Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[UK.SkilledWorker]

I am a UK Applicant that has read the post with interest and fully appreciate the comments of Tuyen that resides in Canada. However, is it unreasonable for all of the applicants that have been waiting many years to expect Fairness from CIC . The letters sent to applicants states that “procedural fairness requires that applications must be assessed in the order which they are received”.
If I am sitting on a bus and there is old man or pregnant women standing in the aisle, I will offer them my seat as it would be the fair and reasonable thing to do. Would Mr Kenney stay seated and tell the old man / pregnant lady that statistically his demographic was more suited to the destination town and therefore he had more right to the seat! FAIRNESS, that’s all we want!

 

[sohail-khan86]

Ok here is situation simplified according to your case Sohail so that you understand exactly what is going on . You applied in 2009 under a certain NOC, provided all documents and took eilts exam with a satisfactory result. Now what if you were kept waiting till 2017 and then a law was introduced in 2017 which eliminated your application 8 years after your application date?. Meanwhile, say in 2015-2016, other people , who are not more experienced or younger than you were at the point of application, applied under your same NOC and they were accepted just in 2017, while you are still struggling with your 2009 application?
And you are told to reapply in 2018 but then the system will refuse you because you are 1 or 2 years older than the best age group for CIC which now wants to concentrate on (younger) applicants!!
Will you find this a fair decision? would not you try to challenge it with all your power?

I might have tried but regretfully I would have knew the result from the very start so try your best but don't get your hopes high enough to be disappointed in the end, meanwhile try to find other countries u could immigrate to...

 

[warmest]

I have compiled the following list showing the leading lawyer's name, court file number, litigant's name and the visa office name for the class action lawsuit. Please update if you have information for the other lawyers.

LAWYER LEAD FILE LITIGANT VISA OFFICE
Mr. Tim Leahy IMM-7502-11 Mohammad Mehdi Emam Warsaw
Mr. Mario Bellissimo IMM-5635-12 Mae Joy Tabingo Manila
Mr. Lorne Waldman IMM-8747-12 Yanjun Yin Beijing
Mr. Lawrence Wong IMM-6165-12 Fang Wei Hong Kong
Ms. Mary Lam IMM-8302-12 Zafar Mahmood et al. London
Mr. Robert Blanshay IMM-8669-12 Habibollah Abedi Syria
Ms. Wennie Lee IMM-3725-12 Sumera Shahid London
Mr. Cecil Rotenberg IMM-5365-12 Henry Toby Accra
Mr. Matthew Jeffery IMM-4866-12 Ali Raza Jafri London
Mr. Rocco Galati ? ? ?
Ms. Erin Roth ? ? ?

Please correct if I am wrong with the details.

Hi guys,

Did you notice that none of the lead files are from the visa offices of New Delhi or Islamabad or Damascus or Singapore or Buffalo (in the descending order of number of warehoused applications)? These visa offices, in total, have more than 60% of the warehoused applications.

This has been done cleverly by the prosecution lawyers to put CIC and the defense lawyers on the defensive. The prosecution lawyers have not only gained ground but are also on the offensive, right from the beginning, even before the hearing has begun. This is an interesting spectacle to watch. In the days to come, you all can see how CIC and the defense lawyers are going to enact one drama after the other to defend themselves, and at last remain as a laughing stock before the learned judge (and ofcourse, for the entire world to see). In advance, I pity CIC and the defense team.

 

[warmest]

On 14th or 23rd November 2012, we will know the total number of litigants. My guess is around 6000-7000 litigants. But as the case proceeds, it may even reach the magic figure of 10,000 litigants. Anyhow, this will just be around 10% of the total warehoused applications. Even if the judge finally rules in favour of the litigants, the CIC still has a lot to gain. Meaning, it need not have to process the remaining 90% of the applications and will have to just refund their fees (without interest). So, finally it will be a WIN-WIN situation for us and CIC (and, ofcourse, the lawyers of both sides and the court). The losers, ofcourse, will be the non-litigant applicants, who will have to be just happy with their refunds and worry for the rest of their lives for having lost their long-cherished dreams.

 

[warmest]

Can any one in this forum tell any one good reason of why the judge should rule against the litigants (who are on the right side) and unduly favour CIC (which is on the wrong side)? Please do not beat around the bush. I request you to be to the point.

Please do not be kidding by giving reasons like the following:
(1) CIC, the court and the judge are all Canadians, whereas the litigants are all non-Canadians and hence the judge will be patriotic in his judgement and hence not deliver justice. (Canadian judiciary is well known for its free and fair justice delivery system. They are not influenced by their government.)
(2) Global recession (even the worst affected U.S. has recovered; some countries in Europe are facing and will still continue to face recession because of the financial mess they created for themselves).
(3) CIC's annual immigration target limits (if this is true, then how come MI1 to MI4 set of applications were processed parallely while warehousing pre-Feb 2008 applications).
(4) Too many applications were received than expected (if this is so, did CIC not notice it while assigning the Immigration File Number for individual applications, in the first place). Did CIC realise it only in late 2011 and early 2012 when the lawyers started to file lawsuits?
(5) Shortage of manpower/resources to process the applications. Again, did CIC realise it only in late 2011 and early 2012 when the lawyers started to file lawsuits? Actually, the manpower/resources meant to process the pre-Feb 2008 FSW applications were diverted to process the MI1 to MI4 set of applications instead.

Does the government not come out with a annual plan for every department every year and table it in the parliament? Did they only realise all these facts and figures in late 2011 and early 2012?

Jason Kenney has misled the parliament and has manipulated the entire immigration system. All of his misdeeds will now be exposed in the court as the case progresses and we all are going to see them all.

The accusation of the prosecution team will be that CIC has intentionally warehoused the pre-Feb 2008 applications and has manipulated the entire immigration delivery system to meet the whims and wishes of the government, especially the minister in-charge, and has caused great damage to the litigants as well as to the worldwide good image of Canada as a free and fair nation.

If CIC and the government of Canada wanted to terminate the pre-Feb 2008 applications (which they term as 'a backlog that is a stumbling block to Canada's growth and development') in June 2012 (after the lawsuits were filed) through a hurriedly-passed half-baked legislation in 2012, why did they not terminate the 'backlog' in 2008-2009 itself when the Global Recession was in place and Canada had a financial crisis. Why terminating the applications after the recession is over and after Canada has recovered? The reason is, by then, the ruling party did not have sufficient number of MPs. Only in his second term, Stephen Harper got an absolute majority.

We all know that CIC and the government of Canada is morally and ethically wrong. The reason why we have filled lawsuits is to prove that they are also legally wrong. If proved wrong, then CIC will be asked to compensate (by processing the litigants files on priority fast-track basis and pay hefty damages, by shelling out money in billions, if ordered to do so).

 

[noon]

Can any one in this forum tell any one good reason of why the judge should rule against the litigants (who are on the right side) and unduly favour CIC (which is on the wrong side)? Please do not beat around the bush. I request you to be to the point.



If CIC and the government of Canada wanted to terminate the pre-Feb 2008 applications (which they term as a 'backlog that is a stumbling hurdle to Canada's growth') in June 2012 (after lawsuits were filed) through a legislation in 2012, why did they not terminate the 'backlog' in 2008-2009 when the Global Recession was in place and Canada had a financial crisis. Why terminating the applications after the recession is over and after Canada has recovered?

Hi warmest,

I want to bring to your notice about one particular wording in the agreement made between litigants and CIC in Tim Leahys case.The agreement was that CIC will be "guided by the lead case". Here the lead case was that of Liang , a Chinese applicant whose file was assessed before March.(Remember that the case was filed before CICs files terminating decision and the aim of the case was to induce speedy processing of files which were warehoused since 2003). The agreement was made in court in February 2012, termination of non assessed files were taken in March 29 2012 by CIC and Tim won the case in June 14 2012. Now Tim wants judge to enforce the agreement upon CIC. So the other cases will be guided by Liangs case. What will happen when other files are not assessed like Liangs case? Had Tim been lucky enough to select a non -assessed file as lead case then "guided by" wordings would have been meaningful.
I believe every thing in this case favours CIC. I dont know about cases by other lawyers.



The new minister wanted to outshine all other previous ministers by solving the backlog as early as possible and enacted bill c50 .But pre-feb 2008 files did not come under Bill C-50 which was introduced in 2008(which gave absolute power to minister to decide the order of processing , number of files to be processed etc.). But what lead to the real deleting is that CIC accepted more files in MI 1 in 2008 without a cap and every year they claimed that with the new bill c 50 minister was able to reduce backlog (which was not true). The minister was afraid of defeat in Tims case and he enacted the omnibus bill so quickly (which allows the minister to terminate the pre feb 2008 files)so that there are no files to be processed if Tim won!!!!!!

 

[warmest]

Hi warmest,

I want to bring to your notice about one particular wording in the agreement made between litigants and CIC in Tim Leahys case.The agreement was that CIC will be "guided by the lead case". Here the lead case was that of Liang , a Chinese applicant whose file was assessed before March.(Remember that the case was filed before CICs files terminating decision and the aim of the case was to induce speedy processing of files which were warehoused since 2003). The agreement was made in court in February 2012, termination of non assessed files were taken in March 29 2012 by CIC and Tim won the case in June 14 2012. Now Tim wants judge to enforce the agreement upon CIC. So the other cases will be guided by Liangs case. What will happen when other files are not assessed like Liangs case? Had Tim been lucky enough to select a non -assessed file as lead case then "guided by" wordings would have been meaningful.
I believe every thing in this case favours CIC. I dont know about cases by other lawyers.

The new minister wanted to outshine all other previous ministers by solving the backlog as early as possible and enacted bill c50 .But pre-feb 2008 files did not come under Bill C-50 which was introduced in 2008(which gave absolute power to minister to decide the order of processing , number of files to be processed etc.). But what lead to the real deleting is that CIC accepted more files in MI 1 in 2008 without a cap and every year they claimed that with the new bill c 50 minister was able to reduce backlog (which was not true). The minister was afraid of defeat in Tims case and he enacted the omnibus bill so quickly (which allows the minister to terminate the pre feb 2008 files)so that there are no files to be processed if Tim won!!!!!!

Hi noon,
Glad to know that you are vigilant like most of the other forum members. We (you, the other forum members and I) know all these wrong deeds of Kenney and CIC. The judge also knows all these. Don't you think so? He, of course, knows all these. Previously, he was a lawyer and would have seen a lot like this. He has training in law. Please refer to my posting in page 41 of this thread to know about the profile of Justice Barnes. Please have patience, my dear. The judge will deliver. And, he will rightly deliver at the right time. And, it will be a celebration time for all of us by then. ;D

Even now, Kenney and CIC are afraid of the so many lawsuits being filed. That is why I said Kenney and CIC will enact a lot of drama in the court to cover up their misdeeds and ultimately show themselves as a laughing stock. The court will dismiss Kenney's and CIC's argument on the validity of March 29 2012 cut-off date and the enactment of Bill C-50. This is for sure. Don't worry, my dear. Cheers. ;D

 

[Gaber1]

We are all here to see the Results. Ultimately either Justice Bernes will be shunted out by cic or He will shunt out litigation. This is far sure.

 

[warmest]

We are all here to see the Results. Ultimately either Justice Bernes will be shunted out by cic or He will shunt out litigation. This is far sure.

After the final verdict, Stephen Harper will only shunt the immigration minister Jason Kenney and some top officials of CIC for messing up the whole issue so as to save the face of his government in Canada and the face of Canada globally. This is for sure.

Have a nice time waiting and watching. Best wishes.

 

[warmest]

Hi warmest,

I want to bring to your notice about one particular wording in the agreement made between litigants and CIC in Tim Leahys case.The agreement was that CIC will be "guided by the lead case". Here the lead case was that of Liang , a Chinese applicant whose file was assessed before March.(Remember that the case was filed before CICs files terminating decision and the aim of the case was to induce speedy processing of files which were warehoused since 2003). The agreement was made in court in February 2012, termination of non assessed files were taken in March 29 2012 by CIC and Tim won the case in June 14 2012. Now Tim wants judge to enforce the agreement upon CIC. So the other cases will be guided by Liangs case. What will happen when other files are not assessed like Liangs case? Had Tim been lucky enough to select a non -assessed file as lead case then "guided by" wordings would have been meaningful.
I believe every thing in this case favours CIC. I dont know about cases by other lawyers.

Kenney and CIC have manipulated the situation in their favour as the case proceeded. You need to understand that Jason Kenney is a master manipulator. He does not have values as most of us have. He will do anything just for his goodness and will not bother about who is affected by his acts. No morals for him at all. We have such a person instructing the CIC. There are some black sheep among the top officials in CIC as well. They all have teamed up with Kenney. They are our villains. In this situation, Tim cannot be lucky enough in selecting a non-assessed file as lead case just because the announcement of 29 March 2012 as the cut-off date came much later in June 2012 after Tim chose his representative file (Liang's file) in October 2011. Instead of Liang's file, if Tim would have chosen your file or my file, then these villains would have assessed that your file or that my file before 29 March 2012 and would have told the same story of the 'cut-off date'. If your file would have been chosen, then you would have got the visa and would have by now reached Canada and Liang and his family would have remained in China and I may be addressing this post to him instead of you. ;D The villains are determined to cheat. Whatever Tim does, they will play accordingly (by hook or by crook) and come out with the same story. They are capable of shifting the goal posts instantly at the speed of their thoughts.

The new minister wanted to outshine all other previous ministers by solving the backlog as early as possible and enacted bill c50 .But pre-feb 2008 files did not come under Bill C-50 which was introduced in 2008(which gave absolute power to minister to decide the order of processing , number of files to be processed etc.). But what lead to the real deleting is that CIC accepted more files in MI 1 in 2008 without a cap and every year they claimed that with the new bill c 50 minister was able to reduce backlog (which was not true). The minister was afraid of defeat in Tims case and he enacted the omnibus bill so quickly (which allows the minister to terminate the pre feb 2008 files)so that there are no files to be processed if Tim won!!!!!!

Kenney enacted Bill C-50 so as to not solve the backlog but to get along with his own way of working (of issuing ministerial instructions) and thereby creating the backlog (by increasingly warehousing). Bill C-50 enabled the minister to come out with the MI1 to MI4. Backlog was never reduced; it went on increasing just because newer files were only processed and older files were increasingly warehoused.

Kenney enacted the omnibus bill so quickly because he feared the other lawyers would also follow Tim Leahy and file lawsuits. Kenney succeeded in enacting the law quickly just before the other lawyers could file their lawsuits. Tim is too smart for Kenney to match and Kenney could never check Tim's progress except towards the end where Kenney included a clause in the legislation where the pre-dated cut-off date was mentioned. This will be dismissed by the court later on because a law cannot be pre-dated. A law can have effect only from the day it is enacted. So Tim will come out scathe-free and it will be a victory for all of his pre-14 June 2012 litigants (900 litigants).

 

[jevan]

After the final verdict, Stephen Harper will only shunt the immigration minister Jason Kenney and some top officials of CIC for messing up the whole issue so as to save the face of his government in Canada and the face of Canada globally. This is for sure.

Have a nice time waiting and watching. Best wishes.

@warmest,
agreed.

 

[jevan]

Hi noon,
Glad to know that you are vigilant like most of the other forum members. We (you, the other forum members and I) know all these wrong deeds of Kenney and CIC. The judge also knows all these. Don't you think so? He, of course, knows all these. Previously, he was a lawyer and would have seen a lot like this. He has training in law. Please refer to my posting in page 41 of this thread to know about the profile of Justice Barnes. Please have patience, my dear. The judge will deliver. And, he will rightly deliver at the right time. And, it will be a celebration time for all of us by then. ;D

Even now, Kenney and CIC are afraid of the so many lawsuits being filed. That is why I said Kenney and CIC will enact a lot of drama in the court to cover up their misdeeds and ultimately show themselves as a laughing stock. The court will dismiss Kenney's and CIC's argument on the validity of March 29 2012 cut-off date and the enactment of Bill C-50. This is for sure. Don't worry, my dear. Cheers. ;D

@warmest,
Insha-ALLAH the same will happen.
+1 for u dear for this positive post.

 

[hopefulever]

No body has ever stopped cic to assess files and it is they who have failed in their duty. More over court can question cic why they have assessed 2007 applied case and not of those who applied much earlier in 2004? CIC has completely failed in performing their duty and they should be instead sacked from cic besides ordering to deposit back what ever they have got in lieu of salary. I expect court to take in consideration and misdeeds /fraud done by cic and should order cic to issue visas to all litigants irrespective of whether cic has assesed their files or not.

 

[hopeful4]

I have got the following from Tim in e mail

Dear Litigant,

Justice Barnes called a conference for all counsel for November 14th. Yesterday, the Registry faxed the agenda: to set time-frames for the written arguments for those challenging s. 87.4 (closing the files) and the dates of their availability for a hearing date. When the Registry asked me last week if I would attend, I said that I would. Now, however, that the purpose has been disclosed, I have prepared a letter to send to the Court on Wednesday, advising that I will not be attending.

As my rationale, I am quoting the judge's ruling when he denied my May motion seeking to enjoin the Minister from closing the files. He agreed with DoJ that my motion was premature because it was speculation that Bill C-38 would pass. So, I am telling the Court that it would be speculation for me to presume that the Court will not apply the law properly to the facts and grant our motion. Therefore, because, only if our motion is denied would we be challenging s. 87.4, it is premature for me to be setting dates for doing so. I will be copying all the counsel, as the judge previously ordered me to do. So, they will all know officially that he has been stalling on our motion, adding a bit of pressure on him.

I mention that DoJ has not disputed the fact that you have a vested right to have Liang applied in your case but that they do deny the right of those who joined after June 14th to be included in the group. In that respect I wrote:

The Respondent does, however, dispute the inclusion of post-June 14th litigants into the Emam group pursuant to his Lordship’s June 26th oral direction. For me to act on the presumption that his Lordship will not honour that direction would be impolitique in the extreme and contrary to my duty to those who have retained my services. Therefore, if I must speculate, I prefer to act on the basis that his Lordship will honour his direction and will apply the law properly, in which case I would have at present no litigants participating in the s. 87.4 challenge, vitiating any basis for my participation at the November 14th case-management conference. [emphasis added]

I expect the judge to be angry that I am throwing his stalling back in his face but he has given us an opening for me to prod him. Moreover, (a) he will have to address his June 26th direction and (b) DoJ will have an opportunity to dispute our position. If they do not do so, our position will be even stronger. If they do, I only have to refer the Court to DoJ written arguments to support my position that CIC agrees that you all have a vested right to have Liang followed.

So, maybe now Justice Barnes will be provoked into acting. We will see. I will let you know if he does. (If I say nothing; it means that he has not acted. So, please do not ask me. Just trust me to tell you if there is anything to say.)

Regards,

Tim

 

[Johnny31]

Just a quick question! When might there be a decision regrading the cases? sometime this year? I'm usually contributing at the CEC discussion forums so I'm not familiar with this particular thread. sorry about that! I wish everyone best of luck!!!