OMNIBUS BUDGET BILL, C-38
- Thread starter Mancilla
- Start date
Letter to Department of Justice(DOJ) regarding implementing Justice Rennie's Decision. CIC is DOJ's Client
As mentioned in Court, for most just having the assessment decision is crucial in planning their future. Having a time-frame for immigration is, of course, also important, but not knowing whether they will be approved engenders excessive Angst. Thus, we are willing to consider your client's logistical needs. In fact, because there are so many files in New Delhi, your client may need to have an extended time-frame for those files. In this respect, we are wiling to work with your client and to take into consideration your client's administrative challenges.
One solution, however, might be to have all the files assessed and processed from the Ottawa processing centre. If so, I would like to have someone acting as liaison and that person's points-of-contact provided for the applicant's consultants and me to contact should problems arise during the processing.
To me, the best way to honour the Protocol without being in conflict with s. 87.4 would be to have a consent order issued in the very near future; i.e. before Bill C-38 passes the Senate. This approach would avert closure of the files and, I submit, avoid conflict with s. 87.4(2), which appears to relate to the Court's overturning a refused visa, which situation does not arise here.
On the other hand, if your client prefers to discard the Protocol and have these cases litigated further, we will need to have a conference with Justice Barnes in the very near future because he will be taking off the entire summer. One issue which comes to mind is that, if your client prefers to litigate, we would have to perfect each case because I am not inclined to enter into another agreement for which your client will fabricate a means for disregarding it if the Rennie decision is affirmed. If so, in my view, we would begin at the leave-having-been granted stage because leave was granted for all of the applications under management. Thus, you will likely need an extended time-line for submitting CTRs for all 900 files. In addition, a hearing date will need to be set with the time for each stage in between defined. Given that we will be perfecting 900 files, we may require more than the standard time-frame for doing so.
Needless to say, the applicants and I hope that your client will honour the letter and spirit of the Protocol.
At this point, the litigants' primary concern is knowing whether your client will honour the Protocol (as opposed to knowing the exact time-frame). Likewise, I need to know whether this litigation will continue, in which case I will need to develop arguments pertaining to ss. 87.3 and 87.4, and join with those who are organizing to challenge s. 87.4; or whether the litigants should prepare to have their applications assessed. Therefore, the sooner you can tell us how we proceed from here, the better.
As mentioned in Court, for most just having the assessment decision is crucial in planning their future. Having a time-frame for immigration is, of course, also important, but not knowing whether they will be approved engenders excessive Angst. Thus, we are willing to consider your client's logistical needs. In fact, because there are so many files in New Delhi, your client may need to have an extended time-frame for those files. In this respect, we are wiling to work with your client and to take into consideration your client's administrative challenges.
One solution, however, might be to have all the files assessed and processed from the Ottawa processing centre. If so, I would like to have someone acting as liaison and that person's points-of-contact provided for the applicant's consultants and me to contact should problems arise during the processing.
To me, the best way to honour the Protocol without being in conflict with s. 87.4 would be to have a consent order issued in the very near future; i.e. before Bill C-38 passes the Senate. This approach would avert closure of the files and, I submit, avoid conflict with s. 87.4(2), which appears to relate to the Court's overturning a refused visa, which situation does not arise here.
On the other hand, if your client prefers to discard the Protocol and have these cases litigated further, we will need to have a conference with Justice Barnes in the very near future because he will be taking off the entire summer. One issue which comes to mind is that, if your client prefers to litigate, we would have to perfect each case because I am not inclined to enter into another agreement for which your client will fabricate a means for disregarding it if the Rennie decision is affirmed. If so, in my view, we would begin at the leave-having-been granted stage because leave was granted for all of the applications under management. Thus, you will likely need an extended time-line for submitting CTRs for all 900 files. In addition, a hearing date will need to be set with the time for each stage in between defined. Given that we will be perfecting 900 files, we may require more than the standard time-frame for doing so.
Needless to say, the applicants and I hope that your client will honour the letter and spirit of the Protocol.
At this point, the litigants' primary concern is knowing whether your client will honour the Protocol (as opposed to knowing the exact time-frame). Likewise, I need to know whether this litigation will continue, in which case I will need to develop arguments pertaining to ss. 87.3 and 87.4, and join with those who are organizing to challenge s. 87.4; or whether the litigants should prepare to have their applications assessed. Therefore, the sooner you can tell us how we proceed from here, the better.