OMNIBUS BUDGET BILL, C-38
- Thread starter Mancilla
- Start date
Letter to Dept of Justice regarding Implementation of Justice Rennie Judgement
Dear Counsel:
Thank you for advising how CIC is prepared to implement the Protocol. I have
received feedback from some litigants who, in view of their lamentable experience with your
client, are exceedingly skeptical about the proposal and want assurance that it is not laced with
landmines. Thus, clarification is needed. Some also object to the 180-day time-frame.
1. Mr. Liang
As I understand, the Embassy has issued his medical form. In view of my experience
with the program manager, I do not anticipate any problems arising in his case. I presume
from your summary, he will not be required to submit up-dated forms, etc. Please confirm
that understanding or, if I err, please what else the Embassy expects from him.
2. The other 35 pre-Bill C-50, pre-March 29th assessed litigants
As these litigants all received positive selection decisions, I am at a loss to understand
why they should be required to submit a plethora of updated forms. If you have ever
had the misfortune of having to complete the tedious, user-hostile forms, you will
understand why. Would you please ask your client to be less bureaucratic in this regard
and seek only that which is truly required, not all that which may be demanded?
The second concern is about when your client will act; viz., (a) when it will request
submission of whatever and (b) when it will release the medical forms. I would suggest
that, once CIC has stated what exactly is required, (a) submission may be as soon as the
litigants wish and (b) medical forms will be issued immediately.
The 60-day deadline makes no sense. First, CIC's SOP is 120 day. So, why shorten it?
Second, why does it matter when CIC receives this material? It seems a tad bullying to me.
The 180-day processing time has elicited a hostile reception with many expressing the
view that October 14th should apply in their case, too. (Some have even booked their
flights.) While I understand that meeting that deadline might be a bit challenging, given
that it only commences after receipt of whatever, your client should be able to do better.
After all, the applicants' obligation at this point is only to take medical examinations and
adduce new police clearances, photos and the head-tax.
Their angst would be assuaged if your client would give the following assurances:
a. the applicants may submit whatever is required without waiting to be asked,
b. medical forms will be issued no later than receipt of submission,
c. the file will have the highest processing priority and
d. the visas will be issued once the file is complete and not held back.
3. The remaining MI 1 Applicants
It is noteworthy that submission of updated forms, etc. is not mandatory but only if required,
unlike for the pre-MI 1 litigants, reinforcing the doubt that such is truly necessary in order
to finalize the pre-MI 1 files. The litigants have the same concerns and seek the same
assurances as for the preceding cohort.
4. Pre-MI 1 Applicants who were not assessed before 29 March 2012
I understand your position on these files and see no reason why we cannot settle the
other categories separately, especially since their fate is awaiting a ruling on my motion
seeking to have the Court enforce with respect to them. Therefore, I trust that you
will allow link disposition of the uncontested files will abandonment of this cohort.
Needless to say, I cannot trade away one litigants' interest for another's gain.
5. Pre-MI 1 Applicants who were assessed between 29 March and 29 June 2012
Hong Kong assessed at least 21 litigants after March 29th and directed them to take their
medical examinations, etc. While OB 442 allows the Consulate to close their files, it
would be appropriate to extend to them the same consideration shown in IMM-713-12
and issue their visas post-June 29th. Please advise whether your client is willing to do so.
6. Post-June 14th litigants
While I can appreciate your desire to exclude from implementation of ¶14 litigants who
joined after June 14th, (a) the Protocol makes no such distinction, (b) Justice Barnes'
December 7th order consolidating the cases states that directions and orders will apply
to subsequently-joined litigants, (c) the Protocol governs all of the litigants proceeding
under IMM-7502-11, (d) Justice Rennie kept the group open on June 14th, subject to his
consultation with Justice Barnes, and (e) on June 26th, Justice Barnes stated that others
may join the litigation group. Therefore, until matters are settled, I respectfully submit, all
litigants in this proceeding are entitled to same treatment as their peer group. Moreover,
except for those whom s. 87.4 impacts, settlement appears imminent, limiting CIC's
exposure. (To my knowledge, no MI 1 or pre-March 29th-assessed litigants have joined
recently. If you wish an undertaking to that effect, I am willing to provide one.)
One of my concerns about the sixty-day deadline is not knowing what will be required
for submission. If IELTS results are demanded, where my clients reside, the lead-time for booking
the exam is often more than two months. Likewise, if a police clearance is required from a
foreign country, it might take significantly longer than sixty days. If, however, the additional
material your client requires is readily adduced, I would expect voluntary compliance to be quick
in any event. After all, because the litigants are clearly keen on immigrating to Canada and have
been waiting years and years to do, it seems a bit pedantic for CIC to impose a sixty-day deadline
for submission of redundant items.
Again, thank you for your proposal. I trust that the litigants' concerns can be taken into
account and a mutually agreeable arrangement made for those litigants whom your client is
willing to process while the fate of those whom s. 87.4 impacts are held in abeyance.
Dear Counsel:
Thank you for advising how CIC is prepared to implement the Protocol. I have
received feedback from some litigants who, in view of their lamentable experience with your
client, are exceedingly skeptical about the proposal and want assurance that it is not laced with
landmines. Thus, clarification is needed. Some also object to the 180-day time-frame.
1. Mr. Liang
As I understand, the Embassy has issued his medical form. In view of my experience
with the program manager, I do not anticipate any problems arising in his case. I presume
from your summary, he will not be required to submit up-dated forms, etc. Please confirm
that understanding or, if I err, please what else the Embassy expects from him.
2. The other 35 pre-Bill C-50, pre-March 29th assessed litigants
As these litigants all received positive selection decisions, I am at a loss to understand
why they should be required to submit a plethora of updated forms. If you have ever
had the misfortune of having to complete the tedious, user-hostile forms, you will
understand why. Would you please ask your client to be less bureaucratic in this regard
and seek only that which is truly required, not all that which may be demanded?
The second concern is about when your client will act; viz., (a) when it will request
submission of whatever and (b) when it will release the medical forms. I would suggest
that, once CIC has stated what exactly is required, (a) submission may be as soon as the
litigants wish and (b) medical forms will be issued immediately.
The 60-day deadline makes no sense. First, CIC's SOP is 120 day. So, why shorten it?
Second, why does it matter when CIC receives this material? It seems a tad bullying to me.
The 180-day processing time has elicited a hostile reception with many expressing the
view that October 14th should apply in their case, too. (Some have even booked their
flights.) While I understand that meeting that deadline might be a bit challenging, given
that it only commences after receipt of whatever, your client should be able to do better.
After all, the applicants' obligation at this point is only to take medical examinations and
adduce new police clearances, photos and the head-tax.
Their angst would be assuaged if your client would give the following assurances:
a. the applicants may submit whatever is required without waiting to be asked,
b. medical forms will be issued no later than receipt of submission,
c. the file will have the highest processing priority and
d. the visas will be issued once the file is complete and not held back.
3. The remaining MI 1 Applicants
It is noteworthy that submission of updated forms, etc. is not mandatory but only if required,
unlike for the pre-MI 1 litigants, reinforcing the doubt that such is truly necessary in order
to finalize the pre-MI 1 files. The litigants have the same concerns and seek the same
assurances as for the preceding cohort.
4. Pre-MI 1 Applicants who were not assessed before 29 March 2012
I understand your position on these files and see no reason why we cannot settle the
other categories separately, especially since their fate is awaiting a ruling on my motion
seeking to have the Court enforce with respect to them. Therefore, I trust that you
will allow link disposition of the uncontested files will abandonment of this cohort.
Needless to say, I cannot trade away one litigants' interest for another's gain.
5. Pre-MI 1 Applicants who were assessed between 29 March and 29 June 2012
Hong Kong assessed at least 21 litigants after March 29th and directed them to take their
medical examinations, etc. While OB 442 allows the Consulate to close their files, it
would be appropriate to extend to them the same consideration shown in IMM-713-12
and issue their visas post-June 29th. Please advise whether your client is willing to do so.
6. Post-June 14th litigants
While I can appreciate your desire to exclude from implementation of ¶14 litigants who
joined after June 14th, (a) the Protocol makes no such distinction, (b) Justice Barnes'
December 7th order consolidating the cases states that directions and orders will apply
to subsequently-joined litigants, (c) the Protocol governs all of the litigants proceeding
under IMM-7502-11, (d) Justice Rennie kept the group open on June 14th, subject to his
consultation with Justice Barnes, and (e) on June 26th, Justice Barnes stated that others
may join the litigation group. Therefore, until matters are settled, I respectfully submit, all
litigants in this proceeding are entitled to same treatment as their peer group. Moreover,
except for those whom s. 87.4 impacts, settlement appears imminent, limiting CIC's
exposure. (To my knowledge, no MI 1 or pre-March 29th-assessed litigants have joined
recently. If you wish an undertaking to that effect, I am willing to provide one.)
One of my concerns about the sixty-day deadline is not knowing what will be required
for submission. If IELTS results are demanded, where my clients reside, the lead-time for booking
the exam is often more than two months. Likewise, if a police clearance is required from a
foreign country, it might take significantly longer than sixty days. If, however, the additional
material your client requires is readily adduced, I would expect voluntary compliance to be quick
in any event. After all, because the litigants are clearly keen on immigrating to Canada and have
been waiting years and years to do, it seems a bit pedantic for CIC to impose a sixty-day deadline
for submission of redundant items.
Again, thank you for your proposal. I trust that the litigants' concerns can be taken into
account and a mutually agreeable arrangement made for those litigants whom your client is
willing to process while the fate of those whom s. 87.4 impacts are held in abeyance.