详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

[Les Paradis]

这是6月14号的判决书，连接来自加拿大联邦法庭的网站：

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2012/2012fc758/2012fc758.html

先来说说判决结果：

91和91前旧政的代表案例梁东的案子必须在120天内结案。

227的代表案例Ms. Gurung的要求 dismissed

227的dismissed 不是败诉。事实上，参加这个起诉的157个227的人，也都ME了，并且将在180天内结案。

91的代表案例已提前于7月份获签，其余35个已打分的也都ME。


[1] The applicants seek orders of mandamus compelling the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Minister) to process their applications for permanent residence under the federal skilled worker (FSW) class.

[2] The applications at issue were selected through a case management process as representative cases for two groups of applicants whose FSW applications have not been processed to completion. Applicant Dong Liang represents 671 applicants who submitted their applications before February 27, 2008, when amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27(IRPA) were enacted through the Budget Implementation Act, 2008, SC 2008, c 28 or “Bill-C50” (pre-C50 applications). Applicant Phool Maya Gurung represents 154 applicants who submitted their applications between February 27, 2008 and June 26, 2010, a period of time during which eligibility for a FSW visa was governed by a set of Ministerial Instructions (MI1 applications). They both allege that the Minister has unreasonably delayed processing their applications by choosing to accord higher priority to applications submitted more recently and according to different criteria.

[3] For the reasons that follow, the application in respect of Mr. Liang is granted, and dismissed in respect of Ms. Gurung. No order is made in respect of the other applications held in abeyance pending the outcome of this litigation. The Court has been informed that the parties have agreed on a protocol to address those cases based on the outcome of these two applications.

判决书开宗明义解释了这次诉讼的性质：mandamus litigation，mandamus是要求法庭对政府发号施令，命令政府完成某种行为的诉讼。
有些人开始不明白，觉得告CIC没用，因为CIC没犯法。其实并不是犯法了才可以起诉，要求政府完成某项任务，无论政府有没有犯法，都可以通过法庭来解决问题！

但是接下来的集体诉讼class-action，就是状告政府犯法，这次政府犯了什么法呢？Bill of Rights！当然政府不认为它犯了法，需要法庭来判决它有没有犯法。这个class-action，并不受申请人的主观想法影响，它是加拿大本国的三权制衡行为，是必然会发生的。

Applicant Dong Liang represents 671 applicants who submitted their applications before February 27, 2008

这里白纸黑字写的很清楚，梁东代表671个申请人，这671人，有91前旧政的，91的，有Caips打分的，也有没打分的。他代表的是这个整体，而不是已打分的35人。

The applications at issue were selected through a case management process as representative cases for two groups of applicants whose FSW applications have not been processed to completion

have not been processed就是我们没有S2，以及S2了但Caips没打分的人

to completion则是那35人。


Background: Changes to the Federal Skilled Worker Program

[4] By 2008, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) faced an enormous backlog of FSW applications. Over 600,000 applications were extant, a number which would only continue to grow since incoming applications continually exceeded the department’s processing capacity. This backlog, or more precisely, the lag time between the application, its processing and ultimate assessment, made it increasingly difficult to align candidates’ experience and skills to Canada’s prevailing labour market needs. Any changes to the eligibility criteria would not truly take effect for several years when those applications were finally processed.

[5] In response to this problem, the IRPA was amended in February 2008 to introduce section 87.3. The amendments authorized the Minister to issue instructions regarding which applications would be eligible for processing (Ministerial Instructions) and removed the obligation to process every application received. The amendments granted the Minister broad authority to triage the applications according to revised eligibility criteria, including the establishment of categories of applicants, global levels or quotas for all FSW applications, and sub-levels or quotas for particular occupations.

这段背景介绍，说明了2008年227政策实施之前的情况，当时的联邦技术移民积压人数超过60万，所以保守党修改了移民法，出台了87.3


The Ministerial Instructions

[7] Since this amendment, the Minister has published four different sets of Ministerial Instructions. The first set of Ministerial Instructions was published on November 29, 2008 (MI1). They applied to applications received on or after February 27, 2008. Pursuant to the MI1, applications would only be eligible to be processed if the applicant: had experience in one of 38 listed occupations; an arranged offer of employment (AEO); or was legally residing in Canada as a temporary foreign worker or international student.


自从87.3出台之后，出台了4个不同的部长指令。因为部长指令，227之前的人，如果不符合38项职业或者没有AEO，他们的案子就不会即时处理。

[8] The MI1 were ultimately unsuccessful in restraining the growth of applications. The backlog diminished at first, but eventually application levels increased beyond the levels before Bill C-50. Thus, on June 26, 2010, the second set of Ministerial Instructions was published (MI2). They applied to applications received on or after that date. The MI2 directed that applications would only be eligible to be processed if the applicant had an AEO or the applicant had experience in one of 29, as opposed to 38, listed occupations. The MI2 introduced a global cap on FSW applications: a maximum of 20,000 applications (excluding those with an AEO) were to be placed into processing each year. Within that cap, a maximum of 1,000 applications per occupational category were to be processed each year. Applications exceeding that cap would be returned unprocessed.


但是第一个部长指令没有成功遏制不断增加的申请人数，所以MI2，也就是626出台了，这一次，MI1也就是227的也开始倒霉了，如果不符合29项并撤案重投，也丧失了优先权。

值得注意的是，这一段开始拆穿了康尼的一个谎言，他认为海量积压是自由党造成的，但他自己的MI1造成的积压，比C50之前的更严重：

The backlog diminished at first, but eventually application levels increased beyond the levels before Bill C-50

[9] On June 27, 2011, the third set of Ministerial Instructions was published (MI3). They applied to applications received on or after July 1, 2011. The MI3 reduced the total annual cap for FSW applications to 10,000, with a maximum of 500 per occupation. The eligibility criteria in the MI2 groups (applicants with an AEO or experience in the 29 listed occupations) remained the same.

[10] The fourth set of Ministerial Instructions, published in November 2011 (MI4), did not affect the occupation list, global levels or occupational caps, but created a new stream of eligible applicationsnamely, international students currently studying in, or recently graduated from, Canadian Ph.D. programs. This new stream was capped at 1,000 applications each year. Other than adding to the processing burden on CIC, the MI4 are not relevant to these applications.


以上分别介绍了第三和第四个部长指令。

[11] The 2008 amendments and the ensuing Ministerial Instructions have had two main consequences: first, for all applications submitted after each set of instructions took effect, applicants needed to meet the revised eligibility criteria or the application would not be processed. This change prevented, at least from the respondent’s perspective, the backlog from continuing to grow. The total cap of 20,000, then 10,000 and the related occupational sub-caps allowed CIC to return applications once the annual cap was met. Second and most important to the applicants in this case, the instructions created a hierarchy of processing priority among FSW applications: those received under MI2 and MI3 were given the highest priority, followed by applications received under MI1 and finally, pre-C50 applications.

这一段比较形象的说明了康尼的后来先得的插队政策是怎么运作的。


[12] This has not resulted in a complete halt to the processing of pre-C50 applications. According to the affidavit of J. McNamee submitted by the Minister, 34% of all FSW visas issued in 2011 were issued to pre-C50 applicants.
[13] However, the Minister’s instructions have indisputably delayed the processing of the pre-C50 applications. Furthermore, the MI2 and MI3 instructions delayed the processing of MI1 applications, since MI2 and MI3 applications have been accorded the highest processing priority.

这一段是CIC方面狡辩，C50之后，旧案并没有完全停止审理，在2011年，34%的技术移民签证给了C50之前的旧案。

13] However, the Minister’s instructions have indisputably delayed the processing of the pre-C50 applications. Furthermore, the MI2 and MI3 instructions delayed the processing of MI1 applications, since MI2 and MI3 applications have been accorded the highest processing priority.

法官认为，部长指令毫无疑问延误了Pre-C50申请人的案件处理进展，626和71又延误了227

Pre-C50 Representative Case (Liang)

[14] The representative applicant for the pre-C50 applications, Mr. Liang, is a citizen of China. He submitted an application for permanent residence under the FSW class as an IT project manager. It was received by CIC on October 11, 2007. According to the Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System (CAIPS) notes in his file, he received a positive selection decision on March 10, 2010, having attained 81 points (well over the minimum required 67 points).

[15] Despite the positive selection decision, Mr. Liang’s application did not move to acceptance and remains outstanding. When Mr. Liang inquired with CIC as to the timeline for completing his application he received an email response from the Beijing visa post, dated June 7, 2011, which stated in part:
At this time, we are not actively processing Federal Skilled Worker cases submitted before February 27, 2008 as we have sufficient applications in process to meet our assigned targets. Updates on the processing of applications submitted before February 27, 2008 will be provided when new information is available.

[16] The respondent characterizes this as a mere suspension of Liang’s application, suggesting that what the officer at the Beijing Visa post intended to say was that either or both of the global and occupational levels had been reached. The Minister contends that this suspension does not amount to unreasonable delay, as it was now, following the 2008 amendments, authorized by legislation.

以上是代表案例梁东的情况，以及北京使馆给他邮件解释为什么他的案子不被处理，配额不够，需要进一步指示。。。

辩护律师认为梁东的案子被无理悬置停审，但是移民部长认为，他的案子并不是毫无理由被悬置的，他拖延梁东案子的尚方宝剑是2008年的C50修正案。

 

[Les Paradis]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

Issues

[23] The issues for determination may be simply framed:
1. Have the applicants met the requirements for an order compelling the Minister to process their applications?
2. Do the applicants have a legitimate expectation that their applications would be processed on a first-in, first-out basis?

判决书进入正文。以上两个问题即是本次诉讼的中心议题。

1. 申请人是否满足要求法院强制移民部长处理他们的案子的条件。

2. 申请人认为他们的案子必须按照先入先出的原则来处理，这个期望是否合法。

Have the applicants met the requirements for an order compelling the Minister to process their applications?

[24] Mandamus is a discretionary, equitable remedy. The parties agree on the legal test for mandamus, as set out in Apotex Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 FC 742 at para 45 (CA), aff’d [1994] 3 SCR 1100, which has been applied in the immigration context (see for example Conille v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 FC 33; Vaziri v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1159):

1. There must be a public legal duty to act.

2. The duty must be owed to the applicant.

3. There is a clear right to performance of that duty, in particular:

(a) the applicant has satisfied all conditions precedent giving rise to the duty;

(b) there was (i) a prior demand for performance of the duty; (ii) a reasonable time to comply with the demand unless refused outright; and (iii) a subsequent refusal which can be either expressed or implied, e.g. unreasonable delay;

4. Where the duty sought to be enforced is discretionary, the following rules apply:

(a) in exercising a discretion, the decision-maker must not act in a manner which can be characterized as “unfair”, “oppressive” or demonstrate “flagrant impropriety” or “bad faith”;

(b) mandamus is unavailable if the decision-maker’s discretion is characterized as being “unqualified”,“absolute”, “permissive” or “unfettered”;

(c) in the exercise of a“fettered” discretion, the decision-maker must act upon “relevant”, as opposed to “irrelevant”, considerations;

(d) mandamus is unavailable to compel the exercise of a “fettered discretion” in a particular way; and

(e) mandamus is only available when the decision-maker’s discretion is “spent”; i.e., the applicant has a vested right to the performance of the duty.

5. No other adequate remedy is available to the applicant.

6. The order sought will be of some practical value or effect.

7. The Court in the exercise of its discretion finds no equitable bar to the relief sought.

8. On a“balance of convenience” an order in the nature of mandamus should (or should not) issue.

[Citations omitted]


[25] It is common ground between the parties that the Minister owes a duty to the applicants to process their applications, and that unreasonable delay amounts to an implied refusal to perform the duty. The Minister contends that even if there is delay, it is justified. The question of satisfactory justification for the delay is the central dispute in these applications. The Minister also raises issues regarding alternative remedies and equitable bars to relief, briefly addressed below.


以上段落非常重要。有些人不明白，CIC到底和我们申请人之间有没有合同。如果没有经过这个起诉，这个问题还真的不是100%明确，可是经过这次开庭，CIC和我们申请人之间存在合同，CIC对我们申请人有义务，已经通过法庭判决的形式肯定了！！！

5月份，康尼部长在CBC的采访中表示，CIC和申请人之间并不存在合同：

http://forum.iask.ca/showthread.php?t=567244

当时正直开庭的前夕，他这样说，是不是明显的此地无银三百两？

法官认为：It is common ground between the parties that the Minister owes a duty to the applicants to process their applications，CIC不仅和我们存在合同，还存在duty，而且这个duty还不得拖延时间来完成！！！是不是又拆穿了康尼的一个谎言？

部长坚称：即使CIC拖延了，也是有理由的。

到底有没有理由拖延时间，是此次法庭辩论的中心议题。部长还提出了别的解决办法（比如撤案重投），这些到底合不合理，下文给出。

Was there Unreasonable Delay?

[26] The parties agree on the test for whether there has been an unreasonable delay, as articulated in Conille, above, at para 23:
…three requirements must be met if a delay is to be considered unreasonable:

(1) the delay in question has been longer than the nature of the process required, prima facie;

(2) the applicant and his counsel are not responsible for the delay; and

(3) the authority responsible for the delay has not provided satisfactory justification.

CIC是否构成不正当拖延，有以下三要素考虑：

1. 根据常识，这个拖延，比正常的处理时间长

2. 申请人和他的中介不是造成拖延的原因

3. CIC不能提供拖延的合理理由


[27] At issue therefore, in light of the amended legislation and the evolving Ministerial Instructions, is whether the delay in question is longer than the nature of the process requires and, secondly, whether there is a satisfactory justification for the delay. I will first address the issues of length of delay and justification broadly, as they apply to all the applications at issue, before applying those principles to the two representative cases before the Court.


Length of Delay
[28] The pre-C50 applications were all submitted before February 27, 2008. The most recent applications in that group have been outstanding for at least 4.5 years, and some of them have been awaiting processing for as long as 9 years. The Minister did not argue very forcefully before the Court that this delay does not amount prima facie to a longer delay than the nature of the process requires.

[29] With respect to the MI1 applicants, the Minister, both in his report to Parliament and in a media release, indicated that FSW applications would now receive a decision within approximately 6 to 12 months.
What the Action Plan for Faster Immigration’s instructions mean for applicants

Federal skilled worker applications received on or after February 27, 2008, will now be assessed for eligibility according to the criteria set out in the instructions. […] New federal skilled worker applicants, including those with arranged employment, should receive a decision within six to 12 months.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2008/2008-11-28.asp

[30] The MI1 applications have all been outstanding for somewhere between 24-52 months.

[31] In light of the number of years that have expired, and the government’s own statement of what is a reasonable period of time, I conclude that a prima facie case of delay is established in respect of both the pre-C50 and the MI1 applications, and turn to the question whether there is a reasonable justification.

以上解释了91，91前旧政和227申请人如何受到延误

Pre-C50申请人（也就是91和旧政）的等待时间从4.5年到9年。为什么拖了这么长时间，部长不能给出令人信服的辩论。

至于227为什么被拖延，这个更搞笑了。康尼在推出227的时候，高调宣称此类别的申请人可以在6到12个月内结案，法官甚至给出了康尼说这个话的CIC网站的连接，但实际上，227的人却等了24到52个月！康尼哑口无言！

所以法官认定：CIC对Pre-C50和227的申请人已经构成了不正当拖延！

 

[Les Paradis]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

Justification for Delay - Discretion to Set Policy and Ministerial Instructions
[32] The Minister submits that any delay in the processing of the applications at issue is justified by the Minister’s policy choice to prioritize certain applications over others. The Minister argues that this kind of policy-making is authorized by section 87.3, the Ministerial Instructions, and the Minister’s general authority to administer the IRPA.

部长认为，他拖延申请人的案子，有C50法律的87.3授权

[33] The Minister’s argument cannot succeedfirst, because section 87.3 and the Ministerial Instructions are expressly inapplicable to the pre-C50 applications; second, because pursuant to the Minister’s own policy, the MI1 applications were to be processed within 6-12 months and were not to be affected by subsequent instructions; and third, because the Minister has framed the argument so broadly that it would in effect nullify his duty to process any application in a timely manner.

法官认为，87.3 无权拖延Pre-C50申请人，因为87.3不适用于Pre-C50！至于227，虽然被87.3管辖，但部长自己的嘴巴说了，227的申请人在6到12个月结案。

注意了，康尼并没有用法律的形式保障C50的申请人必须在6到12个月内结案，但他到处这样说了，在CIC网站留案底了，所以必须承担法律责任。这是大家意想不到的吧！！！

[34] Turning to the first reason, the Minister cannot rely on section 87.3 of the Act, or the resulting Ministerial Instructions, to justify delay of the pre-C50 applications, because Parliament clearly expressed its intention that the processing of pre-C50 applications would be unaffected by the Ministerial Instructions. Section 120 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2008, above, provides:

Application​

120. Section 87.3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act applies only to applications and requests made on or after February 27, 2008.
Demandes​

120. L’article 87.3 de la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés ne s’applique qu’à l’égard des demandes faites à compter du 27 février 2008.​

国会明确的表达了，C50法律不影响91申请人的案子！

[35] The Minister concedes in written submissions that the MIs were to be applied prospectively only. Indeed, the Ministerial Instructions themselves confirm, as section 120 already made clear, that the processing of pre-C50 applications would be unaffected. The MI1 provides:

The Instructions apply only to applications and requests made on or after February 27, 2008.
All applications and requests made prior to February 27, 2008, shall be processed in the manner existing at the time of application.

部长指令也明确表达了，不影响91申请人的案子处理情况


[36] Thus, in respect of the pre-C50 applications, the Ministerial Instructions cannot constitute a satisfactory justification for delay.

所以，部长没有给出合理的理由为什么拖延了Pre-C50申请人

[37] The Minister’s argument fails on the facts in respect of the MI1 applications as well. Pursuant to his policy choices as embodied in the MI1, applications submitted under those instructions were to be processed within 6-12 months. Thus, the Minister exercised his power under section 87.3 of the Act to set a policy regarding FSW applications, and the MI1 applications have been delayed substantially past the processing time as set pursuant to that policy.

[38] The Minister also cannot reasonably rely on the subsequent Ministerial Instructions to explain the delay with respect to the MI1 applications, because those instructions expressly state that they only apply prospectively, and applications submitted under previous instructions are unaffected. For example, the MI2 states that all FSW applications received before its publication“…shall continue to be considered for processing having regard to the first set of Ministerial Instructions.” Thus, similar to the pre-C50 applications, the MI1 applications were not to be affected by subsequent instructions, and thus any policy choices embodied in those subsequent instructions cannot justify delay in respect of the MI1 applications.

以上是为什么部长不能给出拖延227的理由，因为与我们91无关，所以忽略。

[39] Finally, to permit the Minister to rely on a subsequent policy change to justify delay would in essence eliminate his duty to process applications in a reasonably timely manner. The heart of the Minister’s argument before the Court was that, even apart from section 87.3 of the Act and the Ministerial Instructions, he has an overarching authority to prioritize certain applications over others pursuant to his general authority to administer the Act, and the exercise of that authority is sufficient justification for any delay. The decision of Justice Judith Snider in Vaziri, above, confirms that the Minister does have this general administrative authority.

[40]Canadian jurisprudence has long recognized that Ministers have an obligation to perform their legal duties in a reasonably timely manner. This legal duty has long coexisted with the understanding that Ministers are accountable for the management and direction of their ministries and have the authority to make policy choices and to set priorities.从大家的申请费被CIC收取的那天起，CIC就对大家有不可推卸的责任和义务，并且该职责必须不被拖延，即时完成！！！ These two seemingly conflicting propositions have been reconciled by according the Minister considerable leeway in determining how long any kind of application will take to process, based on his policy choices. Thus, if the Minister has determined that Canada’s immigration goals are best attained by processing spousal sponsorships in 4 years on average, it is not for the Court to say that it believes the Minister could, or should, process those applications in 2 years. It is for the Minister, and not the Court, to run the department.

[41] It is for this reason that projected processing times emanating from the Minister and the department are accorded so much weight. The Minister is not only best placed to know how long an application will likely take to process, but he has also been granted the authority by Parliament to set those processing times in a way that balances the various objectives of theIRPA. However, once an application has been delayed past those processing times, without a satisfactory justification, the Court is authorized to intervene and compel the Minister to perform his duty. This approach is consistent with the principle that the Minister is accountable to Parliament for his policy choices, and those choices are not to be gainsaid by the courts: Li v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FCA 110. Thus, deference is accorded to the Minister in setting policies, but the limit of that deference is his legal duty under the IRPA.

[42] Section 87.3 has not altered this landscape. Rather, it confirms that the Minister has authority to set policies regarding processing that will best attain the government’s goals, and it has created a tool for the Minister to use to exercise that authority: the Ministerial Instructions. If the Minister establishes an order of processing for certain applications through Ministerial Instructions, those instructions, like any other policy from the Minister, will inform the determination of how long the process normally requires.

[43] However, section 87.3 does not eliminate the Minister’s duty to process applications in a reasonably timely manner, at least those applications that are accepted for processing. There is no language in section 87.3 or any other amendment to the Act that extinguishes the longstanding, well-accepted duty to process applications in a reasonable time frame. The Minister can set instructions that permit him to return some applications without processing them at all, and thus obviously there is no further duty in respect of those applications. However, for those that are determined eligible for processing, the duty to do so in a reasonably timely manner remains, absent clear legislative language extinguishing that duty. The Ministerial Instructions inform the assessment of whether that duty is discharged in a reasonable period of time.

[44] Thus, the most principled way to approach the analysis of unreasonable delay, in light of section 87.3 and the Ministerial Instructions, is to situate the question of the length the nature of the process in the full context of the immigration scheme. The Ministerial Instructions that apply to the application at issue are highly relevant in determining how long the process will require for that application. Also relevant are any statements by the Minister or his delegates regarding the projected processing time for that application. If, in light of this evidence, the application is still reasonably within the timeframe set out by the Minister, then mandamuswill not issue. If, however, the application has been delayed past the projected timeline, then the Minister must present some justification for the delay.

[45] This conclusion does not prevent the Minister from making policy choices that affect the processing time of applications. The Minister is free to set policies that may delay certain applications, so long as that delay arising from, or incidental to, that policy choice remains reasonable. To hold otherwise would in essence absolve the Minister of his obligation to process any application in a reasonably timely manner, an obligation which he retains under the law.

Application of the above principles to the Liang Application (Pre-C50)
[46] As discussed above, Mr. Liang’s application has been outstanding since 2007, and he has awaited finalization since his positive selection decision in 2010. This is prima facie longer than the nature of the process requires. The Ministerial Instructions cannot justify the delay, as they are inapplicable to his and other pre-C50 applications. There is no indication that Mr. Liang is himself responsible for any part of the delay.

[47] Furthermore, I am not persuaded by the Minister’s argument that Mr. Liang had an adequate alternative remedy. The Minister argues that Mr. Liang could have applied under MI1 and therefore had his application processed more quickly. The Minister notes that an applicant could have had two concurrent applications, his existing pre-C50 application and a subsequent MI1 application.

部长认为梁东可以转投其他的移民申请类别，比如改投227，就能加速申请。但是法官认为这一点没有说服力。

为什么不改投227？这个问题我被香港的移民官，以及众多的中英文媒体记者问了很多次了。这也是康尼指责广大91申请人最响的一个借口：我叫你们当时转投38项或者29项甚至省提名的，你们自己不转，被延误了别怪我。

现在法官明确表达了：I am not persuaded by the Minister’s argument.......

[48] The Minister’s argument is unsupported by the evidence. The Operational Policy directive prevailing at the time indicates that the Department did not know which route would in fact be faster. Submitting a new FSW application under the MI1 instructions may have been an alternative open to Mr. Liang, but it would not have been adequate.

[49] I therefore find that Mr. Liang is entitled to an order of mandamus. With respect to the 670 other pre-C50 applicants, the Court has no evidence before it with respect to the factors unique to each particular application which may account for the delay. Part or all of the delay may be attributable to the conduct of the applicant or a third party over whom the government had no control. Thus, each case must be determined on a case-by-case basis, and with the exception of Mr. Liang, I make no finding save that in respect of the remaining pre-C50 applicants, a prima facie case of delay has been established and the Ministerial Instructions, in light of section 120 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2008, above, do not constitute a satisfactory justification for that delay.

法官认为，梁东本人不对拖延负责，但没有证据表明其他的670人也不对拖延负责，他觉得有可能申请人本人或者中介会造成拖延。因此需要case-by-case来评估。

根据现在的情况，其他35个打分的并没有case-by-case一个个来评估，而是直接ME。

 

[Les Paradis]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

找遍了判决书，没有哪里说这个诉讼的胜利是35个人的胜利。

这是全体参加人的胜利，毫无疑问。

加拿大政府的影子内阁，NDP的移民部长Jinny Sims在此判决出来的时候，对所有媒体说：

http://metronews.ca/news/canada/264907/kenney-taken-to-task-over-immigration-backlog/


Thursday’s decision by Federal Court Justice Donald Rennie said that while the minister has the power to determine which applications are ineligible, he has a responsibility to ensure those that are eligible are indeed properly handled.

Though the court ruling doesn’t deal specifically with Bill C-38, Sims said she’s convinced the decision requires the government to properly process and assess the applications that are currently in the system.

Jinny Sims甚至认为这是全体30万人的胜利！！！如果NDP是执政党，Jinny Sims就是移民部长了，她看不懂判决书吗？她的英语比某些跳梁小丑还差？

 

[anxioustogetmoving]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

anxioustogetmoving向sansmoi兄致意

 

[xiaohuilinlin]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

致意！

 

[Les Paradis]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

留位

 

[tguozq]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

早1年告CIC不就赢了，天堂预测一下tim组的结果，谜底几天后就知道了。

 

[Les Paradis]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

.........................

 

[frankpenn]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

支持。

 

[kevintiger]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

支持

 

[Les Paradis]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

法官这段时间在度假，我也处在休眠的状态。不过这样也好，媒体舆论做早了，等于浪费了。

法官把TIM交上去的动议放在一边，一直不看。如果有报纸登了，他想不看也做不到了。

有一种很微妙的感觉：我不得不get involved.

 

[tguozq]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

法官这段时间在度假，我也处在休眠的状态。不过这样也好，媒体舆论做早了，等于浪费了。

法官把TIM交上去的动议放在一边，一直不看。如果有报纸登了，他想不看也做不到了。

有一种很微妙的感觉：我不得不get involved.

发官是真的不看还是看了难做决定？

 

[Les Paradis]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

法官一直度假，刚结束假期。

 

[newguy]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

感谢sansmoi进行普法教育！

 

[oliverose225]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

支持！

 

[luke]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

感谢sansmoi ！

 

[shirley2011]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

moi还是肯研究的，肯做事情的。说实话，那么长的判决书，我看得头疼。谢谢moi指点迷津。

 

[dollette]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

谢谢moi

 

[fglzyf]

回复: 详解6月14号的判决书，接下来发生了什么。。。

不错