Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit
- Thread starter admin
- Start date
PMM said:
I agree. This story will serve to cloud the minds of some, if not confuse them. I do not feel this 9 year old story is relevant to the current litigation where Parliament legislated away backlog cases. This 9 year old story has different circumstances, I should say.
hopeful4
Hero Member
- Sep 2, 2012
- 344
- 12
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- vienna
- NOC Code......
- 4012
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 28-9-2007
- Doc's Request.
- 10-3-2010
- AOR Received.
- 18-1-2008
- IELTS Request
- 10-3-2010
- File Transfer...
- 17-5-2012
- Med's Request
- 18-3-2013
- Med's Done....
- 21-3-2013
- Passport Req..
- 16-4-2013
- VISA ISSUED...
- 26-4-2013
- LANDED..........
- June-July 2013
Actually there is not point in your opposition. Off course the post is relevant because it deals with a case similar to ours.PMM said:
Good defense. Well done hopeful4. I am happy and proud of you. 
What is pathetic is that our dear friend sac has now fallen in the trap laid out by the trouble makers (those people who lack common sense). sac has now become a prey to the thought of illusion. Let us all wish and pray that sac soon frees-up himself from their clutches and he soon recovers to the state of well being.
If the problem that we face today is the same as that was faced by somebody (300,000 applicants) 9 years ago, then why not we try the same successful solution again?
If CIC and the Conservative Party can be so stupid in making the same MISTAKE once again, then why not we be so intelligent in applying the same successful SOLUTION once again?
What is their problem in we trying out the same solution that was successful previously? We are not making the same MISTAKE again? We are only trying to replicate the same RIGHT again. Right strategy, right?
What is pathetic is that our dear friend sac has now fallen in the trap laid out by the trouble makers (those people who lack common sense). sac has now become a prey to the thought of illusion. Let us all wish and pray that sac soon frees-up himself from their clutches and he soon recovers to the state of well being.
If the problem that we face today is the same as that was faced by somebody (300,000 applicants) 9 years ago, then why not we try the same successful solution again?
If CIC and the Conservative Party can be so stupid in making the same MISTAKE once again, then why not we be so intelligent in applying the same successful SOLUTION once again?
What is their problem in we trying out the same solution that was successful previously? We are not making the same MISTAKE again? We are only trying to replicate the same RIGHT again. Right strategy, right?
sac said:
How will this story serve to cloud the minds of some people? Let us know.
Both in the current litigation as well as in the 2003 litigation, it was the Canadian parliament that legislated away the backlog cases. Tell us how is it different now?
You are saying the 9-year-old story has different circumstances. What are the different circumstances that you are talking about?
warmest said:
I know how much you love to bash the evil "Conservative Party", but in 2003, it was the liberal party that was in power.
warmest said:What is their problem in we trying out the same solution that was successful previously? We are not making the same MISTAKE again? We are only trying to replicate the same RIGHT again. Right strategy, right?
Don't worry...you can rest assured that CIC learned from their previous mistakes. With the one-in-a-million chance that this lawsuit will succeed, you seem to be under the misguided illusion that it automatically means "approval", for everybody involved, which it does not. If CIC is backed into a corner and they're "ordered" by some bleeding heart liberal judge to reverse their policies, you can bet all the money that you have - or ever hope to have - that there's going to be a wave of rejection letters being sent out. As the old saying goes, "there's more than one way to skin a cat".
warmest said:What is pathetic is that our dear friend sac has now fallen in the trap laid out by the trouble makers (those people who lack common sense). sac has now become a prey to the thought of illusion. Let us all wish and pray that sac soon frees-up himself from their clutches and he soon recovers to the state of well being.
My dear warmest: do not worry, I am not falling into the trap laid out by trouble makers. i feel there are no traps, only trouble makers who make fun at us who sincerely desire to migrate to a beautiful country with beautiful people--i mean, a great majority of whom are beautiful people sans those isolated trouble makers you mentioned.
yes, there could be historical precedents we could glean from a 9 year old case for us to cast light for our understanding of our current litigation. however, we look at our own current litigation on its own merits, based on facts and applicable laws.
i may correct myself: perhaps the intention to share to our forum a 9 year old case was to boost our hopes. That there was a class action filed with the Canadian federal courts 9 years ago and that it won. and that this particular case should give us hope that the federal courts of Canada would render justice we expect for our current litigation. other than that, i will accept an adverse ruling with dignity and continue to respect the Canadian legal system. There are other options; besides, life goes on. One door closes, another opens.
We continue to treat persons with respect, as I strive to do, including the trouble makers you mention.
Here is the latest update from Tim Leahy.
Good Day,
As you know, in October 2011, I initiated litigation, asking the Federal Court to order CIC to assess warehoused skilled worker applications, filed before 26 June 2010. On February 3rd, CIC and I signed an Agreement, filed with the Court, whereby CIC agreed to "be guided by" the decision on the representatives. A month later, the Minister announced that he was legislating the end of the unassessed pre-27 February 2008 files, after which other litigation groups arose.
On June 14th, Justice Rennie ruled entirely in our favour, ordering CIC to finalize our lead case within 120 days, but left out in the cold all those whose files Bill C-38 had doomed. CIC agreed to assess and finalize within 180 days those files which Bill C-38 had not closed but thumbed its nose at the others.
Justice Barnes, the (mis)managing judge, refused to listen to my request that he enforce the Agreement but, instead, ordered me to file a motion making that request -- and I did, on June 29th -- and said that others may join our group -- and 400+ have. He then decided to let the litigants twist slowing in the wind while twiddling his thumbs.
On November 14th, Justice Barnes set January 14th-16th for Justice Rennie to rule on the legality of s. 87.4, the provision which closed the files. DoJ counsel Martin Anderson limited arguments to the constitutionality of that provision, with which Diktat Justice Rennie dutifully complied. Nine litigation groups, including ours, will be attending the hearing. If the Court rules in our favour, everyone's file will be reopened -- litigants and non-litigants alike. However, if Justice Rennie follows through on what he stated on December 10th, he will not order CIC to finalize the litigants files but will only declare the law to be unlawful and then go home and relax while the FSW litigants will remain forever mired the morass of the indefinite warehousing of their files. (I will be arguing the unfairness of such repeated disregard for the litigants.) However Justice Rennie decides, the losing party may be expected to appeal the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal and, if we prevail at that stage, CIC will most certainly appeal to the Supreme Court.
On December 14th, Justice Barnes decided that he could stall no longer and dismissed our motion, seeking enforcement of the Agreement, saying that we should first ask the Minister to access s. 25.2(1), as he did on November 29th for those who had been assessed after March 29th and issued visas after June 29th, and, if the Minister refuses, litigate the refusal. Therefore, today I did two things: (a) I filed a notice-of-appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal, seeking to have Justice Barnes' ruling quashed, and (2) formally requested the Minister to honour the Agreement (now that he has admitted that his counsel was lying to the Court when they professed that he had no authority to honour the Agreement). If, as I expect, DoJ refuses the request, I will be filing a new court case January 2nd, seeking enforcement of the Agreement, and, on January 8th, file a motion asking that the application be a class-action lawsuit solely for those skilled workers who are members of this litigation group. If we prevail, CIC will be ordered to finalize our litigants' files before the end of 2013. Thus, January 5th will be the final date for joining the unfairCIC.com litigation group.
Best wishes for the holiday season and the New Year.
Regards,
Tim
Good Day,
As you know, in October 2011, I initiated litigation, asking the Federal Court to order CIC to assess warehoused skilled worker applications, filed before 26 June 2010. On February 3rd, CIC and I signed an Agreement, filed with the Court, whereby CIC agreed to "be guided by" the decision on the representatives. A month later, the Minister announced that he was legislating the end of the unassessed pre-27 February 2008 files, after which other litigation groups arose.
On June 14th, Justice Rennie ruled entirely in our favour, ordering CIC to finalize our lead case within 120 days, but left out in the cold all those whose files Bill C-38 had doomed. CIC agreed to assess and finalize within 180 days those files which Bill C-38 had not closed but thumbed its nose at the others.
Justice Barnes, the (mis)managing judge, refused to listen to my request that he enforce the Agreement but, instead, ordered me to file a motion making that request -- and I did, on June 29th -- and said that others may join our group -- and 400+ have. He then decided to let the litigants twist slowing in the wind while twiddling his thumbs.
On November 14th, Justice Barnes set January 14th-16th for Justice Rennie to rule on the legality of s. 87.4, the provision which closed the files. DoJ counsel Martin Anderson limited arguments to the constitutionality of that provision, with which Diktat Justice Rennie dutifully complied. Nine litigation groups, including ours, will be attending the hearing. If the Court rules in our favour, everyone's file will be reopened -- litigants and non-litigants alike. However, if Justice Rennie follows through on what he stated on December 10th, he will not order CIC to finalize the litigants files but will only declare the law to be unlawful and then go home and relax while the FSW litigants will remain forever mired the morass of the indefinite warehousing of their files. (I will be arguing the unfairness of such repeated disregard for the litigants.) However Justice Rennie decides, the losing party may be expected to appeal the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal and, if we prevail at that stage, CIC will most certainly appeal to the Supreme Court.
On December 14th, Justice Barnes decided that he could stall no longer and dismissed our motion, seeking enforcement of the Agreement, saying that we should first ask the Minister to access s. 25.2(1), as he did on November 29th for those who had been assessed after March 29th and issued visas after June 29th, and, if the Minister refuses, litigate the refusal. Therefore, today I did two things: (a) I filed a notice-of-appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal, seeking to have Justice Barnes' ruling quashed, and (2) formally requested the Minister to honour the Agreement (now that he has admitted that his counsel was lying to the Court when they professed that he had no authority to honour the Agreement). If, as I expect, DoJ refuses the request, I will be filing a new court case January 2nd, seeking enforcement of the Agreement, and, on January 8th, file a motion asking that the application be a class-action lawsuit solely for those skilled workers who are members of this litigation group. If we prevail, CIC will be ordered to finalize our litigants' files before the end of 2013. Thus, January 5th will be the final date for joining the unfairCIC.com litigation group.
Best wishes for the holiday season and the New Year.
Regards,
Tim
Canadians optimistic about economic outlook for 2013: poll
By Jordan Press, Postmedia News, December 26, 2012 9:02 PM
OTTAWA — The majority of Canadians are optimistic about the country's fiscal fortunes heading into 2013, but those sentiments vary by region, suggesting a tale of two countries, according to a new poll.
Western Canadians are slightly more optimistic about the Canadian economy going into the new year, with more than three-quarters of Albertans (77 per cent), Saskatchewanians and Manitobans (76 per cent) and 72 per cent of British Columbians showing bright outlooks for the country's finances. Two-thirds of Ontarians and Atlantic Canadians believed next year would be a “good” year for the Canadian economy, while just over half of Quebec respondents felt the same way.
The Ipsos Reid poll conducted for Postmedia News and Global Television also found that, overall, 60 per cent of respondents didn't believe Canada would enter a recession next year. Of those who believed this country would head into another recession, the responses again showed a regional divide: fewer residents in the West (about one-third of respondents) agreed Canada would enter a recession in 2013 compared to respondents in Atlantic Canada (47 per cent), Ontario (40 per cent) and Quebec (47 per cent).
Those results suggest that the economic growth in the West has buoyed expectations relative to the economic fortunes in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada.
But the general sense of optimism is a continuation of a trend that has seen Canadian consumers show more confidence in their economy versus respondents from other countries. In the last monthly poll of consumer confidence in 24 countries, conducted by Ipsos Reid, Canadian respondents edged past people in Germany in terms of economic optimism.
“On the whole, it's a little bit like the numbers that were released on the economy,” said John Wright, Ipsos Reid's senior vice-president of public affairs. “We grow a little bit, not a lot. It's a steady growth and that's just how the country has responded to it.”
The results are also similar to the national sentiment coming out of the recession of the early 1990s, Wright said. People are cautiously optimistic for recovery, he said, but are sensitive to any fiscal changes.
“We're just looking over the hood of the car. You're making sure that if there's going to be a sudden brake, you have an opportunity to stop the car or do something about it.”
Not only are Canadians looking over the hood, but so too are governments.
However, while Canadians appear confident in the economy, their confidence in their governments' ability to handle the economy is not as high. The poll found that since February, Canadians' approval of the Harper government's management of the economy is down five points, with 49 per cent of respondents approving of the Conservatives' fiscal management.
In Alberta, 60 per cent approved of the Harper government's handling of the economy, followed by 51 per cent in Ontario, 50 per cent in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, 49 per cent in B.C., 44 per cent in Atlantic Canada and 41 per cent in Quebec.
Provincial governments fared worse in the poll. Almost two-fifths of respondents (37 per cent) approve of their provincial government's handling of the economy. Respondents in Saskatchewan and Manitoba were most likely to approve of their provincial government's handling of the economy (56 per cent), followed by Alberta (44 per cent), Atlantic Canada (41 per cent), Quebec (40 per cent), B.C. (33 per cent) and Ontario (31 per cent).
The poll of 1,021 Canadians from Ipsos Reid's online panel was conducted between Dec. 7 and 12 and is accurate to within 3.5 percentage points.
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Canadians+optimistic+about+economic+outlook+2013+poll/7746282/story.html
By Jordan Press, Postmedia News, December 26, 2012 9:02 PM
OTTAWA — The majority of Canadians are optimistic about the country's fiscal fortunes heading into 2013, but those sentiments vary by region, suggesting a tale of two countries, according to a new poll.
Western Canadians are slightly more optimistic about the Canadian economy going into the new year, with more than three-quarters of Albertans (77 per cent), Saskatchewanians and Manitobans (76 per cent) and 72 per cent of British Columbians showing bright outlooks for the country's finances. Two-thirds of Ontarians and Atlantic Canadians believed next year would be a “good” year for the Canadian economy, while just over half of Quebec respondents felt the same way.
The Ipsos Reid poll conducted for Postmedia News and Global Television also found that, overall, 60 per cent of respondents didn't believe Canada would enter a recession next year. Of those who believed this country would head into another recession, the responses again showed a regional divide: fewer residents in the West (about one-third of respondents) agreed Canada would enter a recession in 2013 compared to respondents in Atlantic Canada (47 per cent), Ontario (40 per cent) and Quebec (47 per cent).
Those results suggest that the economic growth in the West has buoyed expectations relative to the economic fortunes in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada.
But the general sense of optimism is a continuation of a trend that has seen Canadian consumers show more confidence in their economy versus respondents from other countries. In the last monthly poll of consumer confidence in 24 countries, conducted by Ipsos Reid, Canadian respondents edged past people in Germany in terms of economic optimism.
“On the whole, it's a little bit like the numbers that were released on the economy,” said John Wright, Ipsos Reid's senior vice-president of public affairs. “We grow a little bit, not a lot. It's a steady growth and that's just how the country has responded to it.”
The results are also similar to the national sentiment coming out of the recession of the early 1990s, Wright said. People are cautiously optimistic for recovery, he said, but are sensitive to any fiscal changes.
“We're just looking over the hood of the car. You're making sure that if there's going to be a sudden brake, you have an opportunity to stop the car or do something about it.”
Not only are Canadians looking over the hood, but so too are governments.
However, while Canadians appear confident in the economy, their confidence in their governments' ability to handle the economy is not as high. The poll found that since February, Canadians' approval of the Harper government's management of the economy is down five points, with 49 per cent of respondents approving of the Conservatives' fiscal management.
In Alberta, 60 per cent approved of the Harper government's handling of the economy, followed by 51 per cent in Ontario, 50 per cent in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, 49 per cent in B.C., 44 per cent in Atlantic Canada and 41 per cent in Quebec.
Provincial governments fared worse in the poll. Almost two-fifths of respondents (37 per cent) approve of their provincial government's handling of the economy. Respondents in Saskatchewan and Manitoba were most likely to approve of their provincial government's handling of the economy (56 per cent), followed by Alberta (44 per cent), Atlantic Canada (41 per cent), Quebec (40 per cent), B.C. (33 per cent) and Ontario (31 per cent).
The poll of 1,021 Canadians from Ipsos Reid's online panel was conducted between Dec. 7 and 12 and is accurate to within 3.5 percentage points.
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Canadians+optimistic+about+economic+outlook+2013+poll/7746282/story.html
wounderful
Hero Member
- Oct 18, 2012
- 322
- 6
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Islamabad - London
- NOC Code......
- 3111
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 26-06-2005
- AOR Received.
- 17-07-2005
- IELTS Request
- original sent with application
- File Transfer...
- 30-09-2010
Dear Members:
As my status now changed and shows "Decision Made" I am in process to obtain copy of CAIPS notes in order to get what base on this decision, however, as it normally will take one month, I ask other members to let us know if they recently got their CAIPS and that shows "Decision Made".
As my status now changed and shows "Decision Made" I am in process to obtain copy of CAIPS notes in order to get what base on this decision, however, as it normally will take one month, I ask other members to let us know if they recently got their CAIPS and that shows "Decision Made".
New Updates from Tim Leahy:
Dear litigant,
I just sent the attached letter to the Federal Court, pulling us out of the January hearing UNLESS the Court is prepared to order CIC to assess your files within a specified time-frame. On December 10th, Justice Rennie said that he will not be doing so, but, rather, would only rule that s. 87.4 is either legal or illegal. If illegal, it would mean that all of the files will be re-opened -- and that ruling would apply to everyone. Thus, a successful outcome will still benefit you even though your case is not before the Court.
Instead, as I mentioned yesterday, I will be pursuing separate litigation for our group. Those who were assessed after March 29th but not issued visas before June 29th also have the choice of joining Richard Kurland's group challenging that decision. Mr. Kurland has graciously agreed to include them in his group at not additional cost.
I really do not see how we benefit from being in the January hearing, where Justice Rennie, unless he changes his mind, will not consider enforcing the Agreement and will not issue mandamus in any event. Therefore, in order to avoid DoJ's being able to argue that we gave up that claim, I have notified the Court of my intention to withdraw from the hearing.
Please do not be upset. As I said, if s. 87.4 is ruled illegal, your file, too, will be re-opened -- as will all 86,000+ files. Such a decision will make our Agreement argument even stronger because DoJ's refusal to honour it was based on the files being closed. In those circumstances, they will not have a basis for refusing to honour the Agreement.
On the other hand, if the Court upholds s. 87.4, that decision will not directly affect our litigation, and we will be able to make are argument based upon the Agreement without being tainted with a negative decision arising out of the January hearing. Thus, no matter which way the Court rules in January, our group will lose nothing by not participating.
Regards,
Tim
Dear litigant,
I just sent the attached letter to the Federal Court, pulling us out of the January hearing UNLESS the Court is prepared to order CIC to assess your files within a specified time-frame. On December 10th, Justice Rennie said that he will not be doing so, but, rather, would only rule that s. 87.4 is either legal or illegal. If illegal, it would mean that all of the files will be re-opened -- and that ruling would apply to everyone. Thus, a successful outcome will still benefit you even though your case is not before the Court.
Instead, as I mentioned yesterday, I will be pursuing separate litigation for our group. Those who were assessed after March 29th but not issued visas before June 29th also have the choice of joining Richard Kurland's group challenging that decision. Mr. Kurland has graciously agreed to include them in his group at not additional cost.
I really do not see how we benefit from being in the January hearing, where Justice Rennie, unless he changes his mind, will not consider enforcing the Agreement and will not issue mandamus in any event. Therefore, in order to avoid DoJ's being able to argue that we gave up that claim, I have notified the Court of my intention to withdraw from the hearing.
Please do not be upset. As I said, if s. 87.4 is ruled illegal, your file, too, will be re-opened -- as will all 86,000+ files. Such a decision will make our Agreement argument even stronger because DoJ's refusal to honour it was based on the files being closed. In those circumstances, they will not have a basis for refusing to honour the Agreement.
On the other hand, if the Court upholds s. 87.4, that decision will not directly affect our litigation, and we will be able to make are argument based upon the Agreement without being tainted with a negative decision arising out of the January hearing. Thus, no matter which way the Court rules in January, our group will lose nothing by not participating.
Regards,
Tim