OMNIBUS BUDGET BILL, C-38
- Thread starter Mancilla
- Start date
I'm just trying my best to educate people, oblivious to what'z happening in & around Canada. ;D
canlove said:Hi Mancilla,
are you against Canada or against conservatives ? :-\
BACKLOGGERS LITIGATION
Filed reply in our motion asking the Court either to order Immigration to honour the Protocol (Agreement) and process the files within a specific time-frame or to set hearings for all the cases. Now we wait for a decision. Do not expect it to come quickly because it presents the judge with a difficult choice.
The options are:
1. give us what we want and make the Minister angry,
2. set hearing dates for all the cases and disturb everyone or
3. toss us into the class-action lawsuit, already initiated, and make us angry.
The basis for (1) is the fact that we have a "vested right" because of (a) the Protocol (which requires CIC to be "guided by" the Rennie decision in disposing of the other cases) and (b) the fact that the Rennie decision came out before Bill C-38 was passed. The Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament may only take away a vested right by expressly saying that it is doing so. However, s. 87.4 only cancels files, it does not say that it is cancelling the Protocol.
The reason for asking for hearings is because the first step is for CIC to prepare a complete copy of the immigration file, providing a copy to the Court, to us and to their counsel. In Liang, it was over 10cm think; in Gurung, it was 5cm think. Imagine the work involved -- and courier expenses -- to produce 1,000 tribunal records three times over. CIC might just give up if they have to do so.
The third, which is the easiest for the judge, is just to say: join the class-action.
CIC's argument was (a) s. 87.4 closed the files and (b) it would be illegal to re-open them. Our argument was (a) nothing in s. 87.4 prevents the Minister from reopening the file (assigning a new number), (b) s. 87.3(7) gives him the power to do anything he wants so long as deems it to be "efficient" and producing 1,000 tribunal records would not be efficient and (c) s. 25(1) allows the minister to grant landing by waiving any provision of the statute. Thus, it would not be illegal to honour the Protocol.
Some of you suggested to mention the provision that authorizes the Minister to continue processing files lodged under earlier ministerial instructions. However, Justice Rennie bought my argument that s. 120 of Bill C-50 bars CIC from using ministerial instructions on the pre-Bill C-50 applicants. Having won on that point, we cannot reverse course. The key arguments are (a) vested right and (b) not unlawful to process.
I ended the facts section with mention of the 24 litigants who have had their files closed after having taken their medicals and included the section from Operational Bulletin 442 saying that they are to close the files of those who were assessed after march 28th and had taken their medical examinations in order to show how nasty CIC implementing it.
We await the, hopefully, final judgement relating to this lawsuit, by the end of this month.
Filed reply in our motion asking the Court either to order Immigration to honour the Protocol (Agreement) and process the files within a specific time-frame or to set hearings for all the cases. Now we wait for a decision. Do not expect it to come quickly because it presents the judge with a difficult choice.
The options are:
1. give us what we want and make the Minister angry,
2. set hearing dates for all the cases and disturb everyone or
3. toss us into the class-action lawsuit, already initiated, and make us angry.
The basis for (1) is the fact that we have a "vested right" because of (a) the Protocol (which requires CIC to be "guided by" the Rennie decision in disposing of the other cases) and (b) the fact that the Rennie decision came out before Bill C-38 was passed. The Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament may only take away a vested right by expressly saying that it is doing so. However, s. 87.4 only cancels files, it does not say that it is cancelling the Protocol.
The reason for asking for hearings is because the first step is for CIC to prepare a complete copy of the immigration file, providing a copy to the Court, to us and to their counsel. In Liang, it was over 10cm think; in Gurung, it was 5cm think. Imagine the work involved -- and courier expenses -- to produce 1,000 tribunal records three times over. CIC might just give up if they have to do so.
The third, which is the easiest for the judge, is just to say: join the class-action.
CIC's argument was (a) s. 87.4 closed the files and (b) it would be illegal to re-open them. Our argument was (a) nothing in s. 87.4 prevents the Minister from reopening the file (assigning a new number), (b) s. 87.3(7) gives him the power to do anything he wants so long as deems it to be "efficient" and producing 1,000 tribunal records would not be efficient and (c) s. 25(1) allows the minister to grant landing by waiving any provision of the statute. Thus, it would not be illegal to honour the Protocol.
Some of you suggested to mention the provision that authorizes the Minister to continue processing files lodged under earlier ministerial instructions. However, Justice Rennie bought my argument that s. 120 of Bill C-50 bars CIC from using ministerial instructions on the pre-Bill C-50 applicants. Having won on that point, we cannot reverse course. The key arguments are (a) vested right and (b) not unlawful to process.
I ended the facts section with mention of the 24 litigants who have had their files closed after having taken their medicals and included the section from Operational Bulletin 442 saying that they are to close the files of those who were assessed after march 28th and had taken their medical examinations in order to show how nasty CIC implementing it.
We await the, hopefully, final judgement relating to this lawsuit, by the end of this month.