加拿大华人论坛 加拿大留学移民黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不适用于91！

在加拿大

http://www.canadameet.org/xinwen/canada/immigration/2012/0402/127317.html 宜守不宜攻：诚意献给加拿大移民梦碎的申请人 这个问题我早就讨论过： http://forum.canadameet.org/showthread.php?t=553341 现在要弄清楚C50的法律条文到底能不能追溯在C50确立之前的案子，这是目前的症结所在！ 好像C50明确规定了不适用于91 黄国为认为C50适用于C50确立之前的案子，即91，但是TIM认为不能！ 世界上到底有多少法律条文可以适用于在该法确立之前的案子呢？

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不能管辖91！to jump in or watch, that is the question? I just sent the following answer to someone who asked about joining the lawsuit. Because it summarizes my thoughts on this issue, I wanted to share it with you. As I said earlier, all is not lost -- it's just going to be a harder struggle because the Minister, confident that Bill C-50 anointed him Canada's Tsar of Immigration, has forced the issue. Thank you for your query. I really do not know what to tell you because I'm confused, too. Here is what I do know: 1. We have a case, in which just over 700 applicants are participating, asking the Court to order CIC to assess the older files;2. The case is tentatively scheduled to be heard on June 5th;3. Last night, the Minister, effective the day before, abolished all the files lodged before 27 February 2008 and not yet assessed. The questions are: Is what he did lawful? If so, are the victims entitled to damages? He will rely on s. 87.3(7) of IRPA as the authority to do what he has done. My view is that (a) the authorizing legislation limited s. 87.3 only to files lodged on or after 27 February 2008 and (b) it is unconstitutional in any event. (But, if the matter is decided on constitutional grounds, it will not be settled until it reaches the Supreme Court of Canada.) And, yes, the victims are entitled to damages, commencing the date CIC estimated the file would be finalized or, as in your case, within six months of submission of up-dated forms and documents. I expect to bring such a suit but must wait until the Court officially sets the June 5th hearing date. In fact, these damages would be due irrespective of the legality of the Minister's Diktat. 4. A class-action lawsuit is bound to be initiated. The problem with this approach, however, is that it will benefit everyone equally everyone in the backlog, whereas the litigation I initiated will benefit only the litigants, moving them, in effect, to the head of the queue. Thus, your file would still be in a morass with no end in sight. 5. On Monday, I will be sending a letter to the Court, asking how we should proceed. One major question is whether more litigants may join the current litigation. Thus, I will give the names of all those who have signed up since the last time I filed notices, asking that, if none may, at least allow those who ahd committed themselves before the axe fell. Fortunately, although the Ditkat effectively moots the litigation with respect to applicants who applied before 27 February 2008, the representative case I selected is exempt from the dismissal because it is one of the alleged 20,000 which had been favourably assessed. The question, therefore, is: what about the others? Likewise, those who applied between 27 February 2008 and 25 June 2010 were not beheaded. Therefore, that case, too, must proceed. However, we need to meet with the managing judge to decide how to work out the procedures henceforth. I very seriously doubt, however, that opposing counsel knows what his client wants in this regard. So, you have asked me a very simple question but it is too soon to be able to answer the question. You, however, need to make a decision before the issue is settled. If you sign on by Monday, I am confident that you will be in the court case. However, if the Court refuses to allow new litigants, assuming that the class-action lawsuit will address their concern, it will be too late to join if you wait. So, you need to make a leap in the dark: either to join or to wait. It's your life. Therefore, it's you call. I really don't know which is the better option. The cost for the former, however, would be $550/- CAD. Regards, Tim

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不能管辖91！红色部分即为TIM认为C50不能适用于91的理由！

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不能管辖91！这个问题至少是有争议的，而黄国为铁口直断C50可以适用于91，也许有他自己的算盘！（因为钱都被TIM和WALDMAN赚走了）

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不适用于91！其实C50是否适用于91是个问题但不是最重要的问题。要是在这个事情上和康尼较量赢面有但没有百分百把握，康尼估计已经在这个问题上做足了功课。但是他也有他意想不到的问题，出其不意吧，让丫吃不了兜着走。另外赞同写在4楼的意见。

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不适用于91！如果最终TIM和WALDMAN为我们挽回了一点损失，哪怕是一点点，黄国为那篇文章可谓黄祸的又一佐证！

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不适用于91！paradiseunderthesun,你和waldman电话通了吗? 他是怎么看C50是否适用于91这个问题的?他还有其他的办法吗?

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不适用于91！TIM和WALDMAN 都在研读法律条文，研讨对策。这个官司不是一般 的难。还是我更早的时候说的那句话：这次是持久战！

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不适用于91！C50法写着不适用9.1,康尼要立新法然后在国会通过成为正式的法律。上次邓耐德好象用的是禁止新法提出还是通过什么的

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不适用于91！其实C50是否适用于91是个问题但不是最重要的问题。要是在这个事情上和康尼较量赢面有但没有百分百把握，康尼估计已经在这个问题上做足了功课。但是他也有他意想不到的问题，出其不意吧，让丫吃不了兜着走。另外赞同写在4楼的意见。点击展开... 你仔细看TIM的信，即使不能判CIC继续审理91的案子，91受害者也有要求赔偿损失的权利！哪怕C50真的是天下无敌，91受害者个人的损失挽回权仍然有法律保障！

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不适用于91！康尼现在提出的新法是违反现在C50法的，所以他的行为是违法的（新法没通过前），至于怎么起诉还是律师筹措。

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不能管辖91！to jump in or watch, that is the question? You, however, need to make a decision before the issue is settled. If you sign on by Monday, I am confident that you will be in the court case. However, if the Court refuses to allow new litigants, assuming that the class-action lawsuit will address their concern, it will be too late to join if you wait. So, you need to make a leap in the dark: either to join or to wait. It's your life. Therefore, it's you call. I really don't know which is the better option. The cost for the former, however, would be $550/- CAD. Regards, Tim点击展开...有个疑问，现在我们参加的是哪一次起诉呢？具体怎样实施呢？什么时候需要递交详细的个人资料以参加起诉呢？上面那段文字意思是周一前确定吗？

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不适用于91！康尼现在提出的新法是违反现在C50法的，所以他的行为是违法的（新法没通过前），至于怎么起诉还是律师筹措。点击展开...现在还是个Proposed legislation,国会通过后成了另一个修正案，就于法有据了，很难说他违反C50法。问题是，即使你保守党是多数，你可以实行多数人的暴政。但你用通过的新法追溯过往的申请案就有很大的争议了，因为在九一的案子申请之日起到现在，都不受这个C50法的87条制约，即你移民部长随意裁量权限是不好对九一的案子产生作用的。　通过新法后，你退款、撒案，事实上是用新法规范旧案，一般追溯过往的法律行为，在法庭上得不到支持的。翻译了，准备给律师参考：The issue is that even if Conservative government is the majority, you can implement the tyranny of the majority and you could use the new law adopted to legislate away the previous application cases, there is considerable controversy, because Pre-C50 case, from the date of application until the present, are not subject to section 87.3 of Bill-C50 constraint as well as ministerial discretion. By the new law, kenney refund and close the case, in fact, affected the old cases retrospectively with the new law. The practice might not be supported in federal court.

评论
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]他们欺瞒上帝偷偷拨回时间They fool God secretly timing of the reversal有个疑问，现在我们参加的是哪一次起诉呢？具体怎样实施呢？什么时候需要递交详细的个人资料以参加起诉呢？ 上面那段文字意思是周一前确定吗？点击展开... TIM的起诉是个人诉讼，到时候官司赢了，只有参加起诉的人才获益。 这次一刀切之后，再打的官司，叫做集体诉讼。 你们没赶上那一波的个人诉讼，现在只有集体诉讼了。 这次集体诉讼，难度非常大，可用愚公移山来形容，但是现在无论下什么结论都太早，说话不能太绝对了，尤其是当律师的，说话更不应该绝对

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不适用于91！楼上，我同意你说康尼的行为没有违法，他只是提了个法律，然后让国会通过。可他提的这个法律是：一刀切了227前的。正象楼主说的法律是不追溯的，比如我们新的婚姻法只对执行日期以后的有效。不能再立条法律说：现在的新的婚姻法也适用以前结婚的。可康尼他现在就提出这种又可笑又无赖的法律等国会通过，国会也许就通过了这无赖法律，也许这就代表了加拿大是无赖。要是他们就无赖了，他们就一瞪眼：我是无赖我怕谁！那我们还有办法吗？他们的法庭还帮助公理吗？

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不适用于91！楼上，我同意你说康尼的行为没有违法，他只是提了个法律，然后让国会通过。可他提的这个法律是：一刀切了227前的。正象楼主说的法律是不追溯的，比如我们新的婚姻法只对执行日期以后的有效。不能再立条法律说：现在的新的婚姻法也适用以前结婚的。可康尼他现在就提出这种又可笑又无赖的法律等国会通过，国会也许就通过了这无赖法律，也许这就代表了加拿大是无赖。要是他们就无赖了，他们就一瞪眼：我是无赖我怕谁！那我们还有办法吗？他们的法庭还帮助公理吗？点击展开... 加拿大是三权分立的国家，立法司法行政不相互干涉，保守党和法庭没任何纠葛，法庭能判保守党的CIC违法！这就好比，美国的法庭能让克林顿的丑事大白天下！ 不是说保守党这么做，整个加拿大都不值得信任，自由党早就在为我们喊冤了！

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不适用于91！恩，是的那里还是有很多好人的，很多公正的人，分立的司法也是对我们很有帮助的，可惜我对西方的法律一点都不懂，希望会有个好结果。

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不适用于91！恩，是的那里还是有很多好人的，很多公正的人，分立的司法也是对我们很有帮助的，可惜我对西方的法律一点都不懂，希望会有个好结果。点击展开... 问题是现在加拿大的恶的势力占了主导，邪把正压住了，要想让正义得到声张，难度不是一般的大！

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不适用于91！问题是现在加拿大的恶的势力占了主导，邪把正压住了，要想让正义得到声张，难度不是一般的大！点击展开...只要法律方面站得住脚，相信从法理上说能够支持我们的起诉的。我考虑，除了法律上，舆论上我们也需要营造一个有利于我们的舆论环境。因为实在太多不了解移民法例、不关注移民法例的人会受政客康尼瞒骗，以为法例对申请人有利既然康尼此举有悖正常法理，我们要让公众、媒体和舆论知道这点，让大家都意识到恶法若通过实施将会对加拿大的声誉和形象产生哪些恶劣影响

评论
回复: 黄国为家园首页那面文章认为CIC作废91的依据是C50，但是C50不适用于91！要想达到楼上说的效果，一个人或者几个人的努力是不够的。这里大部分人都是观望的心态，让别人去打官司，他们等着获利

  ·中文新闻 亿万富翁开发商因覆盖物石棉危机被指控
·中文新闻 硅肺病与悉尼公路和铁路隧道：SafeWork 知道“高水平”接触致命