Judges all over the world usually wait to know their respective government's stand. But, the government's stand need not necessarily be binding on the judgement.jigs_india said:It means judge wont have to wait for goverment's stand.......
It seems the 'Prospective Canadian Immigrants' Facebook public group has shutdown or frozen it's office in social media, may be because of shame as it's egoistic and fraudulent leadership was unable to lead. Using multiple fake and dummy Facebook accounts it stifled (choked or suppressed) dissent and dug it's own grave. May it's soul rest in peace. Let this be an opportunity for the other ex-litigants and non-litigants to start a new group. If the new group takes shape, I assure it of my fullest support.Balwindersingh said:Any News for tim case.I am not able to log on Face book forum of prospective canada immigrants forum.Plhelp me and send the link.
warmest said:Judges all over the world usually wait to know their respective government's stand. But, the government's stand need not necessarily be binding on the judgement.
Canadian judges never take instructions from Canadian government, nor do governments give instructions to judges. Judiciary is independent of government, as in India. Judiciary is one of the four (the other three being Legislature, Executive, and Press) pillars of democracy.
Stephen Harper government (including Jason Kenney) never instructed in black and white on how a judge should deal with a case. But some judges were too smart and read the unwritten (meaning, the 'wish' of the then government) and 'pleased' accordingly (meaning, danced to the tune of the then government). Those judges waited to understand the stand of the then government and then delivered the judgement in such a way that their interests (meaning, promotion) and that of the then government were well taken care of. It was always a win-win judgement for those judges and the then government. The losers were those who sued the then Conservative government. Unfortunately, the merits of the case never mattered at that time. Justice was glaringly lacking. That was how the judiciary functioned during the erstwhile Conservative government. Thank God, Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney's era are over. Let us hope the change in government brings in 'real' change in the way judges deliver 'justice'. Justice is all about fairness and lack of bias. I hope Justin Trudeau's new Liberal government will help justice prevail.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
"There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?" -- Saint Augustine
"There is no god higher than truth." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of government." -- George Washington
Please how long does it take for a judge to make a decision after a hearing.warmest said:Judges all over the world usually wait to know their respective government's stand. But, the government's stand need not necessarily be binding on the judgement.
Canadian judges never take instructions from Canadian government, nor do governments give instructions to judges. Judiciary is independent of government, as in India. Judiciary is one of the four (the other three being Legislature, Executive, and Press) pillars of democracy.
Stephen Harper government (including Jason Kenney) never instructed in black and white on how a judge should deal with a case. But some judges were too smart and read the unwritten (meaning, the 'wish' of the then government) and 'pleased' accordingly (meaning, danced to the tune of the then government). Those judges waited to understand the stand of the then government and then delivered the judgement in such a way that their interests (meaning, promotion) and that of the then government were well taken care of. It was always a win-win judgement for those judges and the then government. The losers were those who sued the then Conservative government. Unfortunately, the merits of the case never mattered at that time. Justice was glaringly lacking. That was how the judiciary functioned during the erstwhile Conservative government. Thank God, Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney's era are over. Let us hope the change in government brings in 'real' change in the way judges deliver 'justice'. Justice is all about fairness and lack of bias. I hope Justin Trudeau's new Liberal government will help justice prevail.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
"There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?" -- Saint Augustine
"There is no god higher than truth." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of government." -- George Washington
There is no hard-and-fast rule regarding the time frame as to when a judge has to deliver the judgement after the hearing is over.Gofame said:Please how long does it take for a judge to make a decision after a hearing.
Wow....this has become very clear now...really appreciate the good work you are doingwarmest said:There is no hard-and-fast rule regarding the time frame as to when a judge has to deliver the judgement after the hearing is over.
Let me quote here our lawyer Tim Leahy on this.
"Others have asked me to tell you when Justice Russell will release his decision. I can only do so if I am clairvoyant and, if I were clairvoyant, I would have won every lottery on earth. I am not.
I am nearly as eager as you to know the result and, thus, I, too, wait every day for the decision. I am comforted, however, by the thought that it is far easier to write a decision dismissing our case than it is to write one granting us the relief we are seeking. The fact that Justice Russell, who presided over hearings this week in Toronto, has not yet released his decision implies that he is working on the wording which will give us the relief we seek while protecting the decision from being overturned in the Federal Court of Appeal.
So, I'm sorry. We just have to continue waiting."
"The decision, if it does not come out before mid-December, will not be released until mid-January 2016."
Usually in the Western world, the period between mid-December and mid-January is considered a holiday season because many westerners go on annual leave and spend time travelling during Christmas and New Year vacations.
Sir,warmest said:There is no hard-and-fast rule regarding the time frame as to when a judge has to deliver the judgement after the hearing is over.
Let me quote here our lawyer Tim Leahy on this.
"Others have asked me to tell you when Justice Russell will release his decision. I can only do so if I am clairvoyant and, if I were clairvoyant, I would have won every lottery on earth. I am not.
I am nearly as eager as you to know the result and, thus, I, too, wait every day for the decision. I am comforted, however, by the thought that it is far easier to write a decision dismissing our case than it is to write one granting us the relief we are seeking. The fact that Justice Russell, who presided over hearings this week in Toronto, has not yet released his decision implies that he is working on the wording which will give us the relief we seek while protecting the decision from being overturned in the Federal Court of Appeal.
So, I'm sorry. We just have to continue waiting."
"The decision, if it does not come out before mid-December, will not be released until mid-January 2016."
Usually in the Western world, the period between mid-December and mid-January is considered a holiday season because many westerners go on annual leave and spend time travelling during Christmas and New Year vacations.
jigs_india said:Sir,
Good govt., should have acted binding themselves for verdict of Mr. Liang case, through agreement signed between govt. and leahy. and not wait till judgment of judge Russel.
Its just an opinion, new governments intentions also seems to be skeptic.
Let us not jump the gun. As of now, we do not know of what the new government through it's lawyers or through the attorney general has told (or is planning to tell) the court regarding the said agreement. The new government's cabinet that also includes the ministers for Immigration (Hon. John McCallum) and Justice (Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould) might have taken (or will take) a call on our case when it was (or is) brought to it's notice. They will cross the bridge when they come to it. Who knows, the new government might readily agree to honour that agreement and might inform the court well in advance even before the judge decides to announce the date of his judgement. Anything is possible. In some court cases of the past few weeks, this new government had taken a very different stand from that of the previous Conservative government of Stephen Harper and this has benefited those litigants who had sued the then government. Hence I request you to be optimistic and not pass any adverse comments on the new Liberal government of Justin Trudeau which is doing wonderfully well until now. If not, at least be with an open mind without any bias.jigs_india said:Dear warmest,
But this govt seems to be as worse as previous government, in our view as litigant / pre feb applicants.
They have done nothing other than empathize pre feb, 2008 applicants or criticise previous govt decisions.
Their first and last kind gesture for litigants would to acting accordance to agreement signed between mr leahy and CIC.
Without any further court intervention.
Else this government how good it is, is useless for us.