回复: 这个消息的点击率很高
Thanks Tim, correct me if I am wrong. The direct application of this decision may be subject to challenge. But the spirit that the wrongful notice affected the litigant’s case would still apply, procedural unfairness (which is the key), given “certification of a serious question of general importance”.
On the other hand, it would be outrageously ridiculous and a big joke to Canada’s judicial system that a rejected (and therefore finalized) case can be reassessed and probably lead to a final decision in favor of the litigant, while people already ME’d (all qualified merit wise) got terminated!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Leahy [mailto:tel@myforefront.com]
Lawrence did, indeed, win a great victory. However, it is very limited in its application -- and not at all what you believe it to me. I have attached the decision.
Justice Blanchard ruled that s. 87.4 did not apply to Mr Zhu because it only applied to FSW files which (a) had not been assessed before March 29th and (b) were still open on June 29th, when Bill C-38 became law. Because Mr Zhu had been refused, his file was not open on June 29th and, thus, s. 87.4 did not apply to his case. In other words, Zhu applies only to cases which had been assessed and refused after March 29th.
Regards,
Tim.
Dear Tim,
As you probably know, Lawrence has achieved a very inspiring victory – Justice Blanchard has ruled that the wrongful CIC notice notifying applicants of the termination mislead the applicant and ordered CIC to re-review the case. I trust all of the S2’ed applicants, including ME’d applicants, have received the same letter, and furthermore, ME’d applicants have all received the selection decision.
How will this victory help us, pending Justice Rennie’s decision expected in early March?
