The College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Corp.
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
    • OUR ROLE
    • STRATEGIC PLANS
    • BOARD MEMBERS
    • VISION & MISSION
    • Faculty & Staff
    • PRO-BONO SERVICES
    • VOICECANADA HISTORY
    • COUNSEL RESOLVE DISPUTES
  • LEGALS
    • CONFIDENTIALITY
    • PUBLIC REVIEW
    • PUBLIC AWARNESS
    • PUBLIC AWARNESS 2
    • Decision of Complaints
    • Application Review
    • Complaints and Dispute
    • Counsel Discipline
    • FILLABLE APPLICATION
    • Legal Aid in BC
  • MEMBERSHIP
    • APPLICATION REVIEWS
    • PROBONO BY LOBBYIST
    • PROBONO BY COUNSELS
    • PROBONO BY ACCOUNTANT
    • ETHICS
    • Pro-Bono Articled Student
    • Qualification requirement
    • RULES & OBLIGATIONS
    • COMMITTEES
    • Pro-bono Reporting
    • Counsel Qualification
    • CITIZENSHIP COUNSEL
    • COUNSEL TRAINING
    • BOOKKEEPING FREE SERVICE
    • Re-Registration
    • Counsels Newsletter
    • OFFICE FEES & REFUNDS
    • Code of Ethics & Practise
  • COMMUNICATION
    • OPPOSED PROPOSAL
    • OPEN LETTERS
    • PROPOSALS & BIDS
    • OPEN NEWSLETTER
  • CONTACT US
    • CALENDAR
    • WEBMAIL
    • REGISTRARS ' OFFICE
    • Subscribers ( Privacy)
    • CAREER
    • QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
    • My Account
  • SUBSCRIBERS LOGIN
    • COMPLAINTS FORMS
    • Public Legal Notices
    • PETITIONS
  • Sign In
  • Create Account

  • Bookings
  • My Account
  • Signed in as:

  • filler@godaddy.com


  • Bookings
  • My Account
  • Sign out

A PRIVATE WEBSITE, FORBIDDEN TO COPY WEBPAGES, UNDER CONSTRUCTION DAILY

The College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Corp.

Signed in as:

filler@godaddy.com

  • Home
  • ABOUT US
    • OUR ROLE
    • STRATEGIC PLANS
    • BOARD MEMBERS
    • VISION & MISSION
    • Faculty & Staff
    • PRO-BONO SERVICES
    • VOICECANADA HISTORY
    • COUNSEL RESOLVE DISPUTES
  • LEGALS
    • CONFIDENTIALITY
    • PUBLIC REVIEW
    • PUBLIC AWARNESS
    • PUBLIC AWARNESS 2
    • Decision of Complaints
    • Application Review
    • Complaints and Dispute
    • Counsel Discipline
    • FILLABLE APPLICATION
    • Legal Aid in BC
  • MEMBERSHIP
    • APPLICATION REVIEWS
    • PROBONO BY LOBBYIST
    • PROBONO BY COUNSELS
    • PROBONO BY ACCOUNTANT
    • ETHICS
    • Pro-Bono Articled Student
    • Qualification requirement
    • RULES & OBLIGATIONS
    • COMMITTEES
    • Pro-bono Reporting
    • Counsel Qualification
    • CITIZENSHIP COUNSEL
    • COUNSEL TRAINING
    • BOOKKEEPING FREE SERVICE
    • Re-Registration
    • Counsels Newsletter
    • OFFICE FEES & REFUNDS
    • Code of Ethics & Practise
  • COMMUNICATION
    • OPPOSED PROPOSAL
    • OPEN LETTERS
    • PROPOSALS & BIDS
    • OPEN NEWSLETTER
  • CONTACT US
    • CALENDAR
    • WEBMAIL
    • REGISTRARS ' OFFICE
    • Subscribers ( Privacy)
    • CAREER
    • QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
    • My Account
  • SUBSCRIBERS LOGIN
    • COMPLAINTS FORMS
    • Public Legal Notices
    • PETITIONS

Account


  • Bookings
  • My Account
  • Sign out


  • Sign In
  • Bookings
  • My Account

creating the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act 2006-2021

    the wheels are off the bus! IRCC: Brian Smith said "is FAST AND FURIOUS internal secretive operation to force Marco MendiCino approve ICCRC to CICC

    VoiceCanada Post-Settlement Services Inc. .®©

    SEE OPEN LETTERS

    Find out more

    December 31 2021, IRCC 1000 pages of secret Communication to create a new college CICC

        

    Three Lawyers ( Immigration Ministers) covering up for the internal IRCC Fast and Furious Operation to cover up the Lie of the Land! 

    Former GG- DMO-MINO-PCO-PMO-AGC and DOJ all involved in this Fast and Furious sercret operation 

    A three-part secret communication from the ATIP office at the Department of Immigration.

    It appears that former Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino according to these documents and secret letters rejected the notion that ICCRC should continue to operate as regulator under the College but he was forced into it by his own deputy Minister equal to the PCO forcing the Governor General to sign the unofficial OIC on November 20 2020 when all knew it was a fake Order in Council.

    One note I see off the top: Part One, pg. 179 as marked at the bottom of the page numbers, a Monday, November 23, 2020 email that states: "The GG signed off on the order late Friday" -- that would be November 20 -- "but that is not in the public domain."

    It is my impression that's incorrect. Acts and regulations are in force the day they are publicly registered in the Gazette, not when they are secretly signed.


     And Part Two, page 310, the wheels are off the bus! 

    Evidence of Public Servants called it the Biggest Lie of the Land!

    Voicecanada lobbying group

     

     

     



    THE NEWS IS COMING SOON is not a good picture to PMO-PCO

    Download PDF

    Downloads all IRCC communication part 1-3 below

    2A-2020-93519 part 1 (pdf)Download
    2A202093519 part 2 (pdf)Download
    2A202093519 part 3 (pdf)Download
    E15a - 2020 11 25 GWW to FC (College Act Proclaimed) (pdf)Download
    OIC with April 31 2020 date (pdf)Download
    Letter to Federal Court judge T-834-20 Nov 27 2020 (pdf)Download
    Original genuine Declaration as of Dec 09 2020 (pdf)Download
    Canada Gazette Volume 154 includes Nov 25 and Dec 09 2020 (pdf)Download
    2020 12 09 - LT Federal Court re College Act (pdf)Download
    2020 11 25 GWW to FC (College Act Proclaimed) (pdf)Download
    Letter to Federal Court judge T-834-20 Dec 01 2020 (2) (pdf)Download

    PDF Viewer

    Download PDF

    OPPOSED NEWS

    PDF Viewer

    Download PDF

    Politicians Involved in approving 2019 Budget $100 Million for the College Act

      NEW EVIDENCE

      Remedy to expunged an interlocutory Injunction Motion Decision

       

      Citation:
      9101-9380 Québec Inc. v. Canada (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency), 2005 FC 929 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/1mmlx>, retrieved on 2022-09-29
       

       

      Counsel  for Tabacs Galaxy argued that three serious issues existed. First,  despite the fact that Blais J. had held the contrary, he maintained that  there was still a serious issue regarding the retroactivity of the  Regulations which came into effect on April 1, 2003, as the facts  alleged in the finding of guilt occurred on September 3, 2002. Second,  the procedure used by the Agency in dealing with its application for  renewal was unfair, because it did not give Tabacs Galaxy an opportunity  to make submissions in opposition to the decisions made to suspend and cancel the tobacco licence. Third, the treatment given to Tabacs Galaxy by the Agency was vitiated by inequality under the Act.

      [20]  I cannot accept any of these arguments regarding the existence of  serious issues, even if I accept that the judgment of Blais J. does not  have the effect of res judicata as it is not a final decision, and that the test for assessing a serious issue is that of a frivolous or vexatious request.

      [21]  In my opinion, Blais J. clearly decided that the Regulations did not  apply retroactively, relying on the case law cited at paragraph 15 of  his reasons, on Paton v. The Queen, 1968 CanLII 102 (SCC), [1968] S.C.R. 341, and on the reasons of Gauthier J., supra.  The judgment of Blais J. seems to me to be quite correct and counsel  for Tabacs Galaxy indicated no valid reason for making any other  determination. In my opinion, the procedure followed by the Agency was  not unfair. In connection with its application to renew, Tabacs Galaxy  was fully aware of the Agency's concerns and could have presented its  arguments before the decision was made. As counsel for the Agency submitted, there is no equivalence between an application to renew and a suspension or cancellation proceeding. As to unequal treatment under the Act, counsel for Tabacs  Galaxy admitted there was no evidence before the Court to support that  argument.

      [22]  Finally, I feel that the balance of convenience favours the Agency.  Counsel for the Agency referred the Court to the judgment of Strayer J.  of the Federal Court Trial Division, as he then was, in Canadian Free Speech League v. Canada, [1992] F.C.J. No. 966. I cite paragraphs 7 and 11 of his decision:

       ¶  7       With respect to the balance of convenience, which is another factor I must consider, the cases, including a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, have made it clear that when one is  balancing the interests of an individual or a society against the public  interest in a sense of the public administration carrying out the laws  of legislatures or Parliament, one must give due weight to the public  interest.

         

       ¶   11        There is a principle of granting injunctions,  that they should be granted, if possible, to preserve the status quo.   In terms of the administration of the laws of Parliament, it has been  said in the case of the Attorney General of Canada v. Gould back in 1984 by the Federal Court of Appeal and by the Supreme Court of Canada that granting an injunction which would have the effect of giving the Plaintiff his ultimate  remedy, involving in the process treating as invalid what has otherwise  been regarded as a lawful or legitimate Act of Parliament, treating it  in that way pending trial, is not a matter of maintaining the status  quo, it is altering the status quo. 

      [23]  I am also relying on R.J.R. - MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (A.G.), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, as to the public interest in an application to invalidate a statute or regulation.

      ORDER

      THE COURT ORDERS that this motion for an interlocutory injunction be dismissed with costs.


      Copyright © 2003-2023

      Version- by 11701819 Canada INC formerly CICC the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultant Corp Inc

      Voicecanada post-settlment services inc.

      website. www.VOICECANADA.CA MEDIA SHARING All Rights Reserved.  

       


      Powered by GoDaddy Website Builder

      • VOLUNTEER