I just admire the calibre of Tim Leahy. He is shrewd and spontaneous. An excellent lawyer. Great man, great job. I am short of words to describe his potential. Words can hardly describe him. I am proud to say that I am a client of him. He is simply superb. ;Dkau_shik_patel said:Good Day,
I have just faxed and email a letter to the managing judge and copied it to all counsel involved in the challenge to the closing of the unassessed pre-Bill C-50 files. The text reads:
As I understand, his Lordship, the Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes stated at the November 14th CMC that cases for which application records are served and filed by November 30th will be granted leave and the matter heard January 14th-16th. Although the schedule is exceedingly tight, I shall endeavor to meet it despite the fact that I am en route to Calgary this morning and will be in Edmonton, North Battleford and Saskatoon before returning to Toronto on Sunday in time to attend the LSUC immigration seminar on the 26th and 27th and to appear at a hearing on the 28th. I would appreciate your so advising his Lordship.
Prior to the Minister's coup de main five months after the Emam proceeding's commencement, we had identified only two categories, but the Minister's action has multiplied the categories. At present, because the Emam contingent consists of four distinct subcategories, I anticipate serving and filing a lead case for each; viz., (1) pre-Bill C-50 cases which (a) were never assessed, (b) were assessed before 29 March 2012 or (c) after March 29th and (2) MI 1 cases.
Yesterday, I served the lead case for 1b, as well as fifteen companion cases because Mr. Justice Rennie had stated that it would be inappropriate to issue mandamus for cases for which the facts are not on the record. I expect to have records for all the 1b cases for which we have secured CAIPS notes served and filed before the hearing. The lead case is IMM-10609-12, Huanghuang Liu v. M.C.I. While I would expect the respondent to address Liu as per the time-frame you laid down, the other cases may proceed in the normal time-frame as far as I am concerned.
Because s. 87.4 has no bearing on the 1b and MI 1 cases, I respectfully submit, their issues should not be put aside while the significantly larger s. 87.4 contingent's case be addressed. If allowing these subcategories to “have their day in court” on January 14th-16th is not acceptable, it might be in their better interest to take up your earlier-stated offer that applicants may leave the managed litigation if they wish. While I would prefer that they remain within the managed litigation given the early hearing date and the pending motion, if their issues will not be entertained at the hearing, they would be better served outside the case-managed proceeding.
Now, who are going to be the lucky guys to represent the other two lead cases? I wish me to be one of them. Let us see.