Siouxie

I was just looking at the CIC main page and saw at the bottom right hand side about a Class Action case being made against CIC with regards to fee's paid.

It seems they made over $700 million profit from application fee's!

"... The plaintiff class consists of those persons who, at any time during the period 1 April 1994 to 31 March 2004, paid a fee or charge to Her Majesty for a determination of any of the applications made pursuant to anyone or more of the regulations listed in Schedule A of this Order, and who were informed of determination decisions in respect of such applications on or after 12 September 2000, and includes all such persons regardless of the outcome of their application, as well as all such applications that are currently in progress, save those excluded by the order of 4 January 2008..."

Here's the link to the official website:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/departm...cy/lawsuit.asp

http://www.visalitigation.com/
http://www.visalitigation.com/html/english.html

Interesting!

It seems some people (but not all - see list) may all be in line for some kind of refund if it is proven... this includes visitor extentions, family class applications, work permits and extentions, student visa's ... read it to ascertain if you were included.

Some are excluded (sorry guys)...

7. Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are

b) those persons who submitted an application seeking an immigrant visa before January 1, 2002, in the skilled worker, self-employed, entrepreneur and investor categories (referred to in subsection 8(1) of the former Immigration Regulations, 1978), excluding provincial nominees and those destined to Quebec:

(i) whose applications had not received a selection decision before April 1, 2003;

(ii) whose applications were refused after March 31, 2003 and before December 1, 2003, and who have reapplied on or before December 31, 2004;

(iii) whose applications were withdrawn on or after January 1, 2002 and before December 1, 2003, and who have reapplied on or before December 31, 2004;

(iv) whose applications were refused under the Immigration Act and then referred back by the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, or the Supreme Court of Canada, and were awaiting a decision on December 1, 2003;

and all family members, as defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, of persons referred to in (a) through (d) above, including family members who were not listed in the application.

As per http://reports.fja-cmf.gc.ca/eng/200...2005fc919.html Rasolzadeh v. Her Majesty the Queen et al., Court File No. IMM-2286-03

It hasn't gone to court yet.

Aviator

A really great use of our tax dollars. How many millions will it cost the govt (the tax payer) to defend that? Who's paying the claimants legal fees, a contingency for a % maybe, or will we (the tax payer) end up on the hook for that too?

Almost Canadian

If you read the links above it would appear that the Plaintiff`s lawyer`s will take a 33% cut of any damages awarded. If they lose, they will be paid nothing.

The Government`s lawyers are paid whether there are any actions against them or not, so unlike to cost taxpayers anything. If the Plaintiff wins, minimal costs will be awarded to the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff loses, minimal costs will be awarded to the Defendant.

The lawyers must feel confident that the claim will succeed. That being the case the Government must have done something incorrectly and the Plaintiff is entitled to legal redress.

Aviator

Bit like ambulance chaser then? 33% is one hell of a lot of money (taxpayers money)

However if we were not in a sue happy society there would not be the need for so many lawyers and therefore we would save money. Of course it costs the taxpayer, who do you think pays for it? That's a bit like saying the military costs us nothing unless they go to war .

paolosmythe

so an individual considers doing something and as part of that consideration, they find out the inherent costs, inclusive of application fees etc.

they decide to go for it (and thus incur the expenses).

then they retrospectively decide that the fees were too high and they shouldn't have paid them?

presumably those most interested in suing are those who didn't meet the criteria for that which they applied?

kind of like the woman who wants to sue a casino for allowing her to gamble (and lose) all of her money?

ExKiwilass

not a fan.

Almost Canadian

0% is nothing if they lose. The Plaintiff could choose to instruct the lawyers on a privately paying basis.

The 33% will be paid from any damages that the Court awards to the Plaintiff. The Court will only award the damages if it believes they are appropriate, they will only be appropriate if the Government did something wrong. Government do make mistakes and, when they do, they are held accountable by the Courts just as you or I would. Are you suggesting that it should be impossible to sue the Government?

That, with the greatest of respect, is a silly argument. If the Government needs a bank of lawyers because it doesn`t operate within the confines of the law, the electorate should hold them to account at the next election.

I don`t think that lawyers in this country relish suing any Government department. The law is usually heavily weighted against making a claim against the Government. As I said above, the lawyers must be relatively confident they have a good case or they wouldn`t have taken this on, that being the case, the Government are likely to have done something wrong, that being the case, they should be held to account. Now, if the electorate did so, maybe we wouldn`t see cases such as this. Was there a number of threads recently about the time is takes to process citizenship/renewal of PR cards?

You seem to be suggesting that no one should have legal redress against the Government. What a crazy thought

Almost Canadian

I honestly do not believe that you think that was the case. It would appear that the Government did something it shouldn`t and someone is attempting to hold them to account. If they did nothing wrong, the Action will fail. Simple

It doesn`t take a genius to realise that the Action will be heavily weighted against the Plaintiff, the Government will be able to argue that it had other priorities etc.

I wonder how many felt that the Class Action taken against the Government for the Residential Schools fiasco was a waste of time? Those lawyers were paid on a contingency fee basis and many victims received damages that, without the Action, they would not have received.

CanadaJimmy

Err whats wrong with them making a profit?

When you immigrate, you're moving to Canada after not paying a cent of income tax or sales tax to their country for years. I always perceived any profit they made as compensation for that.

Alan2005

Huh?

Almost Canadian

I suspect that the action is based on the Government taking fees for things they were not entitled to take fees for.

I am confident your post wasn`t meant to sound as it did, but I can`t work out what you were trying to say.

CanadaJimmy

Oh well if it was unfair charges then thats fine. I thought it was simply the fact that they were profiting off immigrants instead of just charging what was required to run the CIC service. My argument is that I don't really mind this, because if you're suddenly in Canada as a grown adult, you're dropped into a country in which you've never contributed anything to the public services there, so if the government makes money off of your application I see no problem with it because they can use that money to compensate for the years of you not being in Canada. Maybe I'm just talking crap but whatever, it makes sense to me

Jingsamichty

It is rather a delicious irony, n'est-ce pas?

Lawyers suing the government for overcharging the public - and then taking a 33% cut of the payout.

fledermaus

so by how much did they overcharge?

Alan2005

Why would anyone need to compensate for the years they weren't in Canada? Sure, they did not contribute to public services, but they didn't use them either. Canada gets a very good deal out of immigrants as they mostly arrive ready to start work and pay taxes whereas those born here need a lot of money spending on them first.