T-2425-14
FEDERAL
COURT
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION; HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendants
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
A.
ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS
1. Except
as expressly admitted in thls
Statement of Defence, the
Defendants deny
or have no knowledge
of the allegations and claims
contained in the State:rpent óf Claim.
2.
The Defendants admit paragraph 3 of the
Statement of Claim.
B.
NATURE OF THE CLAIM
3.
Toe Plaintiffs assert six main
allegations. They claim:
1
i)
that they
all submitted applications for permanent residence as members of the Federal Skilled Trades Class (FSTC) and, despite having met all other requirements for pennanent
residency, were refused because they failed language test;
ii) that the language test they
took, the International English
Language Testing System (IELTS), is culturally biased towards "British English", and unfairly requires
a high proficiency in English;
iii) that
the Defendants administer the Federal Skilled Trades Prograrn
(FSTP) in a way that
favours nationals from English-speaking countries and discriminates against
nationals from non-English-speaking countries;
iv)
that they were unfairly
denied substituted evaluation of theír applications on the basis of Ministerial Instructions (Mls), which
they say are contrary to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
(IRPR) and are ultra vires;
v) that
the Defendants' conduct
amowits to breach
of statute, public
misfeasance and abuse and excess of jurisdiction and authority, abuse
of process, bad faith, and breach of sections 7 atld 15 of the Charter; and
vi) that they suffered damages
as a result·of the Defendants' conduct as it relates to
the foregoing allegations.
C.
ALLEGATION 1:PLAINTIFFS CLAIM TIIAT TIIEY ALL APPLIED
UNDER FSTC AND WERE REFUSED BECAUSE
THEY FAILED TIIE LANGUAGE TEST
4.
The Defendants admit that a
maximum of three Plaintiffs (Mr. Laranjeiro Henriques, Mr. Cabral and Mr. Casanova) may potentially fali within
the class of Plaintiffs as described in the Statement
of Claim-namely, one who applied
for pennanent residency as a member of the FSTC and was denied for failing the language test. Only these Plaintiffs have standing to maintain this claim. The Defendants have no knowledge of whether thesC
Plaintiffs
met :all other
statutory and regulatory requirements.
5.
As set out in Appendix A to this
Defence, the balance
of the Plaintiffs do not fall
within the class of
Plaintiffs described in the Statement of
Claim. lnparticular:
a)
Mr. Figo did not apply for
permanent residence wtder the FSTC. He applied as a Federal Skilled Worker (FSW), a
different program with different requirements;
b)
Mr. Figo
is also statute-barred from bringing an action because bis FSW application was refused more than
two years ago, and is beyond the limitation period;
e) Mr.
Pereira did not
apply for permanent
residence wtder the FSTC or make any kind of pennanent
residence application, but has simply
applied for work pennits
and extensions of work permits;
d)
Mr. Roberto Silva, whose first FSTC application was retnmed because
he had failed to provide a
nwnber of required documents, reapplied and his FSTC application was
approved. He obtained pennanent residence status in March 2015;
e)
Mr. Zlotsz applied w,der an
occupation that was not eligible for the FSTC;
1)
Mr. Martins did not provide proof
of studies and additional fees for bis dependent child, amongst
other things, and did not submit language test results
at all;
g)
Mr. Araujo did
not submit required documents
such as birth certificates, submitted expired language
test results, and did not have a valid work pennit
at
the time of his FSTC application, as required by the IRPR;
h)
Mr. Cordeiro did not submit a
number , of required
documents such as a certificate of qualification and a labour
market opinion, among other th.ings; did not submit
language test results
at ali, and did not have a valid
work pennit at the time
of his FSTC application, as required by the IRPR;
i) Mr. Myrda submitted expired language test results;
j) Mr. Carvalho
did not have a valid work permit at the time
of bis FSTC application, as
required by the IRPR; and
k) Mr. Pedro Silva submitted expired
language test results.
D.
ALLEGATION
2: PLAINTIFFS CLAIM IELTS IS BIASED AND REQillRES HIGH PROFICIBNCY IN ENGLISH
1)
General overview and importaoce of
language
6.
The Defendants
deny
lhe Plaintiffs'
allegations
lha!lhe IELTS
is biased and
requires a high proficiency in English.
7.
The ability to speak
English is an important factor in socio-economic integration and the ability to become economically establisbed in Canada.· Persons with greater English
language abilities have better settlement and integration outcomes. ln addition, proficiency in
English is
highiy valued by employers and is
an important factor in getting work,
securing better job prospects, and gaining and achieving
higher eantlngs.
8.
White temporary foreign
workers on a visa may not be subject to minimal language thresholds to
qualify for a work permit, such thresholds
are important when one applies to become a pennanent resident of Canada,
and eventually, a Canadian citizen.
9.
To
further a new immigrant's ability to. become better integrated into Canadian society,
individuais holding temporary work permits are permitted to take language
classes in
order to improve their language skills, or
courses for personal improvement. Section 188(1)(c) of the JRPR provides
that a foreign national can study in Canada without a study permit if lhe duration of the course or program is under
six months, and will be completed within their authorized stay. Courses
for personal improvement are not limited
to six months.
10. Temporary foreign workers can then
potentially apply for programs
such as the FSTC, the Canadian Experience Class, or Express
Entry, subject
to the statutocy and regulatory requirements.
2) Laoguage reguirements for
FSTC reguire limited to modest English skills
l1. Pursuant to s. 87.2 of the IRPR, one of the conditions of membership inthe FSTC is meeting a minimum English language proficiency
threshold set
by the Minister in reading, writing, listerúng
and speaking,
after having been
evaluated by
an organiz.ation or institution
designated by the Minister.
12.
Toe Canadian Language
Benchmarks (CLB) are the national standards for describing
and measnring the English-language proficiency of prospectivo adult imrnigrants for living and working in Canada.
They are not language tests but describe a person's ability to use
the English langúage to accomplish a set of tasks infotir language skill areas: listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
A French equivalent, the Niveau de compétence linguistique canadien, sets the standards for the French language.
13.
To fulfil the language
requirement, applicants must satisfy the CLB, which
varies
depending on the class in which one is applying.
14.
Toe Defendants deny that high proficiency is
required in order to meet
the CLB for the FSTC. Toe CLB for FSTC applicants
is 4 in reading and writing, and 5 for listening and speaking.
These requirements reflect limited to modest English language skills.
15.
By comparison, lhe CLB for
applicants applying in the Federal Skilled Worker (FSW) class is higher: 7 for each of the language skills
(reading, writing, listening and speaking). The required CLB for lhe FSW class is "good use" of English.
16.
The IELTS is not a higher standard than lhe CLB as stated
by lhe Plaintiffs. Whether an applicant
takes the test administered by the IELTS or another designated language institution, s/he must meet the sarne CLB requirement for the particular class in which they are applying-narnely,
for FSTC applicants: 4 in reading and writing, and 5 for listening and
speaking.
3)
Candidates choose whicb language test they wish to take
17.
FSTC applicants can choose
from arnong three Janguage tests that are offered by institutions designated by the Minister, two of which
are in English--the IELTS and the Canadian English
Language Proficiency lndex Program (CELPIP)--and another in French, lhe Test
d'évaluation de français (TEF).
18.
Citizenship and Immigration
Canada (CIC) accepts language test results from any one of these designated
institutions or organizations. Whích test an applicant chooses
to take from amongst
the three tests is exclusively withineach applícant' s discretion.
4)
IELTS
19.
The IELTS is not culrurally biased or unfair.
The average scores in 2013 of
individuais who
wrote the IELTS
and reported Italian,
Portuguese or Polish
as theír first
language (the languages the
Plaintiffs refer to in their Claim) are well above the leveis required for the CLB.
20.
Toe IELTS is used in well over 100
countries with millions of tests being written arumally worldwide. It is accepted
by thousands of organisations worldwide, ihcluding hundreds of Canadian professional associations, educational
institutions, government agencies and employers.
21.
Toe IELTS
is not geared toward "British English" or "Australian
English" as opposed to "Canadian English".
Toe IELTS test is an intemational test in which a variety of
English accents
are used in the listening tests. ln addition, IELTS accepts ali standard varieties of English.
22.
Both North American and British
spellings and idioms are used in the test and
accepted in candidates' answers.
IELTS draws upon and contains
a broad range of content
from around the
English-speaking world, including Canada.
Canadian and American actors are used for
recording listening tests which use North American pronunciations and idioms,
along with British and Australian speakers.
23.
Toe IELTS offers
two types of tests: an academic test, for test takers wishing to study at
undergraduate or postgraduate leveis and
for those seeking professional
registration; and a general
test, for test takers wishing to migrate to an Englishspeaking country
and for those wishing
to study at below degree levei. CIC only requires applicants to take the
general test.
5)
FSTC applicants aware of test results
before submitting their application
24.
Before
applying to the FSTP, applicants are aware whether or not they meet the language
threshold required for the FSTC. Language testing centres send test results to tbe applicants
who then submit the results to·CIC, along with their complete FSTC application.
6)
No limit
on re-taking the test, but test rcsults must be less than 2 years old
25.
Neithe;- CIC nor any of the designated tesf providers place
any limits on the
number of times a potential applicant may take or re-take the language test
they have chosen. In cases where applicants' language test scores do not meet
the minimum language threshold, applicants are at
liberty to take,
the test as many times
as they wish.
26.
ln addition,
there is no set period of time before one can re..:take the IELTS test. For the CELPIP and TEF tests, there is a 30-day and 60-day period,
respectively, before one may re-take the test.
27.
An àpplicant
may also choose to re-take a test from a different designated institution:
if an applicant initially took the IELTS and received an unsatisfactory result, s/he could
choose to subsequently take the CELPIP, and vice versa.
28.
To ensure the test results
reflect an applicant's current language proficiency, CIC requtres language
test results to be less than 2 years old when
CIC receives the FSTC application.
E, ALLEGATION 3: PLAINTIFFS CLAIM TIIAT FSTP DISCRIMINATES AGAJNST
NATIONALS FROM
NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES
1)
General
oven1iew
29.
CIC launched the FSTP on January 2, 2013 to provide a route whereby skilled
tradespeople can immigrate to Canada in response to labour market
needs.
30.
Toe FSTC is a prescribed class of persons who may become permanent
residents on the basis of their ability
to become economically established in Canada
as workers ina skilled trade occupation. To be a member
of the FSTC, one has to meet the criteria
set out at s.87.2 of the
IRPR. Briefly,
these criteria include meeting a minimum language threshold, having a valid
work permit on the date of
the FSTC application or holding a certificate of qualification issued by a
provincial authority in the occupation under which they are applying, and
having at least two years of full-time
work experience in one of the eligible
skilled trades occupations.
3!. Toe Defendants deny
that the FSTP
díscriminates against nationals
from non-
English-speaking countries or that it is administered in a discriminatory way in favour of certain linguistic groups. Toe program is
available to all who qualify regardless of national origin an<l: those
approved for permanent residence emerge from a number of countries without an emphasis
on English-speaking countries. ln the first quarter of 2015, more than
half of approved FSTC applications carne from lndia and the Philippines.
2)
Minister Kenney'
s trip to Ireland and " shared values"
32.
Minister Kenney travelled to Ireland in October 2012, as
par! of à broader European trip. During this trip, he attended a
number of functions and made a number of
statements.
lnparticular:
a)
he gave a speech on October
5, 2012 at a reception hosted by the Calgary
Economic Development
Recruitment Fair;
b)
he made
an announcement regarding the !nternational Experience Canada (IEC) Program;
e) he also appeared on a talk show in
Dublin, Ireland on October 5, 2012, in which
he stated: ''Toe employers in Canada are increasingly
identi:fying Ireland as a great
source of talent,
hard-working,
high]y-educated folks who
are culturally compatible ...They can walk in and get to work the day they arrive."
33.
Toe Defendants deny the Plaintiffs' allegations that
the Minister' s comments
'
regarding "shared
values"
have not been eX.tended
to other countries. particularly non·
Anglophone communities. The Minister has made similar statements
about many other countries or communities, including India and Poland.
34.
ln
particular, in a speech given in Jndia on September 9, 2010, Minister Kenney described
India and Canada as "two great
democracies" that "have much in common." Minister ,
Kenney stated that both cowitries
have built "cohesive, pluralistic societies from ethnically, spiritually and linguístically diverse populations ...We are both societies
that support and respect diversity, and that Value freedom of
speech, assembly, worship and trade. The bonds we share explain why
the Government of Canada is working to expand and
deepen the commercial, diplomatic and cultural ties between our countries."
35.
ln addition, on May 3, 2013,
Minister Kenney issued a statement that Po]and
shares
the sarne values of liberty and democracy with Canada.
36.
The Minister has also given
many statements praising the qualities of immigrants
from
around the world, including imrnigrants from China, the Philippines,
Italy, and Portugal.
37.
ln particular, on May 16, 2014, Minister Kenney noted the "important role" of ltalian
imrnigrants "in strengthening
Canada's cultural fabric."
38.
On June
10, 2013, Minister Kenney encouraged celebration of Portuguese culture and historical
heritage in Canada and noted that the Portuguese conununity reflected
the success of Canada's pluralism."
39.
In any event, any statements by the Minister regarding "shared values" between Canada and Ireland
are not indicative of a policy of preferring pennanerit residence candidates from Ireland or other English-countries. Toe criteria for admission as a pennanent resident of
Canada are set out in the Immigration
and Refagee Protection Act (IRPA) and the IRPR, not in political speeches.
40.
There is no policy of preferring
nationals from Englishspeaking countries for permanent
residence in Canada. Between 2009 and 2013, the top tive countries receiving permanent
resident visas were India, China, the Philippines, Iran and Pakistan.
3) International
Experience Canada (IEC) in 32 countries
41.
Toe
Defendants deny the Plaintiffs' assertion that CJC entered into accords with England and Ireland based on
"shared values" with Canadians, and that no such similar
"benefit" or "privilege" exists with any
other nonIrish/English/Australian country. There is no particular
benefit" or 'I'rivilege" bestowed solely on nationals from England, Ireland,
or Australia.
42.
Canada has a number
of bilateral agreements with various countries
in order to facilitate
travei and work abroad and in Canada.
43.
ln particular, while in
lreland in October 2012, Minister Kenney
made a joint announcement with the lrish Minister
for Foreign Affairs
and Trade regarding
the International ExperieD,ce Canada (IEC) Program. Toe
IEC is available in countries that have youth
mobility agreements with Canada. It is a reciproca! arrangement that allows Canadians to work in the participating countries and vice versa.
CIC currently has this arrangement with 32 countries, the majority of whom are non-Anglophone coW1tries, including
ltaly and Poland. Portugal is not one of
the participating countries in the IEC program.
44.
Nane of the Plaintiffs in this case applied in the IEC Program.
45.
To the degree that the IEC is relevant to these Plaintiffs
and this proceeding, which
the Defendants deny, the Defendants state that:
a)
Toe
arrangement between Canada and the reciprocating country determines the categories to which an applicarit may apply (working
holiday, young professionals, or intemational co-op intemship), the number of placements available, and the length of stay in Canada;
b)
the
length of stay in Canada ranges from 6 to 24 months depending on the country with whi_ch Canada
has an agreement and the categoiy to which the applicant
is applying;
e) Upon completion of the
program, applicants may be eligible to
apply for permanent residence.
46.
There is no difference in the
"benefits" or "privileges"
available under the IEC program that are
attributable to whether lhe agreement is with an Anglophone or non- Anglophone country.
Toe language spoken
in the country with which Canada enters
a bilateral agreement plays no role in the
op°portunities available pursuant to that agreement.
47.
Toe Defendants deny that applicants
from countries such as Ireland are favoured and that
the opportunities offered to applicants from Anglophone countries are superior to those offered
to applicants from non-Anglophone countries. ln particular, th.e Defendants state that applicants
from both Ireland and Poland can acquire up to two years of work experience upon
completion
of the IEC program.
F.
ALLEGATION
4: PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THAT THEY WERE UNFAIRLY
DENIED SUBSTITUTED EVALUATION BECAUSE OF
MINISTERIAL INSTRUCTIONS TIIEY SAY ARE ULTRA VIRES
48.
Toe
Plaintiffs were not unfairly denied substituted evaluation, nor are the applicable
Ministerial Instructions (Mis) ultra vires.
1) Ministerial lnstructions
49.
The Mls
were lawfully enacted and are within the Minister's authority or jurisdiction. They are not ímplemented in a way that is contrary to the IRPR, or in bad faith, or misfeasance of public office.
50.
Both the
IRPR and the Mls are delegated
legislatíon, enacted pursuant to statutory authority
by the executíve branch of government and have the binding force of law with general
application. Among other things,
the Mls are a means
of provicling q. triage system pursuant
to revised eligibility criteria.
51.
Section 14.1 of the IRPA allows the Minister to give
Instructíons establishing a class of
permanent residents as part of the economic class for the purposes of supporting
economic goals established by the Government of Canada.
52.
Subsection 87.3(3) of the IRPA gives the Minister the ability to
give instructíons , with respect to the processing of applications, including establishing categories of applications to which the instructions apply;
establishing conditions, by category or otherwise, that must be met
before or during the processíng of an application; setting a cap for the number of applications to be
processed in any given year; and providing for the disposition of applications, including applications made subsequently.
53.
The two relevant Mls for the FSTC are MJ6,
which was issued in December 2012 and
carne into force on January 2, 2013, and Mil2, which was issued
in April 2014 and carne into force on May 1, 2014. MI6 provides
that complete applications received on or after January
2, 2013 that do not exceed the identified caps and whose applicants meet the minimwn
language tbreshold for tbe FSTC shall be placed into processing if they have the requisite
work experience in one of the eligible skilled trade
occupations listed in the MI. Ml12 changes
the caps and expands the list of eligible skilled
trade occupations.
54. Both Mls provide that
applicants whose applications do not meet the
criteria described in the MI shall be informed that their application does not qualify and their processing fees shall be returned.
55. Both Mis also specify
that language reSults,
from a designated organiz.ation, must be less
than two years
old.
2)
Substituted evaluation
56. Subsection 87.2(4)
of the IRPR provides that íf the requirements ·set out in s. 87.2(3) of the IRPR, whether or not they are me are not sufficient
indicators of whether the applicant
will become economically established in Canada, an officer may substitute their evaluation for the requirements, provided that another
officer concurs..This process is commonly referred to as ''substituted evaluation".
57.
Substituted evaluation is not a "free floating" or "stand alone" irnmigration class. Substituted evaluation comes into play upon an FSTC application having been found eligible
for processing. An application that is eligible
for processing has been reviewed for completeness
(verified that a!!the required forros have been filled out and signed, the proper fees paid, and the
necessary docwnents provided), and assessed against
the applicable Mls.
58.
lf an FSTC application has been found eligible for processing
but 'is subsequently foUDd to have faíled to eet any one of the regulatory requirements,
the officer may consider the use of substituted evaluation if circumstances warrant. Toe fact that an FSTC applicant
may have almost met the FSTC requirements--which the
Defendants expressly deny occurred
with respect to any of the Plaintiffs--is not, in itself, a
sufficient basis for substituted evaluation. Nor is substituted evaluation
interchangeable with humanitarian and
compassionate grounds considerations.
59.
In this case, since none of
the Plaintiffs' applications were found to be eligible for processing,
none were eligible for substituted evaluation. As noted previously, most of the Plaintiffs
had submitted incomplete applications (lack of supporting documents, expired language
test results, no language test results at ali) or had
failed to meet lhe applicable Mls.
60.
ln.complete applications are returned to applicants. CIC does not keep a record or create a file lllltil a complete
application has been made.
G.
ALLEGATION
5: PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THAT THE DEFENDANTS' CONDUCT AMOUNTS
TO BREACH OF STATUTE, PUBLIC
MISFEASANCE AND ABUSE AND EXCESS
OF JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY, ABUSE OF PROCESS, BAD FAITH, AND BREACH OF SECTIONS 7 AND 15 OF THE
CHARTER
61.
Toe Defendants deny the torts
and breaches aiieged by the Plaintiffs in their Statement of Claim.
62.
Breach of statute is not a cause of action in
Canadian law. ln aI)y event, the
Defendants
deny that their actions were inbreach of lhe IRPA or lhe IRPR.
63.
The Defendants deny that their conduct was based on an unreasonable or incorrect
interpretation of the IRPA or the IRPR.
64.
Toe Defendants deny that
the Mls are
outside their administrative authority or jurisdiction, or that they are ultra vires.
65.
The Defendants deny that they
knowingly and intentionally acted contrary to
their statutory authority.
66.
Toe Defendants state that rnaking
a reasonable minimal
threshold of basic language proficiency is a public
policy decision and exempt from tort liability.
67.
The Defendants deny that they engaged in
discriminatory, preferential or favourable treatrnent of
English-speaking applicants inthe administration of the FSTP.
68.
The Defendants deny that they engaged in
misfeasance of public Office. ln
particular, the Defendants deny
that they engaged
in any deliberate unlawful or wrongful conduct and that they were aware that such conduct was unlawful
and intended or Iikely to hann the
.
Plaintiffs.
The Defendants further deny
that any of the Plaintiffs suffered harrn as a result
of the
actions of the Defendants.
69.
Toe Defendants deny
that they exercised theír power or authori maliciously, and deny that they
committed any wrongful or unlawful. acts in exercising their power or authority.
70.
The Defendants deny that they at any time acted in bad
faith or for any improper purpose.
The Defendants state that they honestly believe that their acts are lawful and
done in good faith.
71.
.The Deféndants deny that they engaged in any abuse of process.
ln particular the Defendants deny
that they misused
the process of the courts
to coerce someone
ina way that was outside the ambit of a legal claim upon which the court had been
asked to adjudicate.
72.
Toe Defendants also deny that
their conduct breacbed any of the
Plaintiffs' Charter rights, including the rights protected under sections 7
and 15 of the Charter. More particularly,
the Defeà.dants deny that their actions caused a deprivation of the life,
liberty or
security of the person of any of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants further
deny that their actions resulted- in a distinction between the Plaiiltiffs and
others on the basis of an enumerated or analogous ground or at any such.distinction perpetuated a disadvantage or stereotype.
73.
The Defendants state further
that they carried out their duties in pursuit of the aims of justice, within their jurisdiction, and without malice,
fraud of public
office, or disregard
of the principies of fundamental justice.
74.
Jf the Charter rights of the Plaintiffs were
infiinged, which is not admitted but
expressly denied, then the Defendants' actions
constitute a reasonable limit which is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society
under section 1 of the Charter'.
H.
ALLEGATION 6: PLAINTIFFS
CLAIM THEY ARE ENTITLED TO DAMAGES AND SOLICITOR/CLIENT COSTS
75.
Toe Defendants state that two
of the Plaintiffs (Mr. Figo and Mr. Araujo, with respect to his FSW decision) are
statute-barred from bringing this action, as the negative
FSW decisions were
rndered more than two years
ago. As such,
their claims are out of time and they are not entitled
to any damages or costs.
Toe Defendants plead
and rely on the Limitations Act, 2002
S.O. 2002, e. 24, s 4, and the Crown Liability and
Proceedings Act, RSC 1985, e C-50, s
32.
76.
Toe Defendants deny that
the Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result
of the
Defendants' admínistration of
the FSTP.
77.
ln the altemative, if
the Plaintiffs have suffered
the injuries and damages as alleged, which
is not admitted but denied,
then such injuries and damages were not caused
by the Defendants.
Toe Defendants state that the Plaintiffs' damages resulted from the Plaintiffs'
actions; in particular:
(a)
Not applying under the FSTC
in the first place (Mr. Figo and Mr. Pereira);
(b)
Submitting
test results they knew fell below the minimum language threshold for the FSTC;
(e) Submitting language test
results that had expired (Mr. Myrda, Mr. Araujo
and Mr.
Pedro Silva);
(d) Not
submitting any language test results at ali (Mr. Martins and
Mr. Cordeiro);
(e) Not re-writing the IELTS e:ven
though there is no limit
on the number of times
an applicant can take
the test or a time-period in which an applicant is barred from re-taking the test;
(f) Not taking the CELPIP ifthey
believed the IELTS was "too British";
(g) Not showing
or al!eging that they
took steps to improve their
English language
skills, for
those who obtained unsatisfactory
language test results; and
(h) Not challenging
their negative decísion by filing an
application for leave and for
judicial
review but instead, waiting a number of years before filing this action.
78.
ln the
further altemative, if the Plaintiffs
have suffered the injuries and damages as alleged, whích is not
admitied but denied, then the
Defendants state that there
is no basis for an award of aggravated or exemplary damages.
79.
The
Defendants deny ai! allegations of bad faith, misfeasance of public office, abuse of
process, excess of authority and jurisdiction. Toe Defendants further deny the allegations
that they breached the Charter rights of
the Plaintiffs. Rather, the Defendants state that
their actions were at ali times lawful, taken in good faith and with complete regard for the
Plaintiffs'
rights.
I. CONCLUSION
80.
ln response
to the claim as a whole, the Defendants state that the Plaintiffs' assertions are, in large part, factually incorrect, and
that neither the FSTP nor the Minister engaged
in any of the torts or breaches alléged by the
Plaintiffs.
81.
Toe
Defendants acted at all times in accordance
with the applicable
legislation and policies and for no other or improper purpose.
82.
Toe
Defendants therefore plead that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief sought
and that this action ought to be dismissed with costs.
Comment:
"The Immigration Minister defending himself
against our clients
Attached is
the Immigration Minister’s Statement of Defence against Rocco Galati’s claim on
behalf of our clients.
Rocco is
filing his Reply this week.
This legal
ping pong game is both silly and unnecessary.
The silly
part is that the Minister is making statements before the Federal Court that
are more political spin than legal argument or statement of fact.
I realize
that there is no more immigration policy discussion in Ottawa. I know that
Ottawa is less interested in dialogue than spinning and messaging. But I had no
idea that the Minister treats the Courts with same contempt that he does the
nation and Parliament.
The
unnecessary part is that sooner or later Canadians will realize that Minister Alexander
is deporting taxpaying trades workers.
It took a
dead child on a Turkish beach to expose Alexander for what he is. It`s only a
matter of time before he either loses his job or is exposed for his stupidity
on trades workers.
Chris
Alexander has proven to the nation that he is both values free and a
pathological liar. It’s only a matter of time before Canada accepts that
Alexander is also a national security risk.
The faster Alexander
goes, the sooner Parliament and the Courts will be able to rule on successfully
economically established foreign trade`s workers.
Good
riddance Chris Alexander. Shame on you for leaving political life financially
wealthier than when you walked in the door. By any definition, this would
constitute corrupt behavior. But you had the luck of serving in a government
where the Prime Ministers Chief of Staff pleads the bible to avoid bribery
charges. `
Just go."
Richard Boraks, September 7 2015
