Hello friends,
Here news about hearing September 02, 2015
Good Day,
My apology to those who wrote, asking the name of the judge. I did not respond because the next question would be: "Is he good or bad?" and I did not want to share my opinion because in this internet world, it will go everywhere and, in the end, it is not my view of the judge that matters: it is the decision he renders that does.
Basically, the hearing went well. The decision will be given at a later date. While I do not know when, I doubt that it will be before the October 19th federal election, which the current government is expected to lose. (At present, it is almost a three-way tie, meaning that we are likely to have a minority government, which would either be led by the NDP -- akin to the UK's Labour Party -- or the Liberals --akin to the US Democratic Party -- neither of which may be expected to support a Tory government.)
Mr. Galati appears to have gotten across to Justice Russell our arguments, including putting to rest DoJ's argument that the Minister would be acting "contrary to Law" if he honoured the Agreement. Justice Russell appears to have accepted the argument I had been making since June 2012. Likewise, the Court appears to have understood the constitutional issues, which DoJ counsel appeared never to have grasped (or, knowing that it is correct, feign puzzlement).
The good news is that DoJ finally admitted that the Agreement governs both groups, saying "If the Agreement is enforceable, it would govern both those who applied before Liang and those who applied afterwards". They argue -- and there were three lawyers on the other side, as there always have been -- however, that passage of s. 87.4 terminated the Agreement, too -- but it clearly did not.
The importance of that concession is that it opens the door to Justice Russell to rule in our favour on the Agreement and not to have to rule on the constitutional issues. Thus, we can win without the Government losing big time. (However, after October 19th, the Government is likely to be gone in any event.)
As expected, DoJ spent considerable time attacking me, prompting Mr. Galati to state that, as he had been in the same room with Barnes and me, it was clear that Barnes and I should never have been in the same room together because clearly we loathe each other (and. thus, Justice Barnes should have withdrawn as the managing judge). He alsoe repeated what Mario Bellisimo, one of the Tabingo lawyers had said to the Chief Justice: "After the way Justice Barnes treated Mr. Leahy's litigants, no one in the Immigration Bar will ever again agree to 'managed litigation', adding: "And, I will not do so either". Thus, the Court is on notice that, if it does not enforce the Agreement, it will diminish its reputation and will have to deal with each case separately.
While no decision was given, and Justice Russell has yet to express his view on the main issues, because he appears to have understood them and all the main points were addressed, I am very happy with what occurred today, especially DoJ's concession that, if the Agreement is enforceable, it applies all litigants. As I said, the concession permits Justice Russell to rule in everyone's favour without having to rule against the Government, per se, allowing the other 80,000 files to remain closed but yours to be processed. A small loss for CIC but a huge win for each of you.
Regards,
Tim
© 2015 Microsoft Términos Privacidad y cookies Desarrolladores Español
