No More Litigants accepted to Sue CIC-An email by Tim Leahy

[khan200us]

Hi

I received today an email from Tim Leahy updating me on my case. There will be a definite trial and no more applications will be added now to the litigation.Congratulations to those who have already sneaked in.

I see it a win win situation because I see litigants winning this case.Backlog and annual quota restrictions is not a legal argument when it comes to interpretation of law in a Federal court. I wonder what other "excuse" CIC can provide in their so called defense.

Here is the email and I encourage your comments on the contents of the email.

Kind Regards
Khan


Good day,

Thursday evening both parties' counsel met for an hour with the judge to decide how to proceed. Last Friday, the judge had issued an order which disturbed both parties because, rather than proceed with representative cases, he had ordered that affidavits and written arguments be prepared served and filed on all the cases. Clearly his understanding of what had been agreed on December 6th differed from what both parties had understood. The net result is that he has suspended the Friday the 13th order and given us until February 7th to set out a joint proposal on how to proceed or, if we do not agree entirely, he will impose the structure. After he has reviewed our joint submission, we will have another meeting.

The big news to come out of the meeting was that the judge told us that the decision to grant leave has been made, which is to say, the Court will definitely hear our cases. In fact, he said that he has already requested that a date for the hearing be found. The Court clearly wants this issue to be decided as soon as possible. He also averred that the as-yet-to-be-revealed judge who will hear the case will agree to allow the matter to be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA). While the appeal will mean that the cases will continue longer than otherwise, the fact that he is trying to arrange an early date for the hearing means that the delay will not be that great. In fact, both decisions could be rendered before the end of the year.

The judge expressed the Court's annoyance at more litigants joining the litigation. (The Court simply is not in a position to deal with large numbers of cases.) He said that, in addition to our then 550 cases, 100 (Persian) cases had been filed in Montréal and "a handful in Vancouver". So, I agree not to add additional applicants to the litigation. Thus, as matters currently stand, those who have not yet joined the litigation will not be able to do so. (I filed 66 new cases just before the meeting occurred.)

The procedural disagreement with CIC is that it wants only one case to be put forward per class. According to DoJ (Dep't of Justice), roughly two-thirds of the litigants applied before 27 February 2008 and one third between 27 February 2008 and 25 June 2010. DoJ has agreed to the judge's request to be advised how many are in each class.

Over the next two weeks, DoJ and I will try to work out a time-line for submitting written arguments and to cross-examine the CIC official who submits CIC's affidavit. I envision both parties submitting two affidavits, one addressing the facts specific to the individual litigant's case and the other addressing the general issues which apply to everyone. (Ordinarily we adduce one affidavit, and CIC often does not adduce any.) Also, usually no one is examined, but this time they know that their official will definitely be examined. We will be discussing whether those submitting our affidavits will be examined, too.

(Examinations occur around a table in a room and consist of each counsel questioning the deponent on the contents of his/her affidavit. It usually lasts 45 minutes to an hour. The questions are recorded and a written transcript is prepared for the Court.)

Within two weeks we will know if DoJ and I are on the same page with respect to the number of litigants per class. The only identified disagreement at this juncture is how many representative cases. They want only one; I would prefer candidates from each visa-post involved. Within two weeks, we will know whether we can agree on the number or whether the Court will have to decide. (If we have only one case, I have decided which one it will be, but it is not from Delhi or Damascus, where 90% of the files are to be found.) The Court did state that I will make that selection; not DoJ.

The next update should be in about one month. All written arguments and examinations should be concluded by June, which could mean that the Federal Court hearing may occur this summer.

 

[cocknbull]

Hi

I received today an email from Tim Leahy updating me on my case. There will be a definite trial and no more applications will be added now to the litigation.Congratulations to those who have already sneaked in.

I see it a win win situation because I see litigants winning this case.Backlog and annual quota restrictions is not a legal argument when it comes to interpretation of law in a Federal court. I wonder what other "excuse" CIC can provide in their so called defense.

Here is the email and I encourage your comments on the contents of the email.

Kind Regards
Khan


Good day,

Thursday evening both parties' counsel met for an hour with the judge to decide how to proceed. Last Friday, the judge had issued an order which disturbed both parties because, rather than proceed with representative cases, he had ordered that affidavits and written arguments be prepared served and filed on all the cases. Clearly his understanding of what had been agreed on December 6th differed from what both parties had understood. The net result is that he has suspended the Friday the 13th order and given us until February 7th to set out a joint proposal on how to proceed or, if we do not agree entirely, he will impose the structure. After he has reviewed our joint submission, we will have another meeting.

The big news to come out of the meeting was that the judge told us that the decision to grant leave has been made, which is to say, the Court will definitely hear our cases. In fact, he said that he has already requested that a date for the hearing be found. The Court clearly wants this issue to be decided as soon as possible. He also averred that the as-yet-to-be-revealed judge who will hear the case will agree to allow the matter to be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA). While the appeal will mean that the cases will continue longer than otherwise, the fact that he is trying to arrange an early date for the hearing means that the delay will not be that great. In fact, both decisions could be rendered before the end of the year.

The judge expressed the Court's annoyance at more litigants joining the litigation. (The Court simply is not in a position to deal with large numbers of cases.) He said that, in addition to our then 550 cases, 100 (Persian) cases had been filed in Montréal and "a handful in Vancouver". So, I agree not to add additional applicants to the litigation. Thus, as matters currently stand, those who have not yet joined the litigation will not be able to do so. (I filed 66 new cases just before the meeting occurred.)

The procedural disagreement with CIC is that it wants only one case to be put forward per class. According to DoJ (Dep't of Justice), roughly two-thirds of the litigants applied before 27 February 2008 and one third between 27 February 2008 and 25 June 2010. DoJ has agreed to the judge's request to be advised how many are in each class.

Over the next two weeks, DoJ and I will try to work out a time-line for submitting written arguments and to cross-examine the CIC official who submits CIC's affidavit. I envision both parties submitting two affidavits, one addressing the facts specific to the individual litigant's case and the other addressing the general issues which apply to everyone. (Ordinarily we adduce one affidavit, and CIC often does not adduce any.) Also, usually no one is examined, but this time they know that their official will definitely be examined. We will be discussing whether those submitting our affidavits will be examined, too.

(Examinations occur around a table in a room and consist of each counsel questioning the deponent on the contents of his/her affidavit. It usually lasts 45 minutes to an hour. The questions are recorded and a written transcript is prepared for the Court.)

Within two weeks we will know if DoJ and I are on the same page with respect to the number of litigants per class. The only identified disagreement at this juncture is how many representative cases. They want only one; I would prefer candidates from each visa-post involved. Within two weeks, we will know whether we can agree on the number or whether the Court will have to decide. (If we have only one case, I have decided which one it will be, but it is not from Delhi or Damascus, where 90% of the files are to be found.) The Court did state that I will make that selection; not DoJ.

The next update should be in about one month. All written arguments and examinations should be concluded by June, which could mean that the Federal Court hearing may occur this summer.

hi khan,

congrats on receiving this email.. so u mean only those people who have filed will get the decision in their favour..may i ask how much fees have you paid to Tim for that?

thanks

 

[khan200us]

Hi.

I have paid him xxxxxx amount but his fees was much higher and I paid him through an acquaintance to whom he quoted this price for his professional fees.

He has instructed that I must not reveal this information as it constitute a confidentiality agreement. Sorry!!!

Otherwise he was charging $1550 upfront or $1500 in two installments.

I paid less than half of this figure but it is worth every single penny because if CIC agrees to settle the matter, all litigants will most likely get their PR visas in 30 days and if the matter goes to court and we win, CIC will pay a good amount of damages. I don't mind becoming rich before I land in Canada. Frankly, I don't mind at all and I will be glad if that happens.

Small risk is that if Mr. Leahy loses the case, then we lost this fees otherwise no other affect on our applications. They will remain in the CHC storage until our death and then they will destroy them.

Last time in 2002, CIC lost the case and paid 2.9 million CAD$ to the litigants. This time their position is even weaker to start with.


However, it is now too late because he will not accept anymore applicants. He has agreed to this in front of the judge.

His website is www.unfaircic.com where he regularly updates the legal position.

Kind Regards
Khan

 

[cocknbull]

Hi.

I have paid him xxxxxx amount but his fees was much higher and I paid him through an acquaintance to whom he quoted this price for his professional fees.

He has instructed that I must not reveal this information as it constitute a confidentiality agreement. Sorry!!!

Otherwise he was charging $1550 upfront or $1500 in two installments.

I paid less than half of this figure but it is worth every single penny because if CIC agrees to settle the matter, all litigants will most likely get their PR visas in 30 days and if the matter goes to court and we win, CIC will pay a good amount of damages. I don't mind becoming rich before I land in Canada. Frankly, I don't mind at all and I will be glad if that happens.

Small risk is that if Mr. Leahy loses the case, then we lost this fees otherwise no other affect on our applications. They will remain in the CHC storage until our death and then they will destroy them.

Last time in 2002, CIC lost the case and paid 2.9 million CAD$ to the litigants. This time their position is even weaker to start with.


However, it is now too late because he will not accept anymore applicants. He has agreed to this in front of the judge.

His website is www.unfaircic.com where he regularly updates the legal position.

Kind Regards
Khan

good work khan...thats great..btw am not pre june and am not interested...just asked for info...but pls keep updating...thx much

 

[khan200us]

good work khan...thats great..btw am not pre june and am not interested...just asked for info...but pls keep updating...thx much

Hi. Good. You have not lost anything then. This litigation is applicable only for pre June applicants.

Good luck for your "prioritized" case and please keep your comments going on this post.

All the best
Khan

 

[cocknbull]

Hi. Good. You have not lost anything then. This litigation is applicable only for pre June applicants.

Good luck for your "prioritized" case and please keep your comments going on this post.

All the best
Khan

do u know if u win the case how much compensation each applicant will get?? roughly??

thx

 

[khan200us]

do u know if u win the case how much compensation each applicant will get?? roughly??

thx

To tell you the truth, no. I don't and even Mr. Tim Leahy has refused to promise any figure.
Primarily, it depends on the judge how he sees the breach of agreement terms from CIC when they lured all the prejuners that their files will be processed within 12 months. They wrote this in the 2nd AOR letters so that constitutes a service agreement from which they cannot back out now.
As I said, backlogs, quotas and x number of visa officers were on holiday, ill or dead or sleeping during their office hours is not a valid legal argument for delays in processing immigration files and will not fly in the court before a Federal judge who listens to such silly excuses everyday.

Secondly, it depends on each applicant's level of loss had he/she been issued PR visa with accompanying dependents as per the 2nd AOR letter, he would land in Canada and start a job. So, the loss of wages and loss of job opportunities will be calculated for the principal applicant and their spouse in terms of money. Also, the children lost valuable time because had they reached Canada in time, they would be studying in Canadian schools and getting better education and had better English skills.

I on a personal note feel that the children part of damages is over inflated demand anyway. However, applicants and spouses lost wages and they will be calculated according to Canadian wages and may be some interest and penalty payment for breach of agreement and causing immigrants inconvenience and grief.

In my opinion, it could be about 20K to 80K per family depending on their level of losses as explained and the prime factor is if we win the case.

Losing will mean waking up from a pleasant dream.

Regards
Khan.

 

[cocknbull]

To tell you the truth, no. I don't and even Mr. Tim Leahy has refused to promise any figure.
Primarily, it depends on the judge how he sees the breach of agreement terms from CIC when they lured all the prejuners that their files will be processed within 12 months. They wrote this in the 2nd AOR letters so that constitutes a service agreement from which they cannot back out now.
As I said, backlogs, quotas and x number of visa officers were on holiday, ill or dead or sleeping during their office hours is not a valid legal argument for delays in processing immigration files and will not fly in the court before a Federal judge who listens to such silly excuses everyday.

Secondly, it depends on each applicant's level of loss had he/she been issued PR visa with accompanying dependents as per the 2nd AOR letter, he would land in Canada and start a job. So, the loss of wages and loss of job opportunities will be calculated for the principal applicant and their spouse in terms of money. Also, the children lost valuable time because had they reached Canada in time, they would be studying in Canadian schools and getting better education and had better English skills.

I on a personal note feel that the children part of damages is over inflated demand anyway. However, applicants and spouses lost wages and they will be calculated according to Canadian wages and may be some interest and penalty payment for breach of agreement and causing immigrants inconvenience and grief.

In my opinion, it could be about 20K to 80K per family depending on their level of losses as explained and the prime factor is if we win the case.

Losing will mean waking up from a pleasant dream.

Regards
Khan.

hi

will the compensation be only paid to who participated in this legitation?

one more question wen approximately this case will be decided? wat do u think?

thx much for answering...u r very kind...

 

[khan200us]

hi

will the compensation be only paid to who participated in this legitation?

one more question wen approximately this case will be decided? wat do u think?

thx much for answering...u r very kind...

Hello

Yes, the compensation will only be paid to those who took the plunge and filed a legal suite.

For the logical fairness, they should be the only beneficiaries if at all.

From legal terms, since this is a mandamus legal suite, unlike a class action, the court's judgement order and all other interim orders will apply to only those who are the participants.

In the same manner, because we are his clients, Mr. Tim Leahy and his legal counsel will represent our case and will not emphasize on the other FSW1 applicants who are not his clients. They will not benefit from his legal representation.

I hope the above explanation makes some sense.

About your second question, legal claims go on extended periods of time and CIC has already demonstrated that it will do its level best within law, to delay the procedure so that they may buy some time and thus reduce the damage, that can be done should they lose the case.

Mr. Tim Leahy suggests that the case can be heard during the summer of 2012 and in my opinion, in July 2012 and will be finalized with a court judgement order by the end of August 2012.

Then the losing party has the right of appeal which if they exercise by going to the Federal court of appeals, will mean 5/6 more months.I believe it is very unlikely that the Appeals court will rule differently from the Federal Court, so by going to the Appeal procedure, the loser will only magnify its losses bu paying extra court costs and compensation.

It is tough to predict how soon we shall have a hearing and thus a court's judgement but everything will be done during this year in 2012.
We hope that we all prejuners get our PR before that but well, that is only a wishful thinking.

With the pathetic progress level of the CIC, it seems highly unlikely.

Regards
Khan

 

[khan200us]

The procedure in Mr. Tim Leahy's words taken from his website www.unfaircic.com

The Procedure
The litigation is not a class-action but, rather, consists of individual litigants with their own case. In all likelihood, the individual cases will be consolidated and heard together. If so, there would be two classes of litigants; viz. those who applied before 27 February 2008 and those who applied between 27 February 2008 and 26 June 2010. The Court may make the same decision for both classes or fashion a different one for each class.

In an application counsel argue before a judge. There are no witnesses; rather, each side may adduce an affidavit, stating the facts on which counsel will rely. Opposing counsel has the right to question the person who signed the affidavit. If so, it would be done with a court reporter recording the questioning, and the questioning would be limited to the contents of the affidavit. Given that there are unlikely to be any disputed facts, it is unlikely that CIC's lawyer will bear the cost of examining the litigant. (The cost would range between $750 and $1,000 each.)

For the action, witnesses may be called. However, because the facts will really not be in dispute, it is more likely that, if the action is to be decided on the merits, it will be based on the affidavit submitted in the application.

The Litigation
Litigation has been initiated to oblige CIC to assess the files of the litigants. For each litigant, there are two proceedings. The first seeks an order requiring CIC to assess and finalize their application; and the second seeks an award of damages comparable to the income the applicant (and spouse) would have earned in Canada in their professions(s) had CIC honoured its commitment to process their file in the time-frame it estimated when it enticed the applicant to apply to immigrate to Canada.

The first, called an "application", requires the Court to agree to hear the case — to grant leave — whereas the second, an "action", does not require leave. However, CIC may be expected within a month of initiation of the action to ask the Federal Court to dismiss it. If the Court permits the action to proceed, CIC will be at risk of having to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars if all its victims joined the litigation. It would be wise, therefore, for CIC to offer immediately to settle. If so, it can be expected to offer to assess and finalize the litigants' files in exchange for dropping the demand for damages. If settlement is offered, it would probably not occur until about six months into the process.

If there is no settlement, the application may be expected to heard about nine months after litigation has been initiated. The judge is unlikely to render a decision at the hearing but, rather will "reserve" the decision. How long the judge will take to release the decision is unknown, but one to four months would be the norm.

Effect of the Decision
The Court's ruling will apply only to the people who have joined the lawsuit (the "litigants"). Thus, if we win, CIC will only have to assess the litigants' files and may continue to ignore those of everyone else with a file CIC has tossed into its black hole — unlike in a class-action lawsuit, where everyone in the same class would be treated equally. The objective of the mandamus application will be to have the Court impose, or CIC agree to, a specific time-frame to assess and to finalize the litigants' application. Likewise, if the actions for damages are decided on the merits, the amount awarded will be based upon the litigant's own facts.

If, however, there is a settlement, if CIC agrees to pay any damages, it will likely be the same amount to everyone — and the amount will be significantly less than the requested amount. However, it will come with a promise to assess and finalize the FSW file within a specified time-frame, which would likely mean that the immigrant-visas will be issued roughly twelve months after the litigants have submitted up-dated forms and documents.

After the litigation has ended, CIC could — and should — abandon its queue-jumping processing policy, effectively ending the indefinite warehousing of FSW applications. Nevertheless, CIC will still be obliged to finalize the litigants FSW applications within the specified time-frame. Thus, that change should not negatively affect the litigants.

Steps to Take
For those who wish to proceed, the first step would be to sign an agreement and the second would be to provide the required information for the statement, called an affidavit, which the litigant will need to sign before a notary public. The affidavit will provide the facts required to argue the matter and will provide the basis for the statement-of-claim in the action for damages.

The information required for the agreement is:


photo for PR card for FSW applicant who waited for a file lodged before 26 June 2010 to be assessed
applicant's legal name (same as CIC is using),
the file number (B04XX XXXXX),
visa-post where the file is being warehoused,
litigant's telephone number and email address and
city/state/country where the retainer agreement is signed.

The information required for the affidavit and statement-of-claim is:
applicant's city/state/country of residence;
date visa-post received file (see receipt on the AoR);
date AoR estimated processing would commence or end;
NOC for intended occupation(s) of applicant (Schedule 3) and spouse (Schedule 1),
province identified on IMM8 as destination in Canada;
visa-post's response to request for assessment and
anything else which might be useful to know.

AoR = Acknowledgement of Receipt; i.e., the first letter received from the visa post.

For the cost to participate, please send an email to: contact@unfairCIC.com.

 

[cocknbull]

Hello

Yes, the compensation will only be paid to those who took the plunge and filed a legal suite.

For the logical fairness, they should be the only beneficiaries if at all.

From legal terms, since this is a mandamus legal suite, unlike a class action, the court's judgement order and all other interim orders will apply to only those who are the participants.

In the same manner, because we are his clients, Mr. Tim Leahy and his legal counsel will represent our case and will not emphasize on the other FSW1 applicants who are not his clients. They will not benefit from his legal representation.

I hope the above explanation makes some sense.

About your second question, legal claims go on extended periods of time and CIC has already demonstrated that it will do its level best within law, to delay the procedure so that they may buy some time and thus reduce the damage, that can be done should they lose the case.

Mr. Tim Leahy suggests that the case can be heard during the summer of 2012 and in my opinion, in July 2012 and will be finalized with a court judgement order by the end of August 2012.

Then the losing party has the right of appeal which if they exercise by going to the Federal court of appeals, will mean 5/6 more months.I believe it is very unlikely that the Appeals court will rule differently from the Federal Court, so by going to the Appeal procedure, the loser will only magnify its losses bu paying extra court costs and compensation.

It is tough to predict how soon we shall have a hearing and thus a court's judgement but everything will be done during this year in 2012.
We hope that we all prejuners get our PR before that but well, that is only a wishful thinking.

With the pathetic progress level of the CIC, it seems highly unlikely.

Regards
Khan

thx much for detailed reply...much obliged....

 

[khan200us]

thx much for detailed reply...much obliged....

You are most welcome!

Take good care of yourself and good luck with your case.

Regards
Khan.

 

[cocknbull]

You are most welcome!

Take good care of yourself and good luck with your case.

Regards
Khan.

thx.. i will surely pass this info to some of my friends who are prejunes...

 

[TAPTATANU]

Its great work done.Litigation is the only steps we shouldfollow against CHC.They are simpply vogous people doing nothing ,simply passing time.We should teach them appropriate lesson if required we should contact Canadian media also .This type of idiotic activities should be published in all newspapers all over world so that people of all over work know that Canadian High Commission is a bluff,vogous organisation and the simple way to protect against them is to lodge court case against them.They take crores of money from third world countries and after that just passing time and changing processing time from months to eras.I have a great doubt whether they have any system present or not.Actually this Canadian they don"t know how to work they are lazy people .Most of the time they dodn"t come to office,they know there is no-one who can take charge against them.

Simply vogous----just go for Litigation and take compensation from Canadian High Commission.

 

[Patroya]

There is still time to join the litigation. According to the website unfairCIC.com you have until June 5th 2012.

http://unfaircic.com/status.html

From the website: "Currently there are 658 litigants. Additional applicants may join. New cases are expected to be filed the week of March 5th."

Check it out.