsection 87.4(1) of the IRPA terminate by operation of law the applications described in that subsection upon its coming into force, and if not, are the applicants entitled to mandamus?

Answer: Subsection 87.4(1) terminated the applications automatically on June 29, 2012. After that date, the Minister had no legal obligation to continue to process the applications. The appellants are not entitled to mandamus.

(b) Does the Canadian Bill of Rights mandate notice and an opportunity to make submissions prior to termination of an application under subsection 87.4(1) of the IRPA?

Answer: No.

(c) Is section 87.4 of the IRPA unconstitutional, being contrary to the rule of law or sections 7 and 15 the Charter?

Answer: No.

[101] I would dismiss all of the appeals.

Dear PMM,
(1) Were (Are) you an affected applicant?
(2) Were (Are) you a litigant?
If you do not belong to (1) or (2), tell us whom you are and why do you post in this thread of "Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit"?

 

[warmest]

Tim Leahy's previous email of 22 January 2015.

Good day,

Yesterday, Justice Barnes finally did what he had promised last March to do: He granted leave and set a hearing date in both IMM-1-13, which is for those who joined before the June 2012 ruling in Liang, and in IMM-6828-12, for those who joined after the Liang ruling. In other words, all who placed their trust in me will have the issues of their cases heard on April 21st. (The judge will not be Justice Barnes but who it will be will not be released until after April 7th.)

The order, which is appended below, sets the steps we have to perform before the hearing. We will be able to adduce additional affidavits if we wish and will be able to examine the person(s) whose affidavit(s) they submit. I do not anticipate anything being required from you at this point. However, Rocco and I will discuss the case, and I will let you know if we need anything from you but I doubt that we will..

Thank you for the loyalty you have shown me and for your trust. Despite Justice Barnes' unethical conduct and the Law Society attacks, you have stood by me -- for which I am most grateful.

Best wishes,

Tim Leahy


2015-01-21
Ottawa
Order rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes at Ottawa on 21-JAN-2015 granting the application for leave fixing the hearing at a Special Sitting at Toronto on 21-APR-2015 to begin at 09:30 specifying documents to be produced and/or filed as follows: English language; A's further affidavit due 20-Feb-2015; R's further affidavit due 02-Mar-2015; Cross examinations due 13-Mar-2015; A's further memorandum due 23-Mar-2015; R's further memorandum due 02-Apr-2015; Transcript due 02-Apr-2015. Decision filed on 21-JAN-2015 Considered by the Court without personal appearance entered in J. & O. Book, volume 660 page(s) 129 - 131 Copy of the order sent to all parties Transmittal Letters placed on file.

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=IMM-1-13
and
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=IMM-6828-12

Tim Leahy's previous email of 19 December 2014.

Dear Litigant,

This week, we presented DoJ with our revision of their revised list of those who are included in the litigation group. Because Justice Barnes has proven to be untruthful, I cannot say when the matter will be heard. However, following standard time lines, the earliest would be the end of March.

DoJ excluded from the list all those who have already had their files assessed (and whom I had failed to delete) and those who also had cases in the so-called class-action litigation (Tabingo). I contacted everyone who had been deleted to ascertain if their file had been assessed and added back to the list everyone who advised that their file had not been assessed.

Rocco Galati and I share the view that inclusion in another litigation group does not justify excluding one arbitrarily from either group. If DoJ persists in excluding any of those whom I added back to the list, the Court will have to decide the matter. We will not accede to DoJ improper demand. (I told them if they wanted them in only one group, exclude them from the Tabingo group.)

We are only talking about a few of the 1,300 litigants in the group. So, please do NOT ask me if you were excluded. I notified all those who were and added back all those who confirmed that their file had not been assessed. If I did not notify you, DoJ accepts that you are in the group. Anyone who does email me this question should not expect a reply.

When we have a hearing date, I will revert. Best wishes for the New Year.

Regards,

Tim

 

[warmest]

Tim Leahy's previous email of 19 December 2014.

Dear Litigant,

This week, we presented DoJ with our revision of their revised list of those who are included in the litigation group. Because Justice Barnes has proven to be untruthful, I cannot say when the matter will be heard. However, following standard time lines, the earliest would be the end of March.

DoJ excluded from the list all those who have already had their files assessed (and whom I had failed to delete) and those who also had cases in the so-called class-action litigation (Tabingo). I contacted everyone who had been deleted to ascertain if their file had been assessed and added back to the list everyone who advised that their file had not been assessed.

Rocco Galati and I share the view that inclusion in another litigation group does not justify excluding one arbitrarily from either group. If DoJ persists in excluding any of those whom I added back to the list, the Court will have to decide the matter. We will not accede to DoJ improper demand. (I told them if they wanted them in only one group, exclude them from the Tabingo group.)

We are only talking about a few of the 1,300 litigants in the group. So, please do NOT ask me if you were excluded. I notified all those who were and added back all those who confirmed that their file had not been assessed. If I did not notify you, DoJ accepts that you are in the group. Anyone who does email me this question should not expect a reply.

When we have a hearing date, I will revert. Best wishes for the New Year.

Regards,

Tim

Tim Leahy's previous email of 8 October 2014.

Dear litigant,

I have been receiving almost daily requests for updates on the litigation. Please allow me to remind you that, when there is something to say, I will do so; when there is not, there is no point in sending out an email saying that there is nothing to say. However, because it has been too long since anything happened, I am sending this email, advising that there is nothing new to report.

First, I spoke yesterday afternoon with Mr. Galati, who will be contacting DoJ to see if they can get Justice Barnes finally to keep his word and set down the matter for a hearing. Because the hearing will be 90 days after the announcement, there will be no hearing this year. January or February next is more likely. I realize that this incessant delay is distressing but, when we have an unethical judge in charge, we really cannot do anything.

Second, there appears to be some confusion in the group about the possible appeal to the Supreme Court of the Tabingo proceeding. It is a bit confusing, but here is the bottom line as far as our group is concerned:

a. If the Tabingo appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is made and succeeds, your files, too, will be re-opened;

b. if there is no appeal or if it fails, it will not impact on our litigation; and

c. you may not join the appeal because our files are not a part of the Tabingo contingent.

Therefore, all we can do is sit on the sidelines and see how it plays out. My own guess, however, is that no appeal will be filed because the Tabingo litigants have either given up hope or are unwilling to share the cost of the appeal. The counsel who headed the other groups, as I understand, have elected not to pursue the matter but, rather, to have Rocco Galati do so. Because Mr. Galati collected nothing from the litigants and will incur at least $25,000 in costs just to put the materials together; e.g.,, twelve copies of transcripts from both hearings, all the pleading, all the evidence so that each of the nine SCC judges will have his/her own copy, as will the Registry and both parties; he cannot be expected to pay those costs out-of-pocket or to allocate his time to pursue the matter gratis. For that reason, he has asked for $75,000 to handle the appeal, which breaks down to about $200/- CAD per Tabingo litigant. They, however, appear to feel that the amount is too much and, for some inexplicable reason, believe that Mr. Galati should pursue the appeal for them just for the thrill of appearing again in the Supreme Court. Rocco does not need such "thrills".

As for us, I have paid him to pursue your cases through to the Federal Court of Appeal. Therefore, whatever happens to Tabingo, your cases will proceed if Justice Barnes ever deigns to comply with the law and human decency. When he finally does so, I will let you know.

Regards,

Tim

 

[Uttara11]

Kindly Attention Please

I'm FSWP- MI2 Jan'11 applicant. I submitted MED report in Jul'14 including RPRF, PCC, Updated docs and updated generic forms. But waiting for PPR since then.
As per GCMS note in Feb'15, criminality check ongoing....

What can I do now! Please suggest.

Regards
Uttara11

Tim Leahy's previous email of 8 October 2014.

Dear litigant,

I have been receiving almost daily requests for updates on the litigation. Please allow me to remind you that, when there is something to say, I will do so; when there is not, there is no point in sending out an email saying that there is nothing to say. However, because it has been too long since anything happened, I am sending this email, advising that there is nothing new to report.

First, I spoke yesterday afternoon with Mr. Galati, who will be contacting DoJ to see if they can get Justice Barnes finally to keep his word and set down the matter for a hearing. Because the hearing will be 90 days after the announcement, there will be no hearing this year. January or February next is more likely. I realize that this incessant delay is distressing but, when we have an unethical judge in charge, we really cannot do anything.

Second, there appears to be some confusion in the group about the possible appeal to the Supreme Court of the Tabingo proceeding. It is a bit confusing, but here is the bottom line as far as our group is concerned:

a. If the Tabingo appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is made and succeeds, your files, too, will be re-opened;

b. if there is no appeal or if it fails, it will not impact on our litigation; and

c. you may not join the appeal because our files are not a part of the Tabingo contingent.

Therefore, all we can do is sit on the sidelines and see how it plays out. My own guess, however, is that no appeal will be filed because the Tabingo litigants have either given up hope or are unwilling to share the cost of the appeal. The counsel who headed the other groups, as I understand, have elected not to pursue the matter but, rather, to have Rocco Galati do so. Because Mr. Galati collected nothing from the litigants and will incur at least $25,000 in costs just to put the materials together; e.g.,, twelve copies of transcripts from both hearings, all the pleading, all the evidence so that each of the nine SCC judges will have his/her own copy, as will the Registry and both parties; he cannot be expected to pay those costs out-of-pocket or to allocate his time to pursue the matter gratis. For that reason, he has asked for $75,000 to handle the appeal, which breaks down to about $200/- CAD per Tabingo litigant. They, however, appear to feel that the amount is too much and, for some inexplicable reason, believe that Mr. Galati should pursue the appeal for them just for the thrill of appearing again in the Supreme Court. Rocco does not need such "thrills".

As for us, I have paid him to pursue your cases through to the Federal Court of Appeal. Therefore, whatever happens to Tabingo, your cases will proceed if Justice Barnes ever deigns to comply with the law and human decency. When he finally does so, I will let you know.

Regards,

Tim

 

[csaona]

Dear all,

Tim Leahy's latest email of 16 March 2015.


Good News: Good Judge‏


Good day,

As a result of DoJ's motion seeking to remove some litigants from the group and our counter-motion, I have some good news to report.

1. Justice Campbell will be hearing the case on April 21st.

Justice Campbell, who had been a judge in British Columbia, has been a Federal Court justice since 1995. He is the only justice whom I totally trust. He will not be using your case as means for being elevated to the Federal Court of Appeal. So, you can be assured that you will get an honest decision from him.

2. Justice Barnes is out!!!

Rocco, in responding to DoJ's motion, asked that it be handled by the judge who will be hearing the matter on April 21st. That's how we found out who it will be. Because he is handling the motions, it appears that Justice Barnes will no longer be able to sabotage the litigation.

3. The Motions

As you know, DoJ is trying to have some of the litigants removed from our group, and we're limiting those to be removed only to those who have already had the files processed to completion. The dispute is limited to those who were in more than one litigation group.

In a teleconference with both counsel, Justice Campbell revealed that he understands the issues and agreed that it makes sense to have all those who joined before the Liang decision have their files attached to the lead case, IMM-1-13 (Back) and those who joined afterwards, to follow IMM-6828-12 (Gong).

Justice Campbell did not, however, rule on who should be excluded because the lists DoJ presented are in no recognizable order, whereas the lists I prepared are in order of file number and alphabetically by visa post. He suggested that we try to reach an agreement on which files are to be included and, where we do not agree, he will make a ruling.

Again, the only people at risk are those who were also in the Tabingo litigation. There is no legal basis for excluding them, and, because we have an honest judge, who is not seeking elevation to the Federal Court of Appeal, I expect Justice Campbell to dismiss DoJ's motion and to grant ours. But, that ruling will not come until after we have worked out a joint list.

I have asked Rocco, and he has agreed, to have DoJ go through our lists and identify those litigants whom it wants excluded and to explain why. Until they have done so -- and we have addressed it -- Justice Campbell will not be making a ruling on the issue.

Regards,

Tim

 

[mod2014]

I have applied for refund in October 2014 and sent then various reminders as well, but to no avail.

Please guide what to do to get refund of my back logged immigration application.

 

[Pipis Husband]

I have applied for refund in October 2014 and sent then various reminders as well, but to no avail.

Please guide what to do to get refund of my back logged immigration application.

Hi, you can get direction from the CIC Help centre. Use this link, http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?q=612&t=4

 

[arch_hamarsheh]

Greeting
I am interesting to immigrate to Canada, and now preparing my document for that, however I have special case that my elder daughter (3.5 years old) has developmental delay, she have good motor skills but she's need special education a limited period then to integrate in normal schools, as per specialist opinions.
My question is whether this will impact negatively on immigration acceptance, and/or citizenship later on.

 

[zardoz]

Greeting
I am interesting to immigrate to Canada, and now preparing my document for that, however I have special case that my elder daughter (3.5 years old) has developmental delay, she have good motor skills but she's need special education a limited period then to integrate in normal schools, as per specialist opinions.
My question is whether this will impact negatively on immigration acceptance, and/or citizenship later on.

Citizenship, no. Immigration, very possible. It all depends on whether she would cause an excessive demand on Canadian resources.

 

[anuradha7326]

Still no refund...... ???

 

[warmest]

I have applied for refund in October 2014 and sent then various reminders as well, but to no avail.

Please guide what to do to get refund of my back logged immigration application.

Were (Are) you a litigant?

 

[sk540]

Still no refund...... ???

I got my refund 2 weeks back

 

[mod2014]

Were (Are) you a litigant?

yes and paid fees to Colin Singer.

 

[MOHAGER]

I got the request letter to submit my passports to VO

8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[Parmiknder]

Hi everyone,

My name is navdeep kaur and i am from India i have applied fo rcanadian PR in
(FSW) in human resource category (HR)

I submitted my file on 2 september,2014 and my UCI number came on December 31st.

Then, i got married on 11 january,2015 and i added my spouse's name in the file and updated my file.now the status of my file shows ''We started processing of your file on 24 february, 2015.

Now i am waiting for my medical.does anyone have any idea how much more time it will take for the medical to come.

Thanks