"一刀切“违宪败诉！！！！

lamjin

判决书原文
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2013/2013fc377/2013fc377.html

lamjin

JUDGMENT

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1.The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2.The applications for judicial review in the following proceedings are dismissed for the reasons given in this proceeding:
a.IMM-8669-12:  Habibollah Abedi v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration;
b.IMM-10307-12:  Maria Sari Teresa Borja Austria v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration;
c.IMM-4866-12:  Ali Raza Jafri v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration;
d.IMM-8302-12:  Zafar Mahmood, Shabnum Zafar, Abdul Majid Zafar, Abdul Sammad Zafar v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration;
e.IMM-3725-12:  Sumera Shahid v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration;
f.IMM-6165-12:  Fang Wei v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; and
g.IMM-8747-12:  Yanjun Yin v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

3.These Reasons for Judgment and Judgment apply in respect of all files listed in Annex D hereto.
4.Leave is hereby granted to the parties to bring a motion beyond the ten day requirement specified in Rule 397 to vary the terms of this judgment by amending Annex D to address any omissions or errors in that Annex.
5.The following questions are certified pursuant to subsection 74(d) of the IRPA:
a.Does subsection 87.4(1) of the IRPA terminate by operation of law the applications described in that subsection upon its coming into force, and if not, are the applicants entitled to mandamus?
b.Does the Canadian Bill of Rights mandate notice and an opportunity to make submissions prior to termination of an application under subsection 87.4(1) of the IRPA?
c.Is section 87.4 of the IRPA unconstitutional, being contrary to the rule of law or sections 7 and 15 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?


6.Submissions on costs are due within twenty days of the date of this decision.

"Donald J. Rennie"

Judge

lamjin

这个结果不出所料，以前就已经提示过筒子们了。

德吉

败诉是可以想象得到的，否则，不会拖这么长时间。没关系的，继续上诉。律师已经联系过我们了。只是，瑞版，你怎么看？

lamjin

上诉无非就是再次送钱的。

一杯清茶

上诉无非就是再次送钱的。
lamjin 发表于 2013-4-21 06:44

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

leewaye

上诉是必须的，最明智的做法是 止损性上诉：选一人做代表交钱，看结果如何。 风险最小，如果CERTIFIED的几个问题上诉后判决违宪，有利结果也可以比照执行。

德吉

上诉无非就是再次送钱的。
lamjin 发表于 2013-4-21 06:44

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

即使白送钱，上诉也是必须的。结果已经不重要了。

lamjin

既然结果已经不重要了， 那还上诉干什么？ 斗气 ？

本来这个官司就是不靠谱的官司。

lamjin

集体的官司打完了， 律师们估计该对个体下手了， 接着继续榨取每一个penny。

apple3800

集体的官司打完了， 律师们估计该对个体下手了， 接着继续榨取每一个penny。
lamjin 发表于 2013-4-21 14:19

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

现在没有 penny 了，最小都是 nickel

lamjin

筒子们可以看看自己的案子， 如果是CIC 的错误， 通过打官司可以得到纠正， 如zhu fei 的案子。 而不用打官司，自己和CIC 联系也是可以纠正过来的， 如本论坛红酒的案子。  但如果是在C38 法案下的案子， 打不打官司都是一样的结果。
再次提醒， 在加拿大用司法来否定立法的企图是很难获得支持的。

Ruibin

败诉是可以想象得到的，否则，不会拖这么长时间。没关系的，继续上诉。律师已经联系过我们了。只是，瑞版，你怎么看？
德吉 发表于 2013-4-20 14:31

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

同意继续上诉，将自己的权利用上，况且本来这就是消耗战。
CIC为了应对官司，消耗也很大的。
说俗一点，看谁撑得过谁。
相信律师也会和原告团队中法律知识比较丰富的成员沟通，检讨和研究上诉策略。

lamjin

看看律师是如何继续榨取个案的。
“The only optimistic portion of the decision is at paragraph 36 where he held that those who believe that their file was not properly closed may ask the Federal Court to require CIC to prove that no officer had assessed the file. Clearly if SELDEC has a 1 or a 4, the file remains open. However, if the file had been paper-screened, it is possible that the file is still open IF the person doing the paper-screening was an officer, as opposed to only a clerk.

So, how can you tell? Not easily. First, your file must have been updated at some point. If so, do an access request (for $5) for the CAIPS notes. If they show a paper-screening; i.e., either the points are delineated or PDEC has a 1 (or anything but a zero), the file will have been paper-screened. If so, filing a court case, asking that CIC be ordered to finalize the case will require CIC to prove that the person who made the paper-screening assessment was not an officer.

The odds are that it was a clerk but, in smaller visa posts, officers sometimes do paper-screening. In addition, the clerk who did so might subsequently have become an officer. In which case, the file will have been assessed before March 29th 2012 by an officer.

While most of the time this approach will not succeed, for some it will, and, over all, it will cause CIC a great deal of grief having to deal with thousands of such court cases.”

让筒子打官司， 蒙概率，希望329之前给筒子们案子做paper-screening 是 officer， 而不是clerk。

leewaye

zhu fei 的案子和ME后被切申请人的情况，有一点重要的区别：zhu fei 是87.4生效前结案的，本身不是被切的。她的application没有TERMINATED而是finalised的，但是由于CIC的过错使他的案子错误的处理了，理论上他的申请还在，CIC的present duty仍然存在。zhu fei只不过争取到了一次重新打分的机会，他差10多分好象，换个VO就能过关？


从判决书[140]      The applicants have argued that, even before section 87.4 came into force, the respondent had already breached their rights to timely processing of their applications and that there must be some remedy for this past breach.  This argument fails as mandamus cannot remedy a past breach when there is no present duty.字面上理解，ME后被切申请人处境也堪虞。

德吉

既然结果已经不重要了， 那还上诉干什么？ 斗气 ？

本来这个官司就是不靠谱的官司。
lamjin 发表于 2013-4-21 22:28

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

反正闲着也是闲着，既然做了，就做到底，不是很好吗？全当生活的调剂了。我越来越觉得有意思。
当原告总比被告轻松吧。哈哈。
就那点律师费，连我这么穷的人都付得起。
不过，不管怎样，我觉得还是蛮感谢你替我们关注这案子的。
总是第一时间进行播报，让我们少操了很多心啊。
希望你继续关注奥。

ASURA

zhu fei 的案子和ME后被切申请人的情况，有一点重要的区别：zhu fei 是87.4生效前结案的，本身不是被切的。她的application没有TERMINATED而是finalised的，但是由于CIC的过错使他的案子错误的处理了，理论上他的申 ...
leewaye 发表于 2013-4-22 10:31

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

zhufei的案子本质上属于普通的上诉，并不挑战C38本身，所以对大部分人参考意义不大。

lamjin

zhu fei 的案子和ME后被切申请人的情况，有一点重要的区别：zhu fei 是87.4生效前结案的，本身不是被切的。她的application没有TERMINATED而是finalised的，但是由于CIC的过错使他的案子错误的处理了，理论上他的申 ...
leewaye 发表于 2013-4-22 10:31

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

我从来都没认为zhu fei 会过关， 恰恰相反， 虽然法官判他的案子让cic 重审， 应该还是会被切掉的。

【140】 条大概是说，即使切早了， 只要切对了，法官也不能给强制判决的作为弥补的。

lamjin

律师有开始忽悠上诉呢，继续赚取诉讼费。

life007

律师有开始忽悠上诉呢，继续赚取诉讼费。
lamjin 发表于 2013-4-29 02:19

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

看人家赚钱你就眼红?