Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[wounderful]

So, according to Tim our litigation automatically become a "Class Action" (i.e. applicable to all) Good News and simple decision will make all of us Happy. (atleast for more couple of years waiting again) ???

 

[Gaber1]

He is making all of you CHUTIAA.

 

[maran1976]

He is making all of you CHUTIAA.

+1 , jokes apart, I wouldn't say so. Such false positive/hopes until the other groups are still active and then the bombshell !
I hope he knows what he is doing.

 

[warmest]

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

Here is that "attached letter".

‎27 December 2012
Mlle. Pauline Chartrand,
Registry Officer,
Federal Court Registry
180 Queen Street West ◦ Suite 200
Toronto, Ontario M5V 3L6

Re: Emam Contingent, IMM-7502-11, representative case for January Hearing: Datta, IMM-4032-11

Dear Mlle. Chartrand:

I would appreciate this letter being forwarded the Hon. Mr. Justice Rennie. Thank you for your assistance.

If I properly understand the Anderson litigation (a) it is limited to the constitutionality of s.87.4 and, (b) if applicants prevail, the sole relief to be granted will be a declaration holding s. 87.4 to be unlawful. If so, I fail to see any benefit for the Emam contingent beyond what would accrue to any of the FSW applicants whom s.87.4 negatively affects. If this understanding is correct, I would like to remove Datta from consideration at the January 14th-16th and have the Emam contingent proceed separately.

There are a number of reasons I have reached this conclusion. First of all, if mandamus will not issue, I cannot see any benefit to anyone who joined the litigation because they will receive the same relief as those who have not stood up for their rights, seeking justice in the Federal Court.

Second, as you know, owing to your refusal to extend the Liang decision to the litigants, as the Court's having urged managed litigation clearly had promised, these litigants have an unresolved vested right to have the Protocol honoured. However, Mr. Anderson has refused to permit this issue to be raised at the hearing, and you have dutifully adopted his position. Therefore, if we proceed to seek enforcement of the Protocol in a separate litigation, the respondent may well argue that we surrendered that claim when we allowed ourselves to be swept into the Anderson litigation. Such a result would be contrary to my litigants' best interest.

Third, Justice Barnes conduct has indisputably prejudiced my litigants. First, his setting the hearing date with such a short time-frame greatly prescribes the applicants' ability to put forward the case in the most effective manner; i.e., as I proposed in my August letter to the group. Second, by withholding his decision on the motion I filed on June 29th, pursuant to his June 26th oral direction, until a month before the hearing, Justice Barnes further prejudiced my litigants by making it impossible to seek an order compelling answers to questions posited. Finally, as you dutifully followed Mr. Anderson's refusal to allow me to posit interrogatories relevant to my litigants' position, we lack the material required for a reasoned decision on the merits of their case to ensue.

Therefore, in the absence of the possibility of a mandamus being issued or my litigants being permitted to argue their case in full, they would be ill-served to participate in the January hearing – even if Justice Barnes had acted in a timely, fair manner. If you wish to rescind the order granting leave, which order you amended to square with Mr. Anderson's terms, you may do so.

After all, pursuant to Justice Barnes' December 7th direction, leave was granted to Mr. Datta's file on April 25th; providing the legal basis for setting the hearing down for ninety (90) days from the date of the order, granting my litigants the discovery rights to which they are properly entitled, as well as certified tribunal records for each of the litigants. Given that you ruled in Liang that the individual facts must be before the Court in order to grant mandamus, at a minimum, the CAIPS notes for the Emam contingent would have to be before the Court if they are not to be left out in the cold yet again. Notwithstanding Justice Barnes' refusal to act in conformity with s. 74 of IPRA, fealty to the Law requires the April 25th order be implemented in the manner IRPA and the Federal Court Rules envision. Such action would be refreshing and consistent with how Canadians and the rest of the world expect Canadian courts to behave. My litigants pray that they will be accorded due process.

Please be further advised that, consistent with Justice Barnes' December 14th ruling, I have requested DoJ counsel secure from their client agreement to access s. 25.2 in order to honour ¶14 of the Protocol. Should the Minister refuse to do so or should the Emam hearing not be re-set ninety days from issuance of a new order, I expect to file a motion seeking certification as a class all those who, at the time of the ruling, are included in the Emam contingent. This option, it seem to me, is in my litigants' best interest whereas participation in the January hearing offers them nothing more than that to which they would be entitled even if they had never retained counsel and may oblige them to forfeit their strongest arguments.

 

[warmest]

Such false positive/hopes until the other groups are still active and then the bombshell !

En nanba maran1976 (my friend maran1976): Can you please elaborate on the above quote?

By the way, how is the processing of your Canadian PR application going on? Is your visa in the pipeline or has CIC warehoused your application as well?

 

[val4real]

I am valentine Nwokike age 27, I am very much interested to live and work in Canada, plz I need a sponsorship who can sponsor me in Security Guard. I have experience of 7years supervisor security guard job, plz Can anyone help me Out. My email sandra.sandradivine@gmail.com or my phone number +2347063875987

 

[warmest]

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.

My dear sac: Thank you so much for clearing the air.

Our lawyer Tim Leahy is doing a great job and it is evident from his regular updates. Hope all of our dreams of immigrating to Canada become a reality in 2013 itself.

Keep rocking dude.

 

[tuyen]

I am valentine Nwokike age 27, I am very much interested to live and work in Canada, plz I need a sponsorship who can sponsor me in Security Guard. I have experience of 7years supervisor security guard job, plz Can anyone help me Out. My email sandra.sandradivine @ gmail.com or my phone number +2347063875987

I'm sure you'll have no trouble with that, because if there's one thing Canada is lacking right now, it's security guards.

 

[tuyen]

Our lawyer Tim Leahy is doing a great job and it is evident from his regular updates. Hope all of our dreams of immigrating to Canada become a reality in 2013 itself.

Wow...

Has it finally gotten to the point where you're starting to believe your own delusions?

Didn't you read your own posts? This thing is going to be appealed, re-appealed, sex appealed, un-appealed, and side-appealed. Then, sometime around 2017, the Supreme Court will finally throw it out.

 

[st-cnncomes]

After a beautiful and entertaining Christmas, another entertainer is coming up,………. Noooooooooooo its not the New Years celebration, I don’t give a rats arse about it, it’s the 14th – 16th of Jan 2013. I would love to hear the reasons of the Federal Court, if it upholds s.87.4.

If it does, a day would come when the ony immigration applicants would be the boat people and of course the taliban. ;D

 

[maran1976]

After a beautiful and entertaining Christmas, another entertainer is coming up,.......... Noooooooooooo its not the New Years celebration, I don't give a rats arse about it, it's the 14th – 16th of Jan 2013. I would love to hear the reasons of the Federal Court, if it upholds s.87.4.

If it does, a day would come when the ony immigration applicants would be the boat people and of course the taliban. ;D

ha ha, well said. i always wondered how the wrong people get in and the deserving left out, be it canada/usa

 

[sac]

hello warmest! hope you are doing fine. christmas is now past us and we are looking to the new year with hopes. hope that our litigation would gain for positive outcome. by the way, are you with tim leahy's group? he sent notice to the Federal Court Registry that he is withdrawing our litigation unless a mandamus is made essential part of case outcome. what do you think of this?

hope you are doing okay.

sam

 

[hopefulever]

Sadly what has happened in the past if we forget and hope to get PR in 2013 , it will serve to heal injured feelings. I wish all the litigants for A VERY FRUITFUL and PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR for all.

 

[maran1976]

En nanba maran1976 (my friend maran1976): Can you please elaborate on the above quote?

By the way, how is the processing of your Canadian PR application going on? Is your visa in the pipeline or has CIC warehoused your application as well?

Hi, The processing is on and it will soon be 3 years since I applied. I am waiting for MR, due to the quota issues, it has slowed down.
To be very honest,I am not too worried about the outcome, but just a bit curious.
When I applied I was aware of the fact that chances were 50-50 , just like the numerous job applications we send. Just because we are suitable or eligible for a job, we don't always get it when we apply ( not even interview),. they have to deem us eligible and suitable..

I always kept track of the processing times and these put me off, seeing 7+ years , I did not want to apply. But when MI were anounced my brother and sister ( both Canadians, in Canada for 12+ years ), prompted me to apply and I did ! (But still the wait..grr! lol)

I am very much happy with the job I have , my wife works too. Very happy with the pay, savings, investments etc. I was denied US visa twice to meet my family/holiday and once for H1, I am hoping this would be a backdoor for me after a few years under NAFTA. Another reason Why I applied !

 

[grewal49]

hi we subnited our medicals 24july2012to delhi vo.now i am getting changed mailing adress on internet before that it was showing the adress of agent's canada's office now there is a adress of agent's india's office.r they processing our case?