Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[tuyen]

BINGO!!!!!!

So what? I never said anything to the contrary. My argument has always been that people OUTSIDE of Canada shouldn't expect to fall under CANADA'S constitution.

 

[plaran]

assumed..................... this is the stupidest word that even defies logic and common sense. It can get people into a lot of trouble. Common sense that we have been cheated weighs more than common sense to asume that a day would never come where foriegners would take CIC to court.

++

 

[Gaber1]

One 2006 applicant has recieved refund which he posted on face book. He should file a case of cheating, fraud and inhumanity in the indian court against canadian govt for compensation.what others say comments are invited.

 

[tuyen]

Not only who inside Canada can get justice by Canadian Law. Everyone that agree to use Canadian law will be judge by the Canadian law.

For example, I do business with Canadian Citizen then we have conflict. When we agree to bring the case to Canadian Court, the Canadian Law will be applied to the case, not my country law, even though I am not inside Canada.

You're trying to argue legal issues with VERY simplistic examples that don't fit.

If you "have a conflict"...

What's the nature of the conflict? If you and a Canadian citizen are speaking on the phone, and he calls you a moron and hangs up on you, that's a conflict - but it's not something that's going to get you any protection or coverage under the Canadian constitution.

However, if you have a legally-binding contract (as in, business, for example), then yes, you would be able to pursue the matter in a Canadian court, and you would be subject to its rulings. But with CIC, you have no legally-binding contract. You never did. All you had was an "agreement", at best. And when CIC decided to refund your full application costs, your chances of obtaining any kind of favourable outcome in court dropped significantly. But if they decided to simply close your files and NOT give you back your money, then your chance of success in court would've been 99.999999%.

 

[plaran]

We live in 21st century and we are entitled to take any government to court treating illegally by not processing our files they promissed to process. Old days of governments around the world doing what they want illegaly are over. But some still think it is 18th century. The move by the litigants is a modern move belonging to modern days of second decade of the century. Fighting for rights is a complete victory instead of accepting humalition as some may wish.

 

[wounderful]

You're trying to argue legal issues with VERY simplistic examples that don't fit.

If you "have a conflict"..

What's the nature of the conflict? If you and a Canadian citizen are speaking on the phone, and he calls you a moron and hangs up on you, that's a conflict - but it's not something that's going to get you any protection or coverage under the Canadian constitution.

However, if you have a legally-binding contract (as in, business, for example), then yes, you would be able to pursue the matter in a Canadian court, and you would be subject to its rulings. But with CIC, you have no legally-binding contract. You never did. All you had was an "agreement", at best. And when CIC decided to refund your full application costs, your chances of obtaining any kind of favourable outcome in court dropped significantly. But if they decided to simply close your files and NOT give you back your money, then your chance of success in court would've been 99.999999%.

Here is some relivant example.

How, A decision by CIC to refuse the application can be challanged in Court by a person not live inside Canada, (there are so many decisions set aside by the court and sent back to different Officer)

Why not, A decision by CIC to refuse the application to process can not be challanged in court by a person not live inside Canada.

and why not, A decision by CIC to refuse the application to process can not be challanged in court by a person live inside Canada.

And why not all come under Canadian Constitution at the same time without discriminating ?

 

[tuyen]

We live in 21st century and we are entitled to take any government to court treating

Oh you're absolutely right - you can take anyone to court, and spend as much of your hard-earned money as you like. The lawyers will be more than happy to get you into whatever court you want.

illegally by not processing our files they promissed to process.

It's not "illegal" until the Supreme Court of Canada says it is. And believe me when I tell you that this won't be happening for a LONG time yet (if ever).

Fighting for rights is a complete victory instead of accepting humalition as some may wish.

If you feel that you're getting some kind of a victory by taking CIC to court, then that's wonderful. I just hope you continue to feel victorious even if the outcome doesn't go your way, because the important thing is that you were fighting for what you believed in.

 

[belitang]

You're trying to argue legal issues with VERY simplistic examples that don't fit.

If you "have a conflict"..

What's the nature of the conflict? If you and a Canadian citizen are speaking on the phone, and he calls you a moron and hangs up on you, that's a conflict - but it's not something that's going to get you any protection or coverage under the Canadian constitution.

However, if you have a legally-binding contract (as in, business, for example), then yes, you would be able to pursue the matter in a Canadian court, and you would be subject to its rulings.

No need to have legally-binding contract. If you buy a goods from my factory and I have send it, but you do not pay the goods, then I can take you to your Canadian Court.

But with CIC, you have no legally-binding contract. You never did. All you had was an "agreement", at best. And when CIC decided to refund your full application costs, your chances of obtaining any kind of favourable outcome in court dropped significantly. But if they decided to simply close your files and NOT give you back your money, then your chance of success in court would've been 99.999999%.

In this application case. I, in my common business sense, would say CIC should process my application. But, in other side CIC, in their limited resources, possibility could not finish my application until my 60th of age. That is way we take this case to be judged.

 

[hopefulever]

Fedral court ruling will definatly go against cic in this matter.Bcos if cic is not barred to do this illigal work it will go on doing this unhealthy buissness of collecting millions of dollars from the innocent people in future also , use their hard earned money for years, stall their life for years disturbibg their normal life and refund after make years by simple excuse of change in policy.CIC will set example to other countries also for how to generate funds by lying keep those million dollars ,and then return without interest.This trend of cheating and making fool of educated people is very unfortunate.

 

[tuyen]

Fedral court ruling will definatly go against cic in this matter.Bcos if cic is not barred to do this illigal work it will go on doing this unhealthy buissness of collecting millions of dollars from the innocent people in future also , use their hard earned money for years, stall their life for years disturbibg their normal life and refund after make years by simple excuse of change in policy.CIC will set example to other countries also for how to generate funds by lying keep those million dollars ,and then return without interest.This trend of cheating and making fool of educated people is very unfortunate.

...are we really going to get into this ridiculous discussion again?

Do you honestly believe that CIC did this for the few lousy pennies that it generated for them? And yes, in terms of Canada's overall government revenues, it was nothing more than pennies.

 

[tuyen]

assumed..................... this is the stupidest word that even defies logic and common sense.

No, it's only stupid when people try to reinvent the meaning of a word or when they don't understand how to use it properly.

If you take a rock and throw it up in the air, are you stupid to ASSUME that it will slow down and start falling back to earth?
If you see a rain storm approaching, are you stupid to ASSUME that you will get wet unless you find shelter?
If you take a gun and shoot somebody, are you stupid to ASSUME that you will seriously injure (or even kill) that person?

I can give you a million other examples where it's perfectly LOGICAL and SENSIBLE to ASSUME things.

 

[plaran]

There is a say: Winter goes by but the darkness and black colour remains for charcoal.
These days will be over soon. Human being is alive with hope, moving out of Africa spreading around the world with nothing just real hope.

 

[st-cnncomes]

No, it's only stupid when people try to reinvent the meaning of a word or when they don't understand how to use it properly.

If you take a rock and throw it up in the air, are you stupid to ASSUME that it will slow down and start falling back to earth?
If you see a rain storm approaching, are you stupid to ASSUME that you will get wet unless you find shelter?
If you take a gun and shoot somebody, are you stupid to ASSUME that you will seriously injure (or even kill) that person?

I can give you a million other examples where it's perfectly LOGICAL and SENSIBLE to ASSUME things.

The precise word that should be used in your examples are KNOW and not ASSUME. If i'm not mistaken.

 

[warmest]

It is interesting to note that our judge is also the first author of this research article.
Click on the link below to get the link for the full text of this research article.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian Officials Abroad

Donald J. Rennie, Ramona Rothschild

Abstract
This paper describes how the Federal Courts have dealt with two issues pertaining to the extra-territorial application of the Charter arising from the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in R. v. Hape and Canada (Justice) v. Khadr: (1) whether there exists a “fundamental human rights exception” to the general rule that the Charter does not apply extra-territorially; and (2) whether non-Canadian citizens outside Canada who are not subjected to a Canadian judicial process are beneficiaries of Charter rights. The Federal Courts have concluded that the Supreme Court did not create a “fundamental human rights exception” justifying the extra-territorial application of the Charter if Canadian state actors are involved in fundamental human rights violations outside Canada. In addition, they have determined that non-Canadian citizens outside Canada with no sufficient connection to Canada are not entitled to avail themselves of Charter rights guaranteed to “everyone”. The paper concludes by identifying several additional questions arising from the Supreme Court's Hape and Khadr decisions that future courts may be required to consider.

SUPREME COURT LAW REVIEW, Vol. 47 (2009), pp. 127--146

http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/sclr/article/view/34832

 

[Gaber1]

Essi Liye Tuyun Kss fattee parri a.