HOW TO SUE CIC FOR NEGLIGENCE ??

[fleo]

So, in other words, they got the law wrong.

Sigh. Yes, in other words they did. The problem with it is that the law they "got wrong" was the law they were in charge of applying, so if they "got it wrong" it means they're not doing their job properly. You may not consider that to be negligence, but it certainly isn't due diligence

What court, and what law, denied them their rights? It doesn't appear that they went to court.
A paper-pusher screwed up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_administration

Courts aren't the only ones applying and enforcing the law. CIC is an administrative body in charge of factual application of mainly, but not just, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. All those pesky paperwork we had to do, the medicals, the police clearances, all that being reviewed and judged by a CIC officer who then decided to accept the application or refuse it? That's The Act in practice, managed by an official body whose job it is to do so, as they say, "fairly, efficiently and with integrity". And just like anyone else making legally binding decisions concerning you (a judge, a health inspector, your friendly neighbourhood policeman) they must instruct you on the counteraction available to you regarding those decisions. Despite not being your legal counsel.

Now, this...

When they wrote to tell us that our application was declined, they did not provide the appropriate decline letters to us...and told us specifically "NO APPEAL RIGHTS APPLICABLE". When i told them i did have appeal rights, they wrote back again "ABSOLUTELY NO APPEAL RIGHTS". When i appealed anyway, the immigration appeal board also said "NO APPEAL RIGHTS". When i asked 2 different MP's to inquire, 'immigration canada wrote back to both of them "in writing" "NO APPEAL RIGHTS APPLICABLE. ONLY JUDICIAL REVIEW". Then i read the laws myself and sure enough...I HAVE APPEAL RIGHTS. When i wrote them quoting from their own law book, the minister's representative finally acknowledged.."we believe she does have appeal rights and the decline letters and appeal info was never sent".

... is a whole lot of paper pushers And even if it was just one, he still didn't do it in his own free time - whoever screwed up did so in their official capacity, as a CIC employee and representative.

This is not the systematic repression you're looking for.

I'm not looking for anything, least of all repression. What I'm seeing is someone who, on behalf and in the name of their employer, didn't do their job correctly. It doesn't matter whether it's CIC "getting the law wrong" and giving false information about legal remedies, or a police officer "getting the law wrong" and not reading a person's rights during arrest, or a judge "getting the law wrong" and sentencing a mentally retarded defendant to death - people being 'handled' by a certain law have certain rights, and when those rights are not protected they have every right to call those responsible on it.

 

[YorkFactory]

And just like anyone else making legally binding decisions concerning you...they must instruct you on the counteraction available to you regarding those decisions. Despite not being your legal counsel.

No, they don't have to, and they really don't owe you anywhere near what your own legal counsel would. That's why there's probably no negligence to be found on CIC's part. They do not work for you, they are not your friends, and are not obligated to be.

 

[fleo]

No, they don't have to

Yes, they do. From OP 2 Manual:

When a case is refused, visa offices must:

• send a letter to the sponsor’s address in Canada to advise of the right of appeal. If the
sponsor is temporarily outside Canada, the letter may be sent to a non-Canadian address.

• include a copy of the refusal letter that was sent to the family class applicant, a Notice of
Appeal IRB/CISR28 (6/98), Important Instructions for Sponsorship Appeals (appendix B) and
information insert. The dates on original refusal letters sent to the family class applicants and
copies sent to sponsors must be identical. Sign both the original and the copy of the refusal
letters.

• Include the sponsor's client ID or the applicant's client ID and the applicant's file number in the
upper right hand corner of the notification of appeal rights letter.

• Include the information insert with refusal letters for family class applicants. Adding this
information is an effort to obtain new addresses for sponsors. It does not replace the
notification of appeal rights letter to the sponsor. IAD rules do not allow officers to notify
sponsors through applicants.

It has nothing to do with being your friend or working for you, it's about respecting certain rights and procedural standards. If your application gets refused, the CIC official who refused it is obliged to inform you - accurately and truthfully, no less - of your appeal options, and failing to do so can and should have consequences if it caused you harm. (Yes, not being able to possibly win the appeal and be granted residency does constitute harm in my opinion.)

However, the OP's case doesn't seem to fall into that category, and I would be extremely interested in the facts of it. From her description it sounds like this was an inland application, which normally gives no appeal rights when refused (other than judicial review she was obviously instructed to try). Whether or not appeal rights were *denied* in such situation is questionable, unless the OP's case is wildly atypical and obviously should have been treated in a non-standard way. With that said, I'm not certain a government official doing his job in good faith and the way he always does it really can be considered negligent - but if CIC has been systematically applying wrong sets of rules to a certain type of cases, that's an even bigger problem, and still calls for a number of rolling heads.

Was the appeal finally allowed, and on what grounds?

 

[rjessome]

No, this wasn't an inland application because the OP's husband applied for ARC. Sounds to me like it was the ARC that got refused. IAD doesn't hear ARC appeals. However, this is a little tricky because in effect, the spousal would get refused because ARC was refused. The spousal COULD be appealed at the IAD but it would be a circle I would think, because they don't have jurisdiction to overturn the refusal of the ARC. Judicial review would be the only way.

Interesting. I think the visa office was trying to tell her that the decision of the ARC could only be judicially reviewed, not appealed to the IAD. There's no point in her going to the IAD. Waste of time and money which she should spend on the JR.

 

[YorkFactory]

It has nothing to do with being your friend or working for you, it's about respecting certain rights and procedural standards.

Right, and it's likely that they don't owe you anything other than to reprocess your application correctly. Getting any sort of money would be an uphill battle. Keep in mind that the default case is that the Queen of Canada and her government are immune to lawsuits.

 

[fleo]

IAD doesn't hear ARC appeals.

They don't? That's confusing; OP 1 says: Any individual who has a right of appeal before the IAD as per A63 can appeal a negative ARC decision to the IAD.

So who does hear it?

Or... hmpf. Could it be that there was no right of appeal due to grounds for inadmissibility?

 

[rjessome]

They don't? That's confusing; OP 1 says: Any individual who has a right of appeal before the IAD as per A63 can appeal a negative ARC decision to the IAD.

So who does hear it?

Or... hmpf. Could it be that there was no right of appeal due to grounds for inadmissibility?

Geez fleo. As soon as you get PR I'm gonna give you a job! You're right. I'm thinking of EVERY OTHER type of ARC except those related to A63. However, the IRB rules state:

http://www.irb.gc.ca/eng/brdcom/publications/oveape/Pages/index.aspx#iad1

Note: You may not appeal if your family member has been found to be inadmissible because of:

a serious criminal offence punished in Canada by a term of imprisonment of two years or more

involvement in organized crime

security grounds

violations of human or international rights, or

misrepresentation (unless the person is your spouse, common-law partner or child)


Leaves me wondering what happened in the first place because if the above applied, no appeal to the IAD. There's lots we don't know.

 

[fleo]

If you promise to address me as 'lovely assistant' I don't need to be paid ;D

Anyways, that's exactly what I was looking at when I said 'grounds for inadmissibility'. We just don't have enough facts to even guess what went wrong and where.

But out of sheer curiosity - if at some point during your immigration process you were denied the right to appeal which by law you should have had, is there any way to cause CIC some trouble over it? Theoretically speaking, it's a nasty situation to be in - families could be torn apart, jobs lost, marriages ruined and whatnot; if it was me I'd be all over the Supreme Court howling about justice, but to what end?

 

[rjessome]

if it was me I'd be all over the Supreme Court howling about justice, but to what end?

And at what cost? SC ain't cheap!! And it takes YEARS, if it is even accepted. How many people have the kind of mental fortitude or financial resources to truly take something like this through the courts? It's easy to say "sue" but oh so difficult to actually do it.

 

[lovealife]

Here is some thing that is confusing (im in this situation):

1.Denied visa at entry (airport) signed a paper to leave volintarily
2.Withdrew the leave and filed an appeal
3.Filed a sponsorship app under the spousal catogory in Canada
4.appeal hearing (appeal dismissed) exclusion order for one year was the consequences
5.Report to CBSA every month by telphone.
6.waiting on sponsorship app
7.AIP recieved after interview to make sure the marriage was genuine

what happens to the exclusion order if sponsership process is complete and accepted?
Also the passport is with CBSA what happens if its needed for the landing interview ?

rjessome ?

 

[newtone]

Are you kidding?....please grow up.

Firstly...... they are the first point of contact when it comes to you entering their country, these are the officers of Canada who weed out most of the fakes and cheaters who want to take advantage of Canadian generosity. Its like saying I want to enter your house and if you give me trouble or make it hard for me I'll sue you.

Secondly, how will this help your problem, every individual has a different case and different circumstances. Suing is not the solution, I suggest you reconsider your actions and apply carefully.