回复: 北京起诉的情况,有人想加入没
转发律师给香港的信：
Dear litigant,
The meeting before Justice Barnes yesterday was quite enlightening. First, the Chief Justice called for the meeting because with 304 application, the Court was concerned how everyone would cope with so many files. That day, I added 112 more to the pot and have 56 on hand yet to file. Therefore, both parties agreed that, rather than proceeding with all 472 files, I may select representative cases to be decided first with the others held in abeyance. The Court is aware that there are two classes; i.e., those who applied before 27 February 2008 and those who applied between 27 February 2008 and 25 June 2010; and a dozen of so visa posts. Thus, we could first proceed with about twenty-four cases. (However, at this juncture, we have only one file at Pretoria, Manila and Seoul, two at Beijing, three at Singapore, four at Accra and Nairobi each, half a dozen at London and 16 in Hong Kong.)
The Court, however, would prefer a mediated solution to litigation and said that a junior judge, whom I trust, had offered to mediate. I accepted the offer, but opposing counsel could not do so without first conferring with CIC. He agreed to provide CIC's decision by December 20th. It should be clear to him that the Court believes that mediation is in everyone's best interest.
The problem, however, for CIC is that a mediated settlement would get out, and they would have to fashion a solution for the rest the applicants in the black hole. Thus, while our cases would be settled, CIC's problem would remain. Therefore, they might prefer litigation in order to prolong the process. It should, however, be clear to CIC that, if they choose to litigate, the matter will be decided on the merits and not dismissed at the leave stage. (No assurance to that effect was -- or could be -- given. However, the Chief Justice had decided to have five different judges decide leave, implying that a cross-section of the Court will consider the cases, and surely one would agree to have the matter heard, setting a precedent for everyone else.)
If we do go into mediation, it would be that the action-for-damages would have to be deferred during the mediation stage and, if settlement is reached, there would be no damages. So, CIC would certainly gain by settling at this stage.
I have attached the Court's order. The significant clause is that future applications will be added to the pool. Thus, additional applications may be lodged until disposition of this litigation.
My own guess -- and that is all that it is -- is that, if mediation succeeds, CIC will announce a change in policy vis-à-vis the backlogged files, precluding new mandamus applications en masse. Justice Barnes observed that often the effect in a mandamus application is that the litigant jumps to the head of the queue, adding that, while that result is unfair for the others, the Court may only deal with the case before it. Thus, the advantage of being in the litigation group would be that our files will be processed ahead of the others in the backlog even if the Minister announces that he will allocate a share of the annual quota to each tier of applicants.
Also attached is the admission from the program manager at Beijing that processing of pre-Bill C-50 applications has been "suspended" and that there is no time-line for processing them, adding that the Minister will be announcing a plan to deal with those cases. If the "announcement" is not just a stalling tactic, but, rather, indicates that the Minister is planning to announce something, it would be better to be in the litigation group with the possibility of being processed promptly than moving forward at glacial pace all the other warehoused files.
On the other hand, if the mediation does not result in a settlement, the action for damages may still be pursued. Thus, the meeting encouraged me with respect to your fate. I will let you know if CIC agrees to mediation.
Regards,
Tim
等，账号在：
。想参加，但是觉得贵，技术移民没钱
