sans_nom24 said:9? Do you know their names?
Regarding the names of the 9 lawyers, you may refer to my posting on page 49 of this thread. But note the lead files of some of the lawyers have changed by now.
sans_nom24 said:9? Do you know their names?
hopeful4 said:Tim has just changed the lead file to IMM-4032-12. You can follow all the news about his motion from there.
So strange what a simple thread can reveal in people,,,some are so happy with the simple fact that the case might be dismissed,,,no matter how this news can be depressive to other persons,,,,,the (I was right all the way ) feeling is obviously more fundamental to them than simple human compassion .
Have some humanity for heavens sake,,,,,
warmest said:Taking stock of the overall current situation, I guess the following might happen in the near future.
1. During the hearing in 14-16 January 2013, Justice Rennie will hear the lawyers argue that the law (s. 87.4) is unconstitutional and unfair. A week or two after, Justice Rennie might rule that the law (s. 87.4) is unlawful.
2. In late January or early February 2013, either Justice Barnes or any other judge (if Justice Barnes refuses) might rule in favour of Tim's motion.
3. CIC might start sending the refunds to the non-litigants in February or March 2013.
4. If the court orders CIC to process the litigants applications on a fast-track mode, then there is a chance that most of the litigants files will be processed before the end of 2013 itself.
Let us be positive and hope for the best.
I request those applicants who have not yet joined any of the litigations to make it fast and join before 8 or 9 January 2013 so as to be protected by law.
Year 2013 is going to be a year of boon for the litigants and a year of bane for CIC and Jason Kenney.
PMM said:Hi
I doubt that the judge will rule 87.4 is unlawful. It was passed by the duly elected parliament.
PMM said:Hi
I doubt that the judge will rule 87.4 is unlawful. It was passed by the duly elected parliament.
warmest said:This is again an extract from the curriculum of Grade 6 Park of St. Mary's School in Canada.
Protecting our Rights
Court System
The court system in Canada protects our rights and freedoms. A person or group who thinks a right or freedom has been taken away takes the case to a provincial court. The court makes a decision, but either side can appeal if they believe the decision was unfair. Appeal means to ask a higher court to review a decision made by a lower court. The highest court in Canada, The Supreme Court, considers the most important cases and their decision is final.
Constitution
Our Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is a set of principles that lays out the rules for how our country will be governed. The Constitution is very difficult to change.
The Charter was entrenched (firmly established) in the Constitution so that rights would be more effectively protected. The following reasons outline why it was essential for the CCRF to be part of the Constitution:
1. No one, including the government, can take away the rights and freedoms of people in Canada.
2. Laws that do not align with the Charter will be quickly struck down.
3. Provincial and federal leaders must negotiate and agree before any changes can be made to the Constitution.
4. All minority groups are protected
http://www.gr6park.com/index.cfm?subpage=919223
hello!!! PL WAKE UP!!!! your info is v. old and dated. Barnes has already dismissed Tim's motion. the fed. court link cant be attached here. the news is also there in FB. For tim's litigants like me the dream is already over and we are in the same situation as all others see -- cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=IMM-7502-11warmest said:Irrespective of whether Justice Rennie rules s. 87.4 as constitutional or unconstitutional in January 2013, Tim's motion will not at all be affected because Justice Rennie had delivered his judgement on 14 June 2012 itself favouring the litigant (Liang, whose lawyer was Tim). Bill C-38, containing s. 87.4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, became law only on 29 June 2012. Hence the judgement favouring the litigants was given before the law was enacted. So those who have joined Tim's litigation before that judgement day are already protected by that judgement.[/b] It is only a matter of time that the court will ask CIC to honour the agreement that CIC made with Tim. This was an agreement made in the court and it is in the court records.