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