Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[parker24]

cant blame being a women u can only be thick head as ur now. U gave an example and I quoted with the example. Did I ever say about govt. please take a long walk and have a cold shower.

Pardon me? Now I'm glad you're not coming to Canada!!! You can keep your sexist crap in whatever country you're in now.

 

[scylla]

Let me say if in the next elctions if some other party comes to power and revisit to their policy and scrap conservatives proposals then what you will say in that case. new party will just say that consers were mad and this problem.

Things might change if there was a federal election scheduled this year. However the last federal election was held in 2011 and then next federal election isn't scheduled until October 2015.

 

[joe07]

Pardon me? Now I'm glad you're not coming to Canada!!! You can keep your sexist crap in whatever country you're in now.

My apologies sometimes just pissed of with some comments. am rite now in Windsor, ON. So am already in canada.

 

[joe07]

dude stop it now

point taken.. but sometimes u cut lose when u see jokes written on the page..tght will never react but couldnt stop myself.. My apologies all...

 

[kau_shik_patel]

Please find the below the latest court index entry in lead case.

Oral directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rennie dated 04-FEB-2013 directing that "The Court invites written submissions from the parties on whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act, 1982 (80) 1982, c.11 (UK), Schedule B Part I) applies to the applicants, as non-citizens residing otuside of Canada. Submissions due February 22, 2013 with right of reply to the applicants by March 1, 2013." received on 04-FEB-2013 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)


It gives two important explanations (firstly) Does this charter as referred above is applicable to us, as it has already been discussed in the court? (And Secondly) Decision is a little beyond 1st March 2013. When I was reading this charter my views were different that it applies to any one in Canada. But as it is quoted by one of our lawyers then it means that its legality is already been found out by the lawyers and it is applicable to us , therefore it was quoted in the case discussions.

For the second part i.e. decision is beyond 1st Mar 2013, so nothing can be done, if it is it, then it is it.(shared for info)

 

[zolter]

Dear English Teacher,

It's up to YOU to ask, not CIC to tell you. Plain and simple. It's like getting a driver's licence. [size=10pt][size=10pt]They[/size][/size] country doesn't come after you to get one, YOU go and get one.

 

[zolter]

My apologies sometimes just pissed of with some comments. am rite now in [size=10pt]Windsor, ON[/size]. So am already in canada.

 

[hopefulever]

Things might change if there was a federal election scheduled this year. However the last federal election was held in 2011 and then next federal election isn't scheduled until October 2015.

. IF CONSERS CAN SCRAP FIVE YEAR OLD FILES THEN WHY OTHERS CAN'T SCRAP THEIR POLICY IN 2015.

 

[st-cnncomes]

Please find the below the latest court index entry in lead case.

Oral directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rennie dated 04-FEB-2013 directing that "The Court invites written submissions from the parties on whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act, 1982 (80) 1982, c.11 (UK), Schedule B Part I) applies to the applicants, as non-citizens residing otuside of Canada. Submissions due February 22, 2013 with right of reply to the applicants by March 1, 2013." received on 04-FEB-2013 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)


It gives two important explanations (firstly) Does this charter as referred above is applicable to us, as it has already been discussed in the court? (And Secondly) Decision is a little beyond 1st March 2013. When I was reading this charter my views were different that it applies to any one in Canada. But as it is quoted by one of our lawyers then it means that its legality is already been found out by the lawyers and it is applicable to us , therefore it was quoted in the case discussions.

For the second part i.e. decision is beyond 1st Mar 2013, so nothing can be done, if it is it, then it is it.(shared for info)

As per this logic even if it applies to People Living in Canada, CIC doesn’t have the license to misuse this law to achieve their hidden agenda. In other words CIC cannot use Canadian Laws with impunity even if it means breaking the laws of other countries. We have to come under the Canadian law because of the following reasons.
1. We have applied as Federal Skilled workers in accordance with the rules and requirements of CIC.
2. The Federal Court is the regulatory body that resolves immigration issues, which involve CIC and the immigrant.
3. If we have applied in the FSW category we have a right to be covered by the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.

 

[maran1976]

As per this logic even if it applies to People Living in Canada, CIC doesn't have the license to misuse this law to achieve their hidden agenda. In other words CIC cannot use Canadian Laws with impunity even if it means breaking the laws of other countries. We have to come under the Canadian law because of the following reasons.
1. We have applied as Federal Skilled workers in accordance with the rules and requirements of CIC.
2. The Federal Court is the regulatory body that resolves immigration issues, which involve CIC and the immigrant.
3. If we have applied in the FSW category we have a right to be covered by the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.

I don't agree to the third view. I am sure most of it would apply to us after PR and all of it after Citizenship. I am no lawyer or know how the Canadian system works, but speak from a common perspective. They havent infringed upon any of their citizens fundamental rights, or they havent done anything ,that any international court or any international convention will find them guilty..just my thoughts..

I am sure, somewhere in their T&C ( fine print ) they will have a clause to say, they can change their policies anytime or terminate applications and not process.

 

[Knight_Crusader]

I don't agree to the third view. I am sure most of it would apply to us after PR and all of it after Citizenship. I am no lawyer or know how the Canadian system works, but speak from a common perspective. They havent infringed upon any of their citizens fundamental rights, or they havent done anything ,that any international court or any international convention will find them guilty..just my thoughts..

I am sure, somewhere in their T&C ( fine print ) they will have a clause to say, they can change their policies anytime or terminate applications and not process.

makes sense, that's probably why the judge has again asked for in writing on how its affected. i think the group made a mistake by using this as their main argument.

 

[st-cnncomes]

I don't agree to the third view. I am sure most of it would apply to us after PR and all of it after Citizenship. I am no lawyer or know how the Canadian system works, but speak from a common perspective. They havent infringed upon any of their citizens fundamental rights, or they havent done anything ,that any international court or any international convention will find them guilty..just my thoughts..

I am sure, somewhere in their T&C ( fine print ) they will have a clause to say, they can change their policies anytime or terminate applications and not process.

Now this SOMEWHERE if in existance, makes it all the more suspect. Why didn't CIC reveal this T & C when they were accepting applications and fees ? Had this been one of the clauses, if wouldn't have taken so long to deliver the verdict. They have infringed on our rights, by paying a fee and getting a receipt we have a right to believe we have made the payment for someting. What is that SOMETHING ? Do you give a fee for nothing ?

 

[Badal789]

Quote from: maran1976 on February 06, 2013, 06:46:48 am
I don't agree to the third view. I am sure most of it would apply to us after PR and all of it after Citizenship. I am no lawyer or know how the Canadian system works, but speak from a common perspective. They havent infringed upon any of their citizens fundamental rights, or they havent done anything ,that any international court or any international convention will find them guilty..just my thoughts..

I am sure, somewhere in their T&C ( fine print ) they will have a clause to say, they can change their policies anytime or terminate applications and not process.

makes sense, that's probably why the judge has again asked for in writing on how its affected. i think the group made a mistake by using this as their main argument.

Please find from the below link The Constitution Act, 1982, Citation: The Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11
PART I
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Link: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html

Again from the charter, under the point ``Rights and freedoms in Canada`` mentioned ``The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.`` My personal opinion to consider ``free and democratic society``.

Appreciate your comments.

 

[Knight_Crusader]

` My personal opinion to consider ``free and democratic society``.

Appreciate your comments.

Ok, I suppose it all comes down to interpretation .I wonder how the judge will read it. This new law, was passed by a free and democratically elected representatives . The problem with this is, its very vague and I feel the lawyers use it to their benefit to rope in more litigants. The first point made my maran1976 , that I have underlined makes more sense to me.

 

[Knight_Crusader]

Now this SOMEWHERE if in existance, makes it all the more suspect. Why didn't CIC reveal this T & C when they were accepting applications and fees ? Had this been one of the clauses, if wouldn't have taken so long to deliver the verdict. They have infringed on our rights, by paying a fee and getting a receipt we have a right to believe we have made the payment for someting. What is that SOMETHING ? Do you give a fee for nothing ?

Bro, you haven't bought a 'product' or paid to buy one. This is way bigger than any comparison on similarity. Any country would have a right to change its existing immigration laws for reasons. Now, for the litigants, the reasons dont seem justified, but for CIC and the parliament, it does. So, wonder how the judge will interpret.

I dont agree with the words of maran1976 when he speaks about T&C. May be he did not mean for it to be taken literally.
What I have underlined in his comments, makes sense to me. And this is significant as the judge is also pondering over this.