加拿大华人论坛 加拿大留学移民Vested Rights - Tim's e-mail November 13, 2012

在加拿大

I mention that DoJ has not disputed the fact that you have a vested right to have Liang applied in your case but that they do deny the right of those who joined after June 14th to be included in the group. In that respect I wrote:The Respondent does, however, dispute the inclusion of post-June 14th litigants into the Emam group pursuant to his Lordship’s June 26th oral direction. For me to act on the presumption that his Lordship will not honour that direction would be impolitique in the extreme and contrary to my duty to those who have retained my services. Therefore, if I must speculate, I prefer to act on the basis that his Lordship will honour his direction and will apply the law properly, in which case I would have at present no litigants participating in the s. 87.4 challenge, vitiating any basis for my participation at the November 14th case-management conference. [emphasis added]I expect the judge to be angry that I am throwing his stalling back in his face but he has given us an opening for me to prod him. Moreover, (a) he will have to address his June 26th direction and (b) DoJ will have an opportunity to dispute our position. If they do not do so, our position will be even stronger. If they do, I only have to refer the Court to DoJ written arguments to support my position that CIC agrees that you all have a vested right to have Liang followed.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim LeahySent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:50 AMSubject: glacial progressDear Litigant,Justice Barnes called a conference for all counsel for November 14th. Yesterday, the Registry faxed the agenda: to set time-frames for the written arguments for those challenging s. 87.4 (closing the files) and the dates of their availability for a hearing date. When the Registry asked me last week if I would attend, I said that I would. Now, however, that the purpose has been disclosed, I have prepared a letter to send to the Court on Wednesday, advising that I will not be attending.As my rationale, I am quoting the judge's ruling when he denied my May motion seeking to enjoin the Minister from closing the files. He agreed with DoJ that my motion was premature because it was speculation that Bill C-38 would pass. So, I am telling the Court that it would be speculation for me to presume that the Court will not apply the law properly to the facts and grant our motion. Therefore, because, only if our motion is denied would we be challenging s. 87.4, it is premature for me to be setting dates for doing so. I will be copying all the counsel, as the judge previously ordered me to do. So, they will all know officially that he has been stalling on our motion, adding a bit of pressure on him.I mention that DoJ has not disputed the fact that you have a vested right to have Liang applied in your case but that they do deny the right of those who joined after June 14th to be included in the group. In that respect I wrote:The Respondent does, however, dispute the inclusion of post-June 14th litigants into the Emam group pursuant to his Lordship’s June 26th oral direction. For me to act on the presumption that his Lordship will not honour that direction would be impolitique in the extreme and contrary to my duty to those who have retained my services. Therefore, if I must speculate, I prefer to act on the basis that his Lordship will honour his direction and will apply the law properly, in which case I would have at present no litigants participating in the s. 87.4 challenge, vitiating any basis for my participation at the November 14th case-management conference. [emphasis added]I expect the judge to be angry that I am throwing his stalling back in his face but he has given us an opening for me to prod him. Moreover, (a) he will have to address his June 26th direction and (b) DoJ will have an opportunity to dispute our position. If they do not do so, our position will be even stronger. If they do, I only have to refer the Court to DoJ written arguments to support my position that CIC agrees that you all have a vested right to have Liang followed. So, maybe now Justice Barnes will be provoked into acting. We will see. I will let you know if he does. (If I say nothing; it means that he has not acted. So, please do not ask me. Just trust me to tell you if there is anything to say.)Regards,Tim

  ·中文新闻 从送货司机到首席执行官：Don Meij 在达美乐结束 40 多年的职业生
·中文新闻 丽贝卡·瓦尔迪在社交媒体上发表大胆声明，在科琳·鲁尼签署《