Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[kau_shik_patel]

Latest Entry in IMM-7502-11

Acknowledgment of Receipt received from all parties by telecopier on 12-DEC-2012 with respect to Orders dated 12-DEC-2012 on IMM-8302-12, IMM-8669-12 and IMM-10307-12 placed on file on 12-DEC-2012.

 

[kau_shik_patel]

Latest Entry in IMM-10307-12 - Cecil L. Rotenberg Q.C.

Order rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes at Ottawa on 12-DEC-2012 granting the application for leave fixing the hearing at a Special Sitting at Toronto on 14-JAN-2013 to begin at 09:30 specifying documents to be produced and/or filed as follows: Tribunal to send its Record on or before a date to be determined; A to serve and file further aff on or before December 17, 2012; R to serve and file further aff on or before December 21, 2012; Cross-exams to be completed on or before December 28, 2012; A to serve and file further Memo on or before January 4, 2013; R to serve and file further Memo on or before January 9, 2013; and Transcript of Cross-exams to be filed on or before January 9, 2013 Decision filed on 12-DEC-2012 Considered by the Court without personal appearance entered in J. & O. Book, volume 580 page(s) 439 - 441 Copy of the order sent to all parties Transmittal Letters placed on file.

 

[kau_shik_patel]

FWS Processing

10 December 2012

Justice Rennie, who will be presiding over the January hearing, met with opposing counsel to allocate the time between the parties and to narrow the focus of the hearing. At this point, Justice Rennie has adopted DoJ's position that the only issue on which he will rule in January is the constitutionality of s. 87.4, the provision which abolished the files. Justice Rennie appears to have accepted DoJ's view that it dictates what the parties initiating the litigation may argue and whom they may represent at the hearing.

 

[umerrais79]

dear friends can you tell me that how much long does it take for sending CAIP Notes? Cuz I applied for my CAIP notes on 8 November 2012 but did not get any response from CIC until now, I also send them many emails but no reply. Could any one tell me the time frame and what can I do?

 

[PMM]

Hi

dear friends can you tell me that how much long does it take for sending CAIP Notes? Cuz I applied for my CAIP notes on 8 November 2012 but did not get any response from CIC until now, I also send them many emails but no reply. Could any one tell me the time frame and what can I do?

They have 30 days (so they won't answer your emails or respond before that) They can also extend for another 30 days.

 

[PMM]

Hi

FWS Processing

10 December 2012

Justice Rennie, who will be presiding over the January hearing, met with opposing counsel to allocate the time between the parties and to narrow the focus of the hearing. At this point, Justice Rennie has adopted DoJ's position that the only issue on which he will rule in January is the constitutionality of s. 87.4, the provision which abolished the files. Justice Rennie appears to have accepted DoJ's view that it dictates what the parties initiating the litigation may argue and whom they may represent at the hearing.

I think that the constitutionality of 87.4 just went down the tubes. You may wish to read the Federal Court ruling : http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2012/2012fc1461/2012fc1461.html Pre-2008 applicant, applied for a writ of mandamus, prior to 87.4 but Federal Court hearing was after 87.4 was imposed. Justice Russel said:



[42] Parliament’s clear intent in enacting subsection 87.4 of the Act was to “terminate” permanent skilled worker applications made before 27 February 2008. The Applicant does not dispute this fact and he does not dispute that his application was made before the operative date. His argument is that, notwithstanding valid legislation that terminates his application, the Court can somehow use a nunc pro tunc order to grant him an order of mandamus for a skilled worker application that no longer exists because it has been terminated by act of Parliament. To grant such an order, in my opinion, and in the words of the Supreme Court of Canada in Trecothic Marsh, above, “would clearly be overriding the statute and defeating the intention of the law-giver.” It would amount to the Court extending its jurisdiction in opposition to the law and the clear intention of Parliament.

 

[hopefulever]

From the fedral court website it was noticed that only emem case is moving ahead and updated last untill 12 Dec and none other have any entry after 30 Nov 2012. Why it is so. Does it means only one case will be heared in jan and rest of the cases will follow that.

 

[farmerofthedell]

PMM: Constitutionality of 87.4 was not being challenged in the Shukla case though. It was a request for mandamus nunc pro tunc based on the Liang decision.

 

[PMM]

Hi

PMM: Constitutionality of 87.4 was not being challenged in the Shukla case though. It was a request for mandamus nunc pro tunc based on the Liang decision.

I know that, but read what the judge said re: 87.4 he can't override the statue, basically because it is the law of the land, and I bet that will be used for all the claimants whose applications were terminated by 87.4

 

[st-cnncomes]

[42] Parliament's clear intent in enacting subsection 87.4 of the Act was to “terminate” permanent skilled worker applications made before 27 February 2008. The Applicant does not dispute this fact and he does not dispute that his application was made before the operative date. His argument is that, notwithstanding valid legislation that terminates his application, the Court can somehow use a nunc pro tunc order to grant him an order of mandamus for a skilled worker application that no longer exists because it has been terminated by act of Parliament. To grant such an order, in my opinion, and in the words of the Supreme Court of Canada in Trecothic Marsh, above, “would clearly be overriding the statute and defeating the intention of the law-giver.” It would amount to the Court extending its jurisdiction in opposition to the law and the clear intention of Parliament.



This doesn't give Parliament the right to do as it pleases. The most important issue that will defeat this illegal Law is the delay. It will be proved that because of intentional and deliberate delaying tactics of CIC we have come under the illegal law. In the first place we shouldn't be in this situation. Had CIC performed its duties this law wouldn't have been applicable to us.

 

[noon]

Hi PMM,

[31] The Applicant does not attack the constitutional validity of subsection 87.4 of the Act, and he does not say that the provision does not apply to his permanent residence application. He simply says that subsection 87.4 should not apply to him, and that the Court should exercise its power to circumvent a clear act of Parliament through the use of a nunc pro tunc order. The reason offered is that his judicial review application was commenced before subsection 87.4 of the Act came into force.


In this paragraph, the judges points out the mistake done by applicant which lead to failure of his litigation. Dont you think so? What is your opinion?

 

[st-cnncomes]

Just another point i would like to make is the Onus of proving that we come under this law is on CIC. CIC has to prove that they were working but yet it took them 9 years to realize that there was a backlog.
Most of us have letters stating ' we are ready to process your file ' this was 4 years ago. It doesn't take them another 4 years to realize that they are not ready.
Let us wait and see as to how CIC wriggles themselves out of this one. It will be very amusing, all the excuses, answers, debates this will be entertaining even after the Christmas and New Year party.

 

[PMM]

Hi

Hi PMM,

[31] The Applicant does not attack the constitutional validity of subsection 87.4 of the Act, and he does not say that the provision does not apply to his permanent residence application. He simply says that subsection 87.4 should not apply to him, and that the Court should exercise its power to circumvent a clear act of Parliament through the use of a nunc pro tunc order. The reason offered is that his judicial review application was commenced before subsection 87.4 of the Act came into force.


In this paragraph, the judges points out the mistake done by applicant which lead to failure of his litigation. Dont you think so? What is your opinion?

IMHO I think that the judges reasoning that 87.4 is the "law of the land" in that it was passed by parliament and proclaimed. Although the case was about Mandamus and the writ was filed before 87.4 but not heard to after 87.4 was proclaimed and the applicant wanted a decision on Mandamus that could/would have been made IF 87.4 had not been proclaimed. What I am trying to point out is that the judge is saying 87.4 is the law and terminated pre 2008 applications. I think that the same reasoning will be used on the those applicants who want to have their applications processed although 87.4 terminated those applications.

 

[wounderful]

I remember in earlier case decision on TIM case the court says that he can not rule of the law with is only a proposal, as TIM raise this question that if that law passed the files will be terminated. Now what will be, when the law passed there must be some sort of relief and I think that, it will be the limit of time to effect the law, and thats why our lawyers took extension of time from CIC not to start terminating files due to Section 87.4. this might be the point. on the other way there must be a time duration to challange the law recently passed.

 

[wounderful]

Dear Members:

Any one has any idea what is the reason for changing the lead file, our lawyers keep changing theie lead file time to time. One more thing, it is important or I should wish to be a lead file of any lawyer and why ?