Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[kiwi1]

End of the road...............Court Decision is out.......

According to the law firm Campbell, Cohen, the Federal Court of Appeal has dismissed (rejected) the appeal in the FSW termination case - Mae Joy Tabingo, et al and the Minister of Citizenship and Immig...

 

[Shajitmathew]

Bad news, but in expected line, is it for all those challenged through various groups and law firms, or only for Campbell, Cohen 's law firms cases only, when will be decision on others cases?

End of the road...............Court Decision is out.......

According to the law firm Campbell, Cohen, the Federal Court of Appeal has dismissed (rejected) the appeal in the FSW termination case - Mae Joy Tabingo, et al and the Minister of Citizenship and Immig...

 

[jigs_india]

End of the road...............Court Decision is out.......

According to the law firm Campbell, Cohen, the Federal Court of Appeal has dismissed (rejected) the appeal in the FSW termination case - Mae Joy Tabingo, et al and the Minister of Citizenship and Immig...

Now it's over for everybody except Tim,

We can expect decision for him too sooner, Now if he win there will be no one left to be guided by decision of his litigation

 

[hopefulever]

Jungle Raj ka Faesla.

 

[kau_shik_patel]

To All,

It's the Supreme Court which decides which cases it will take. I have not read the Tabingo decision and, thus, have no insight into whether (a) applicants' counsel will seek leave to the SCC or (b) the issues are such that the SCC might grant leave.

It has no implication on our litigation. While, if the applicants had prevailed, we would have won, too; the loss does not kill our litigation because (a) we have the Agreement, which we are seeking to enforce and they did not have one; and (b) our anti-87.4 argument was not argued in Tabingo and, thus, remains extant.

Regards,
TIM

 

[hopefulever]

Rest of the cases for which reslt is awaited, will srely be rejected (Tim cases). Be ready to bear a repeat shock.

 

[Shajitmathew]

Do not understand the justice system in Canada, And could not acceptable to our logic. How an individuals opinion or interest can be the deciding factor of a litigation, as seen in some discussions, it was mentioned that due the rift between the case management judge and lawyer will lead to rejection of the case and not honoring the agreement. Don't know who is correct, If this is true then it is injustice system not justice system. Really don't know whether it is true. Ultimately we are becoming helpless creeds, and scapegoats.

 

[jigs_india]

Rest of the cases for which reslt is awaited, will srely be rejected (Tim cases). Be ready to bear a repeat shock.

Tim's turn should be last after all the other are rejected.., we can keep our figures crossed as decision of his litigation should be saviour of Canadian judicial system from being blamed of being biased and favoring CIC

 

[virve]

Hello,
Now that the decision is given, does it mean the end of the road?? Any hope that going to the Supreme Court will help us in any way.

 

[PMM]

Hi

Hello,
Now that the decision is given, does it mean the end of the road?? Any hope that going to the Supreme Court will help us in any way.

Pretty well, unless you want to give the lawyers more of your money, they would be quite happy to carry on.

Here is a copy of the decision: http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/73144/index.do

 

[Shajitmathew]

According to my understanding, from the out come of class action law suit decision, there is a hope remaining for Unfair CIC group "IV. Conclusion

[100] I would answer the certified questions as follows:

(a) Does subsection 87.4(1) of the IRPA terminate by operation of law the applications described in that subsection upon its coming into force, and if not, are the applicants entitled to mandamus?

Answer: Subsection 87.4(1) terminated the applications automatically on June 29, 2012. After that date, the Minister had no legal obligation to continue to process the applications. The appellants are not entitled to mandamus.

(b) Does the Canadian Bill of Rights mandate notice and an opportunity to make submissions prior to termination of an application under subsection 87.4(1) of the IRPA?

Answer: No.

(c) Is section 87.4 of the IRPA unconstitutional, being contrary to the rule of law or sections 7 and 15 the Charter?

Answer: No.

[101] I would dismiss all of the appeals."

From the above decision, it is clear that "the Minister had no legal obligation to continue to process the applications", the law does not stops him from processing the applications, but he can if required. Hence the reason the minister said for not honoring the agreement in Liang case is no more valid. It is only a ray of hope.

 

[Gaber1]

Leave granted in tim case.

 

[Shajitmathew]

When will be the hearing? Any hope or the same fate like class action law suit?. Let us all pary to the almighty to bless us with a positive decission in our favour.

Leave granted in tim case.

 

[jigs_india]

Leave granted in tim case.

Dear Gaber

Is it a question or a statement.

Pls elaborate.........as even Tim has not confirmed it anywhere

 

[Shajitmathew]

Dear Gaber

Is it a question or a statement.

Pls elaborate.........as even Tim has not confirmed it anywhere

It was confirmed by Mr. Tim in the month of March itself, but the date of hearing was not confirmed. Please see below update from Mr. Tim through "Unfair CIC.com"

"FWS Processing
28 March 2014


Judge Barnes advised both parties that he has agreed to grant leave for both representative cases and that the hearing will be in September. The official ruling will be released in June.

The main issue will be enforcement of the Agreement, signed and filed with the Court in February 2012, promising to apply the ruling in the lead cases for the other cases. However, because Minister Kenney had the unassessed files abolished, CIC refused to honour the Agreement for the files which Bill C-38 closed. DoJ argues also that the Agreement only applies to those who joined before 18 June 2012 although Justice Barnes had directed on 26 June 2012 that those who joined afterwards would be governed by it.

Therefore, in September, we will be arguing (a) the Agreement is binding, (b) it applies to everyone in the group, no matter when they joined, and (c) further that for a reason not argued in the “class-action” lawsuit, s. 87.4 does not negate the applicants’ right to have their files processed. If we succeed, all who have joined the group before the ruling will have their files activated and decided on the merits. "