Federal Skilled Worker Class Action Lawsuit

[warmest]

Dear All,

Here is Tim Leahy's latest email of today (10 April 2015) with the subject line "April 21st hearing postponed".

Good day,

Justice Campbell has decided to wait until the Supreme Court has decided whether to hear the Tabingo (the so-called class-action lawsuit over the closing of the FSW files) before hearing our case. He has, therefore, adjourned the April 21st hearing and set a meeting for counsel for May 13th to set a hearing date, if the Supreme Court declines to hear Tabingo.

Justice Campbell, who is, perhaps, the only Federal Court judge whom I trust, does not want to rule on the legality of s. 87.4 if the Supreme Court is going to do so itself because he does not want to render a different decision than what the Supreme Court declares. In addition, if the Supreme Court grants leave and declares s. 87.4 unlawful, he won't have to make any ruling at all because all the files will be open.

My own view is that the Supreme Court will not agree to hear Tabingo because it only accepts cases it considers to be important to Canadian law. So, I am sorry but we are going to have to wait even longer.

Regards,

Tim

p.s. Please do not ask me when the hearing will occur. I do not profess to be able to tell the future. Justice Campbell did say, however, that, if the Supreme Court declines to hear Tabingo, he will set our case down for a hearing as soon as possible.

Who is Ms. Mae Joy Tabingo's lawyer in the Supreme Court of Canada? Her lawyer in both the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal was Mr. Mario D. Bellissimo. But, he on 30 September 2014 had posted a message on his website saying that his office will NOT proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Here is that message,

"The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellants' arguments at the end of August 2014. After carefully reviewing this decision, it is our position that the Court failed to address many of the legal arguments the Appellants raised and that the Court's consideration of the issues addressed was flawed. Consequently, there is merit to proceeding to the Supreme Court of Canada. The deadline for submitting the leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada is 60 days from the date of the Federal Court of Appeal's decision. At this time few appellants have expressed an interest in proceeding to the Supreme Court of Canada and as a consequence our office will not be proceeding. We have fought for over two years on this matter and are deeply disappointed with the respective Courts' treatment of the legal issues. We thank you for all your support over the past years and understand the reluctance of most to proceed any further and to move on with their lives. In the end the termination decision will over time, in our view, be considered a low point in Canadian immigration history."

http://www.bellissimolawgroup.com/tag/fsw-litigation

 

[Naive]

Immigration firm ***** penalised

In an unprecedented order, the District Consumer Forum, Chandigarh, has held Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, Chandigarh (*****), guilty of deficiency in service and directed it to refund Rs 43,000 along with Rs 30,000 as compensation and costs to one of its customers. Rina Kumari Dhawan in her complaint before the forum stated that she hired the services of the ***** in January 2007 for immigration to Canada under the Skilled Independent Category by paying Rs 63,000. In addition, Rs 22,000 was paid to the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi. Thereafter, the company kept on saying that the application was under process but nothing happened for more than six years. In November 2013, the complainant was shocked to receive a letter from the Canadian Embassy stating that her application could not be processed and also refunded their fees of Rs 22,000. However, the ***** refused to refund their Rs 63,000.

The *****, in its reply, stated that the case of the complainant was terminated on account of change in law by the Canadian Government and not due to any shortcoming on their part. It also said out of Rs 63,000, US$ 400 were paid to one Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai (GSBC), and the ***** could not be held liable for that amount.

Pankaj Chandgothia, counsel for the complainant contended that when the Canadian Embassy had refunded the entire fees, the ***** must also refund their entire fees as the application was returned without any consideration.

The order authored by Surjeet Kaur, member, says “the ***** has created another shield for its own benefit. This act of involving its innocent clients unnecessarily into agreement with unknown parties for its own selfish motive proves deficiency in service”. It holds that the ***** was not competent enough to proceed the case of the complainant to the Canadian High Commission. The forum held that if the Canadian High Commission could refund the whole fee amount, fee must be refunded to the complainant by ***** after deducting the processing fee. The forum directed the ***** to refund Rs 43,000 out of the paid fees along with Rs 20,000 on account of causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant and Rs 10,000 as costs of litigation.

Source: The Tribune India, dated 19 March 2015

 

[Naive]

Who is Ms. Mae Joy Tabingo's lawyer in the Supreme Court of Canada? Her lawyer in both the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal was Mr. Mario D. Bellissimo. But, he on 30 September 2014 had posted a message on his website saying that his office will NOT proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Here is that message,

"The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellants' arguments at the end of August 2014. After carefully reviewing this decision, it is our position that the Court failed to address many of the legal arguments the Appellants raised and that the Court's consideration of the issues addressed was flawed. Consequently, there is merit to proceeding to the Supreme Court of Canada. The deadline for submitting the leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada is 60 days from the date of the Federal Court of Appeal's decision. At this time few appellants have expressed an interest in proceeding to the Supreme Court of Canada and as a consequence our office will not be proceeding. We have fought for over two years on this matter and are deeply disappointed with the respective Courts' treatment of the legal issues. We thank you for all your support over the past years and understand the reluctance of most to proceed any further and to move on with their lives. In the end the termination decision will over time, in our view, be considered a low point in Canadian immigration history."

http : // www . bellissimolawgroup . com / tag / fsw-litigation

Ali Raza Jafri is now the lead case in the Supreme Court of Canada and the lawyer is Matthew Jeffery.

http : // www . scc-csc . gc . ca / case-dossier / info / dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=36213

 

[Naive]

Ali Raza Jafri is now the lead case in the Supreme Court of Canada and the lawyer is Matthew Jeffery.

http : // www . scc-csc . gc . ca / case-dossier / info / dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=36213

Friends, I have just received an Email from Matthew Jefferey that our Appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada has been filed on December 17, 2014. The Appeal title is Ali Raza Jafri, et. al. Versus Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The court file number is 36213. Now it is fixed for reply by the Minister. Let us wish the Leave is granted. Good Luck everybody.

 

[Naive]

Friends, I have just received an Email from Matthew Jefferey that our Appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada has been filed on December 17, 2014. The Appeal title is Ali Raza Jafri, et. al. Versus Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The court file number is 36213. Now it is fixed for reply by the Minister. Let us wish the Leave is granted. Good Luck everybody.

Just received following update on 27 March 2015 on our case in SCC from the office of Matthew Jeffery:
Dear Mr. Rakesh Garg,
Please update your group of litigants the following:
This is to update you on the progress of the Jafri, et al litigation before the Supreme Court. At this time, all documents required for the leave application have been filed with the court, and the case has been referred to a panel of three Supreme Court judges who will review the case and decide whether to grant leave. If leave is granted, the case will go for a hearing before the court. If leave is denied, it means that the case is dismissed. Normally it takes the court 4 to 6 weeks to decide on leave. I will let you know as soon as I receive a decision in this regard.
for: Matthew Jeffery

 

[Naive]

Immigration firm ***** penalised

In an unprecedented order, the District Consumer Forum, Chandigarh, has held Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Limited, Chandigarh (*****), guilty of deficiency in service and directed it to refund Rs 43,000 along with Rs 30,000 as compensation and costs to one of its customers. Rina Kumari Dhawan in her complaint before the forum stated that she hired the services of the ***** in January 2007 for immigration to Canada under the Skilled Independent Category by paying Rs 63,000. In addition, Rs 22,000 was paid to the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi. Thereafter, the company kept on saying that the application was under process but nothing happened for more than six years. In November 2013, the complainant was shocked to receive a letter from the Canadian Embassy stating that her application could not be processed and also refunded their fees of Rs 22,000. However, the ***** refused to refund their Rs 63,000.

The *****, in its reply, stated that the case of the complainant was terminated on account of change in law by the Canadian Government and not due to any shortcoming on their part. It also said out of Rs 63,000, US$ 400 were paid to one Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai (GSBC), and the ***** could not be held liable for that amount.

Pankaj Chandgothia, counsel for the complainant contended that when the Canadian Embassy had refunded the entire fees, the ***** must also refund their entire fees as the application was returned without any consideration.

The order authored by Surjeet Kaur, member, says “the ***** has created another shield for its own benefit. This act of involving its innocent clients unnecessarily into agreement with unknown parties for its own selfish motive proves deficiency in service”. It holds that the ***** was not competent enough to proceed the case of the complainant to the Canadian High Commission. The forum held that if the Canadian High Commission could refund the whole fee amount, fee must be refunded to the complainant by ***** after deducting the processing fee. The forum directed the ***** to refund Rs 43,000 out of the paid fees along with Rs 20,000 on account of causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant and Rs 10,000 as costs of litigation.

Source: The Tribune India, dated 19 March 2015

Non-payment of fee refund costs ***** 73K

CHANDIGARH: The district consumer forum, Chandigarh, has held Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service and directed it to refund Rs 43,000 along with Rs 30,000 as compensation and litigation costs to one of its customers.

Rina Kumari Dhawan hired the services of ***** in January 2007 for immigration to Canada under Skilled Independent Category, by paying Rs 63,000. In addition, Rs 22,000 was paid to the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi. Thereafter, the company kept saying the application was under process but nothing happened for more than six years. In November 2013, the complainant was shocked to receive a letter from the Canadian embassy that her application could not be processed and also refunded their fees of Rs 22,000. However, the ***** refused to refund their Rs 63,000.

The *****, in its reply, stated that the case of the complainant was terminated on account of change in law by the Canadian government and not due to any shortcoming on their part. It also said that out of Rs 63,000, 400 US dollars were paid to one Global Strategic Business Consultancy, Dubai (GSBC) and ***** could not be held liable for that amount.

Pankaj Chandgothia, counsel for the complainant, contended when the Canadian embassy had refunded the entire fees, the ***** must also refund the amount, as the application was returned without any consideration. Chandgothia contended that ***** was s also liable to refund the amount taken in the name of GSBC as the payment was also taken in their office. Contracts with both ***** and GSBC were signed on the same date, January 19, 2007, even though GSBC was stated to be in Dubai.

Chandgothia contended that the complainant cannot be in Chandigarh and in Dubai on the same date, which goes to prove that both the contracts were signed in the office of *****.

The order authored by Surjeet Kaur, member, said the ***** "has created another shield for its own benefit. This act of involving its innocent clients unnecessarily into agreement with unknown parties for its own selfish motive proves deficiency in service".

It held that the ***** was not competent enough to precede the case of the complainant to the Canadian high commission. The forum held that if the Canadian high commission could refund the whole fee amount, the fee must be refunded to the complainant by ***** after deducting processing fee. The forum directed the ***** to refund Rs 43,000 out of the paid fees along with Rs 20,000 on account of causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant and Rs 10,000 as costs of litigation.

Source: The Times of India, dated 19 March 2015

 

[zeenat imran]

urgent reply

hi. my brother applied immigration which is now in process. last week he got the following reply from london visa office.


This refers to your application for permanent residence in Canada.We require the following to be submitted within the next 15 days:

-replacement processing fee of CAD 550 **case notes indicate that your bank draft was returned unpaid to our office in Sydney as the account had been closed. We advise you to pay the replacement processing fee online. Details can be found on our website www.cic.gc.ca. If you do choose to pay online, pleaseemail a copy of the payment receipt to this office (not to our office in Sydney) so that we can update the details in our system. If you require the original bank draft to be returned to you, then please contact our office in Sydney directly. We do not have the draft at this office** Please note: no further action will be taken on your application until the replacement processing fee has been paid.

now my question is how can submitt the fees online as there is only option to pay the fees for express entry system. you can check on cic website.
thank you kindly reply at your earliest.

 

[Naive]

Supreme Court of Canada
Docket 36213
Ali Raza Jafri, et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

[b][u]Date[/u][/b]	           [b][u]Proceeding[/u][/b]	                                                                                                                    [b][u]Filed By (if applicable)[/u][/b]
2015-04-07	Applicant's reply to respondent's argument, (Book Form), Completed on: 2015-04-07	Yu CaiHua
2015-04-07	Reply to the motion to extend time to file and/ or serve the leave application, (Book Form), Completed on: 2015-04-07, (Electronic version filed on 2015-04-07)	Yu CaiHua
2015-03-25	Response to the motion to extend the time to file and / or serve the leave application, Completed on: 2015-03-25	Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
2015-03-25	Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), RESPONSE TO THE SECOND APPLICATION., Completed on: 2015-03-25, (Electronic version filed on 2015-03-25)	Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
2015-03-17	Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form)	Yu CaiHua
2015-03-16	All materials on application for leave submitted to the Judges, Only the application for leave to appeal filed on December 16, 2014 has been submitted to the panel., Ro Cro Mo	
2015-03-16	Submission of motion to extend time to file and/ or serve the leave application, Ro Cro Mo	
2015-03-02	Notice of withdrawal, (Letter Form), Notice of Withdrawal pursuant to Rule 17(4). Ten letters - Matthew Jeffery ceases to represent 10 of the Applicants.	Ali Raza Jafri
2015-02-26	Correspondence (sent by the Court) to, Applicants, re - response to request to be self-represented (7 letters)	
2015-02-10	Applicant's reply to respondent's argument, (Book Form), Completed on: 2015-02-10, (Electronic version filed on 2015-02-10)	Ali Raza Jafri
2015-02-10	Letter acknowledging receipt of a complete application for leave to appeal	
2015-02-09	Correspondence received from, (Letter Form), Applicant, re.: Confirmation that counsel is representing ten of eleven applicants that had written to the Court.	Ali Raza Jafri
2015-02-04	Correspondence received from, (Letter Form), Respondent, re.: documents filed by applicants that already have a file at the SCC	Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
2015-02-03	Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), RESPONSE TO FIRST APPLICATION., Completed on: 2015-02-03, (Electronic version filed on 2015-02-03)	Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
2015-02-03	Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Book Form), (Electronic version filed on 2015-02-03)	Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
2015-01-07	Application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), Joint second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, nineth, tenth, and eleventh application. Please note that Part III and VI are found in Yu Caihua's second application., Completed on: 2015-01-07	Yu CaiHua
2014-12-17	Letter acknowledging receipt of a complete application for leave to appeal, File opened 2014-12-17.	
2014-12-17	Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), (Electronic version filed on 2014-12-16)	Ali Raza Jafri
2014-12-16	Motion to extend the time to file and or serve the application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), (Included in the application for leave to appeal), Completed on: 2014-12-16, (Electronic version filed on 2014-12-16)	Ali Raza Jafri
2014-12-16	Application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), 2 volumes. FIRST APPLICATION., Completed on: 2014-12-16, (Electronic version filed on 2014-12-16)	Ali Raza Jafri
2014-10-30	Correspondence (sent by the Court) to, Applicants: Li Liang,Yangchun Yang, Jiong Ju, Shao Lixia, Chenggang Huang, Yanling Liu, Rami Ahmed Fathalla Moustafa, Ping Guo and Ling Xiao - CHECKLIST	
2014-10-20	Motion to extend the time to file and or serve the application for leave to appeal, (Letter Form), second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eigth, nineth, tenth and eleventh application- Joint Motion. Ping Guo - motion rec'd Oc.17/2014. Rami Fathalla - motion rec'd Oct.21/2014. Guimei Jing - Joint Motion rec'd Jan.12/2015, Completed on: 2014-10-20	Yu CaiHua

http : // www . scc-csc . gc . ca / case-dossier / info / dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=36213

 

[warmest]

[color=blue]2015-04-13	All materials on application for leave submitted to the Judges, submission of joint application filed on January 7, 2015 by 11 self-represented applicants , Ro Cro Mo	
2015-04-13	Submission of motion to extend time to file and/ or serve the leave application, submission of motion filed on Oct.20/2014 by Yu Caihua, et al., Ro Cro Mo	[/color]

 

[warmest]

Latest update on lawyer Tim Leahy's case handled by lawyer Rocco Galati
Federal Court of Canada
Docket IMM-1-13
Young Mi Back v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

[color=blue][b][u]Doc[/u]	[u]Date Filed[/u]	[u]Office[/u]	[u]Recorded Entry Summary[/u][/b]
34	2015-04-17	Toronto	Motion Record in response to Motion Doc. No. 25 containing the following original document(s): 31 32 33 Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of Respondent filed on 17-APR-2015
33	2015-04-17	Toronto	Memorandum of argument on behalf of the respondent filed on 17-APR-2015
32	2015-04-17	Toronto	Affidavit of Larissa Goodyear contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the respondent sworn on 16-APR-2015 in opposition to Motion Doc 25 with attached exhibit(s) A - D filed on 17-APR-2015
31	2015-04-17	Toronto	Affidavit of Catherine Marx contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the respondent sworn on 17-APR-2015 in opposition to Motion Doc 25 with attached exhibit(s) A - B filed on 17-APR-2015
-	2015-04-08	Calgary	Calgary 08-APR-2015 BEFORE The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: ---Hearing will be postponed until a matter before the Supreme Court of Canada which may have a bearing on these proceedings is concluded ---A follow up Case Management Conference shall be scheduled for 2pm (EST) May 12, 2015 in person in Toronto ---Respondent's Motion Materials will be served and filed by April 17, 2015 and a reply, if any, will be due by April 29, 2015 held by way of video conference in chambers Duration per day: 08-APR-2015 from 02:00 to 02:34 Courtroom : Judge's chambers - Calgary Court Registrar: Hazel Buchanan Total Duration: 34min Appearances: Mr. Roco Galati (416) 530-9684 representing Applicant Mr. MArtin Anderson & Ms. Jocelyn Espejo-Clarke (416) 952-2856 representing Respondent Comments: Matter heard together with IMM-6828-12. Original Minutes on IMM-6828-12 Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 312 page(s) 48 - 52 Abstract of Hearing placed on file
-	2015-04-08	Winnipeg	Memorandum to file from (Robert) Buye M'vondo dated 08-APR-2015 Counsel advised by phone on Dial-in numbers and participants code for this afternoon CMC in this matter. placed on file.
-	2015-03-18	Toronto	Memorandum to file from A. Grimes, Toronto dated 18-MAR-2015 Respondent's moving motion in writing Doc 17 will be dealt with by Justice Campbell. Judge's material relating to this motion (Docs 21, 24, 28 & 29) have been forwarded to Justice Campbell's attention. placed on file.
30	2015-03-16	Toronto	Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Jocelyn Espejo-Clarke confirming service of doc#29 upon Applicant by process server on 16-MAR-2015 filed on 16-MAR-2015
29	2015-03-16	Toronto	Reply Submissions on behalf of Respondent in response to doc#17 Filed on 16-MAR-2015
-	2015-03-12	Toronto	Toronto 12-MAR-2015 BEFORE The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: The Applicant's motions received in the Registry 11-MAR-2015 are to be accepted for filing. The Respondent's Reply material to the motion to dismiss is to be accepted for filing as per R.369 A follow up Case Management Conference shall be scheduled for 08-APR-2015 at 2:00pm MT (4:00pm EST) held by way of Conference Call Duration per day: 12-MAR-2015 from 04:05 to 04:35 Courtroom : Judge's Chambers - Toronto Court Registrar: Abigail Grimes Total Duration: 30mins Appearances: Mr. Rocco Galati 416-530-9684 representing Applicant Martin Anderson / Charles Julian Jubenville / Jocelyn Espejo Clarke 416-952-2856 representing Respondent Comments: Matter heard together with IMM-6828-12. Original minutes on IMM-6828-12. Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 310 page(s) 207 - 208 Abstract of Hearing placed on file
28	2015-03-11	Toronto	Motion Record in response to Motion Doc. No. 17 containing the following original document(s): 25 26 27 Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of Applicant filed on 11-MAR-2015 with proof of service on Respondent on 11-MAR-2015
-	2015-03-11	Toronto	Draft Order concerning Motions, Doc. Nos 17 25 received on 11-MAR-2015
27	2015-03-11	Toronto	Memorandum of fact and law contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the applicant filed on 11-MAR-2015
26	2015-03-11	Toronto	Affidavit of Timothy E. Leahy contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the applicant sworn on 11-MAR-2015 in opposition to Doc 17 with attached exhibit(s) A-C filed on 11-MAR-2015
25	2015-03-11	Toronto	Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in writing to be dealt with in the Toronto local office for an Order naming Ms. Back as the lead applicant; the Respondent's motion and within motion not be disposed of in writing; and other such relief filed on 11-MAR-2015
24	2015-03-11	Toronto	Further Memorandum of fact and law on behalf of Applicants filed on 11-MAR-2015 judges' copies
23	2015-03-11	Toronto	Notice of constitutional question on behalf of Applicants filed on 11-MAR-2015 with proof of service on the respondent
22	2015-03-02	Toronto	Affidavit of Christian Webber on behalf of the respondent sworn on 02-MAR-2015 confirming service of Doc 21 on the applicant by personal service on 02-MAR-2015 filed on 02-MAR-2015
21	2015-03-02	Toronto	Motion Record containing the following original document(s): 17 18 19 20 Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of Respondent filed on 02-MAR-2015
20	2015-03-02	Toronto	Memorandum of fact and law on behalf of the respondent filed on 02-MAR-2015
19	2015-03-02	Toronto	Affidavit of LARISSA GOODYEAR contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the respondent sworn on 26-FEB-2015 in support of MOTION DOC 17 with attached exhibit(s) A - E filed on 02-MAR-2015
18	2015-03-02	Toronto	Affidavit of CATHERINE MARX contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the respondent sworn on 25-FEB-2015 in support of MOTION DOC 17 with attached exhibit(s) A - C filed on 02-MAR-2015
17	2015-03-02	Toronto	Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Respondent in writing to be dealt with in the Toronto local office for an Order DISMISSING THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE RES JUDICATA, AN ABUSE OF PROCESS AND/OR MOOT... filed on 02-MAR-2015
16	2015-03-02	Toronto	Affidavit of Patrick Cameron on behalf of the respondent sworn on 02-MAR-2015 confirming service of Doc 15 on the applicant by personal service on 02-MAR-2015 filed on 02-MAR-2015
15	2015-03-02	Toronto	Affidavit of Anna Thompson sworn on 02-MAR-2015 on behalf of Respondent in opposition to Notice of Application Doc. No. 1 with Exhibits A - F filed on 02-MAR-2015
-	2015-02-16	Ottawa	Acknowledgment of Receipt received from Applicant and Respondent with respect to Oral directions of the Court (Barnes, J) placed on file on 16-FEB-2015
-	2015-02-16	Ottawa	Oral directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 16-FEB-2015 directing "If either party requires a case management conference, they are asked to make a written request and to provide a list of the issues that are to be discussed." received on 16-FEB-2015 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)
-	2015-02-09	Ottawa	Certified copy of the decision and reasons sent by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, International Region on 6-FEB-2015 pursuant to the Federal Court Immigration Rules Received on 09-FEB-2015
-	2015-02-04	Ottawa	Copy of letter dated 04-Feb, from Respondent on the status of the related files with attached list of files, placed on file on 04-FEB-2015 Original placed on Court File No. IMM-7502-11
-	2015-01-21	Ottawa	Acknowledgment of Receipt received from Applicant, Respondent, Immigration with respect to of leave granted order sent by fax placed on file on 21-JAN-2015
14	2015-01-21	Ottawa	Order rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes at Ottawa on 21-JAN-2015 granting the application for leave fixing the hearing at a Special Sitting at Toronto on 21-APR-2015 to begin at 09:30 specifying documents to be produced and/or filed as follows: English language; A's further affidavit due 20-Feb-2015; R's further affidavit due 02-Mar-2015; Cross examinations due 13-Mar-2015; A's further memorandum due 23-Mar-2015; R's further memorandum due 02-Apr-2015; Transcript due 02-Apr-2015. Decision filed on 21-JAN-2015 Considered by the Court without personal appearance entered in J. & O. Book, volume 660 page(s) 129 - 131 Copy of the order sent to all parties Transmittal Letters placed on file.
13	2014-09-30	Toronto	Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of ROCCO GALATI confirming service of DOC 12 upon RESPONDENT AND APPLICANT'S FORMER SOLICITOR by telecopier on 29-SEP-2014 filed on 30-SEP-2014
12	2014-09-30	Toronto	Notice of change of solicitor on behalf of the applicant filed on 30-SEP-2014
-	2014-08-26	Toronto	Letter from Timothy Leahy, Forefront Migration Ltd. dated 26-AUG-2014 re: ID #63 on T-648-13 respecting a listing of current files that Mr. Leahy has carriage of. received on 26-AUG-2014
-	2014-03-28	Ottawa	Ottawa 28-MAR-2014 BEFORE The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: Parties are to provide a letter re: proposed schedule for filing documents held in chambers by way of Conference Call Duration per day: 28-MAR-2014 from 11:03 to 11:13 Courtroom : Judge's Chambers - Ottawa Court Registrar: Chantal Berube Total Duration: 10min Appearances: Mr. Timothy Leahy 416-226-9889 representing Applicant Mr. Martin Anderson 416-952-2856 representing Respondent Ms. Jane Stewart 416-973-7528 representing Respondent Comments: Parties are to provide the Court with a letter re: proposed schedule for filing documents. Heard with IMM-6828-12. Original Minutes of hearing taken on IMM-6828-12. Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 293 page(s) 494 - 495 Abstract of Hearing placed on file
-	2014-03-26	Ottawa	Oral directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 26-MAR-2014 directing a CMC by teleconference on March 28, 2014 at 9:00 for 30 minutes from Ottawa, further to the Respondent's letter dated March 18, 2014. Counsel may remain in their offices. This CMC will also include file IMM-1-13. received on 26-MAR-2014
-	2014-03-20	Ottawa	Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 20-MAR-2014 re: Counsel's letter requesting case management conference sent to court for direction.
-	2014-03-19	Toronto	Letter from applicant (Mr Leahy) dated 19-MAR-2014 confirms the content of Mr Anderson's Feb.18th letter. I too am available at the court's convenience for a case management meeting. received on 19-MAR-2014
-	2014-03-18	Toronto	Letter from the respondent dated 18-MAR-2014 requesting a case management meeting with the Court and counsel for the parties received on 18-MAR-2014
-	2014-02-13	Ottawa	Letter from the Applicant dated 13-FEB-2014 confirming the agreement Mr. Anderson explicated in his February 12th letter (ID#34) received on 13-FEB-2014
-	2014-02-12	Toronto	Letter from Respondent dated 12-FEB-2014 indicating taht the parties have a greed to a proposal for case management with propsed timeline received on 12-FEB-2014
-	2013-12-09	Toronto	Letter from DOJ dated 06-DEC-2013 "We are writing to advise that the parties to this matter are currently developing a proposal for the management and disposition for the remaining cases in the Emam (IMM-7502-11) case managed group affected by s.87.4..." received on 09-DEC-2013
-	2013-10-09	Ottawa	Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 09-OCT-2013 re: Application for leave,final disposition,File Complete
-	2013-10-07	Toronto	Letter from Respondent dated 07-OCT-2013 ...my understand is that the request would be taken under advisement... received on 07-OCT-2013
-	2013-09-16	Toronto	Toronto 16-SEP-2013 BEFORE The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: counsel for the parites shall provide the Court with a list of cases that have outstanding issues for this court to determine. held ADR Senior Usher: John Grisè Duration per day: 16-SEP-2013 from 02:00 to 02:50 Courtroom : Discovery Room No. 4-45 - Toronto Court Registrar: Mary Sansone Total Duration: 50min Appearances: Tim Leahy 416 226-9889 representing Applicant Jane Stewart 416 973-7528 representing Respondent Comments: Heard together with Imm-12011-12; Imm-4032-12; Imm-3855-12 Mr. Leahy is required to send copies of correspondence to all counsel in the Mandamus Group with his request before the Chief Justice. Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 286 page(s) 403 - 407 Abstract of Hearing placed on file
-	2013-08-29	Ottawa	Acknowledgment of Receipt received from applicant and respondent by telecopier with respect to Oral directions dated 29-AUG-2013 placed on file on 29-AUG-2013
-	2013-08-29	Ottawa	Oral directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 29-AUG-2013 directing A Case Management Conference in person at Toronto will take place on September 16, 2013 at 2:45pm received on 29-AUG-2013 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)
-	2013-08-21	Ottawa	Communication to the Court from the Registry dated 21-AUG-2013 re: A's Motion (Doc.08) and R's letter of 28-JUN-2013 (ID#22)
-	2013-07-18	Ottawa	Letter to Applicant from Executive Director and General Counsel dated 18-JUL-2013 in response to Applicant's letter dated July 4, 2013, on behalf of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court. received on 18-JUL-2013
-	2013-07-04	Toronto	Letter from the applicant dated 04-JUL-2013 advising that they are responding to the letter of the Respondent, received 4-jul-2013 and the two directions of the Court, date 4-jul-2013 regarding the adjournment of the motion from General Sittings and the scheduling of a Case Management Conference. received on 04-JUL-2013
-	2013-07-04	Toronto	Correction to General Sitting concerning Motion Doc. No. 8 Hearing removed from General Sitting at Toronto on 09-JUL-2013 Reason for correction: the letter of the Respondent,dated 4-jul-2013 and the direction of the Court
-	2013-07-04	Toronto	Oral directions of the presiding judge dated 04-JUL-2013 directing Because the matter is under case management, the motion will not be heard at General Sittings on 9-Jul-2013. The motion Material will be forwarded to the Case manangement Judge(Barnes J.) for consideration. The parties have been notified received on 04-JUL-2013
-	2013-07-04	Toronto	Letter from the Respondent dated 04-JUL-2013 requesting that the motion scheduled for General Sittings for 09-Jul-2013 be adjourned and a Case Management Conference be scheduled, before Barnes J. received on 04-JUL-2013
11	2013-06-20	Toronto	Motion Record containing the following original document(s): 8 9 10 Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of Applicant filed on 20-JUN-2013 with proof of service on Respondent on 20-JUN-2013
10	2013-06-20	Toronto	Written submissions contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the applicant in support of Doc. 8 filed on 20-JUN-2013
9	2013-06-20	Toronto	Affidavit of Danilo M. Almacen contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the applicant sworn on 19-JUN-2013 in support of Doc. 8 filed on 20-JUN-2013
8	2013-06-20	Toronto	Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant returnable at General Sitting in Toronto on 09-JUL-2013 to begin at 09:30 duration: 1h 30min language: E for an Order to determine leave of the underlying application Timothy E. Leahy 416-226-9889 filed on 20-JUN-2013
7	2013-06-17	Toronto	Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Timothy Leahy confirming service of doc 6 upon Respondent by telecopier on 13-JUN-2013 filed on 17-JUN-2013
6	2013-06-17	Toronto	Reply memorandum on behalf of the applicant filed on 17-JUN-2013
5	2013-06-05	Toronto	Affidavit of Awo Mohamoud on behalf of the respondent sworn on 05-JUN-2013 confirming service of Doc 4 on the applicant by telecopier on 05-JUN-2013 filed on 05-JUN-2013
4	2013-06-05	Toronto	Memorandum of argument on behalf of the respondent filed on 05-JUN-2013
3	2013-05-06	Toronto	Applicant's Record Number of copies received/prepared: 2 on behalf of Applicant with proof of service upon Respondent on 06-MAY-2013 filed on 06-MAY-2013
-	2013-04-16	Ottawa	Letter advising that no decision has been made, as such, there are no reasons, sent by Citizenship & Immigration Canada, International Region, on 16-APR-2013 pursuant to Rule 9(2) Received on 16-APR-2013
-	2013-04-16	Ottawa	Memorandum to file from L. Rochon, dated 16-APR-2013 2nd follow-up re: no response received for our R.9 requests - an e-mail was issued today to the Tribunal's attention. placed on file.
-	2013-03-18	Ottawa	Memorandum to file from L. Rochon, dated 18-MAR-2013 re: no response to our R.9 requests received - sent an e-mail to the Tribunal's attention (as per their request) requesting a follow-up. placed on file.
-	2013-03-13	Ottawa	Copy of (Copy of) Letter (Original on IMM-7502-11) further to Letter of 8-MAR-2013 on behalf of Respondent dated 13-MAR-2013 placed on file on 13-MAR-2013 Original placed on Court File No. IMM-8063-11
-	2013-03-11	Ottawa	Copy of (Copy of) Acknowledgment of Receipt (Original on IMM-7502-11) from all parties on 11-MAR-2013 of Directions of 7-MAR-2013 and Letter of 8-MAR-2013 placed on file on 11-MAR-2013 Original placed on Court File No. IMM-8063-11
-	2013-03-11	Ottawa	Copy of (Copy of) letter (Original on Court File No:IMM-7502-11) from the Office of Chief Justice further to respondent's letter of 22-FEB-2013 dated 08-MAR-2013 placed on file on 11-MAR-2013 Original placed on Court File No. IMM-8063-11
-	2013-03-11	Ottawa	Copy of (Copy of) Written directions (Original on Court File No:IMM-7502-11) of Chief Justice Crampton in response to respondent's letter of 22-FEB-2013 dated 07-MAR-2013 placed on file on 11-MAR-2013 Original placed on Court File No. IMM-8063-11
-	2013-02-22	Ottawa	Copy of (copy of) Letter (Original on Court File No: IMM-7502-11) seeking directions re: Mr. Leahy's status at LSUC on behalf of Respondent dated 22-FEB-2013 placed on file on 22-FEB-2013 Original placed on Court File No. IMM-8063-11
-	2013-02-20	Ottawa	Second request to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Ottawa, ON, B051802214 pursuant to Rule 9 dated 20-FEB-2013
-	2013-01-11	Ottawa	First request to Litigation Management, File No: B 0518 02214 pursuant to Rule 9 dated 11-JAN-2013
2	2013-01-07	Toronto	Copy of Doc. No. 1 with proof of service on the respondent on 02-JAN-2013 filed on 07-JAN-2013
1	2013-01-02	Toronto	Application for leave and judicial review against a decision CANADIAN EMBASSY AT SEOUL, KOREA; MANDAMUS; B051802214 filed on 02-JAN-2013 Written reasons not received by the Applicant Tariff fee of $50.00 received
[/color]

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=IMM-1-13

 

[warmest]

Latest update on lawyer Matthew Jeffery's appeal
Supreme Court of Canada
Docket 36213
Ali Raza Jafri, et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

[color=blue][b][u]Date[/u]	           [u]Proceeding[/u]                     	                                                                                               [u]Filed By (if applicable)[/u][/b]
2015-04-17	Correspondence (sent by the Court) to, Yu Caihua, acknowledgement letter dated February 10, 2015 (returned to the Court by postal company due to wrong address).	
2015-04-13	All materials on application for leave submitted to the Judges, submission of joint application filed on January 7, 2015 by 11 self-represented applicants , Ro Cro Mo	
2015-04-13	Submission of motion to extend time to file and/ or serve the leave application, submission of motion filed on Oct.20/2014 by Yu Caihua, et al., Ro Cro Mo	
2015-04-07	Applicant's reply to respondent's argument, (Book Form), Completed on: 2015-04-07	Yu CaiHua
2015-04-07	Reply to the motion to extend time to file and/ or serve the leave application, (Book Form), (Included in the applicant's reply to respondent's argument), Completed on: 2015-04-07, (Electronic version filed on 2015-04-07)	Yu CaiHua
2015-03-25	Response to the motion to extend the time to file and / or serve the leave application, (Included in the respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal), Completed on: 2015-03-25	Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
2015-03-25	Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), RESPONSE TO THE SECOND APPLICATION., Completed on: 2015-03-25, (Electronic version filed on 2015-03-25)	Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
2015-03-17	Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form)	Yu CaiHua
2015-03-16	All materials on application for leave submitted to the Judges, Only the application for leave to appeal filed on December 16, 2014 has been submitted to the panel., Ro Cro Mo	
2015-03-16	Submission of motion to extend time to file and/ or serve the leave application, Ro Cro Mo	
2015-03-02	Notice of withdrawal, (Letter Form), Notice of Withdrawal pursuant to Rule 17(4). Ten letters - Matthew Jeffery ceases to represent 10 of the Applicants.	Ali Raza Jafri
2015-02-26	Correspondence (sent by the Court) to, Applicants, re - response to request to be self-represented (7 letters)	
2015-02-10	Applicant's reply to respondent's argument, (Book Form), Completed on: 2015-02-10, (Electronic version filed on 2015-02-10)	Ali Raza Jafri
2015-02-10	Letter acknowledging receipt of a complete application for leave to appeal	
2015-02-09	Correspondence received from, (Letter Form), Applicant, re.: Confirmation that counsel is representing ten of eleven applicants that had written to the Court.	Ali Raza Jafri
2015-02-04	Correspondence received from, (Letter Form), Respondent, re.: documents filed by applicants that already have a file at the SCC	Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
2015-02-03	Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), RESPONSE TO FIRST APPLICATION., Completed on: 2015-02-03, (Electronic version filed on 2015-02-03)	Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
2015-02-03	Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Book Form), (Electronic version filed on 2015-02-03)	Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
2015-01-07	Application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), Joint second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, nineth, tenth, and eleventh application. Please note that Part III and VI are found in Yu Caihua's second application., Completed on: 2015-01-07	Yu CaiHua
2014-12-17	Letter acknowledging receipt of a complete application for leave to appeal, File opened 2014-12-17.	
2014-12-17	Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), (Electronic version filed on 2014-12-16)	Ali Raza Jafri
2014-12-16	Motion to extend the time to file and or serve the application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), (Included in the application for leave to appeal), Completed on: 2014-12-16, (Electronic version filed on 2014-12-16)	Ali Raza Jafri
2014-12-16	Application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), 2 volumes. FIRST APPLICATION., Completed on: 2014-12-16, (Electronic version filed on 2014-12-16)	Ali Raza Jafri
2014-10-30	Correspondence (sent by the Court) to, Applicants: Li Liang,Yangchun Yang, Jiong Ju, Shao Lixia, Chenggang Huang, Yanling Liu, Rami Ahmed Fathalla Moustafa, Ping Guo and Ling Xiao - CHECKLIST	
2014-10-20	Motion to extend the time to file and or serve the application for leave to appeal, (Letter Form), second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eigth, nineth, tenth and eleventh application- Joint Motion. Ping Guo - motion rec'd Oc.17/2014. Rami Fathalla - motion rec'd Oct.21/2014. Guimei Jing - Joint Motion rec'd Jan.12/2015, Completed on: 2014-10-20	Yu CaiHua[/color]

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=36213

 

[hasiburbd]

Dear Friends,

Have a nice day. I am Hasib. I got AOR on 3/3/2015 for SINP skill immigration. My medical done yesterday 18/04/2015. In-sha-allah 1st may I am going to get married. So, I want to add my wife as spouse.

Please suggest me what should I do

1. Should I have to wait for finished my process then I should add her ?
2. what will be the time duration to finish her process approximately?
3. If I add her now then, is it time lean-the for my process or have no any effect on my process?

Waiting for kind person's response

Hasib

 

[jam2k94]

Dear Friends,

Have a nice day. I am Hasib. I got AOR on 3/3/2015 for SINP skill immigration. My medical done yesterday 18/04/2015. In-sha-allah 1st may I am going to get married. So, I want to add my wife as spouse.

Please suggest me what should I do

1. Should I have to wait for finished my process then I should add her ?
2. what will be the time duration to finish her process approximately?
3. If I add her now then, is it time lean-the for my process or have no any effect on my process?

Waiting for kind person's response

Hasib

In my opinion do the Nikah immediately and get the marriage certificate. Along with this arrange some photos of Nikah which will be needed by the Visa office. Then raise CSE to your visa office and inform about this change and request them you need to add her with your application. Your visa office will guide you further about the process. But if once you have the visa stamped on your passport then it will be separate process for her which will fall under dependent category.

Your marriage function can be done as per your original plan.

Some seniors can give more suggestion on your situation.

 

[xiphiasimmigration]

hi

oh ok. i guess it should be fine...good luck...

cheers

Yes really it will be fine.I already gone through it.

 

[Haritha16]

Yes really it will be fine.I already gone through it.

Seniors Require your Help,

I have applied for the Immigration process.. I have received a mail from CIC that in the previous Visa application form your job was different and now its different please explain.

In my CIC form i gave as payroll supervisor and Accountant and in US application form i have applied as Trainer... Now in the CIC form under this job designation my job duties were Training as well... in the US Visa application form they asked job duties but not designations.. I have replied to them giving all the explaintation.. Can someone give me the response to this