News & Insights

Coordinator, Administration

Discipline Committee Decision            

Licensee

Anupama Madanan Nair, R514381

Company Name/Location

Novus Canada Immigration Services Inc. and National Canada Immigration Services
Surrey, BC

Proceedings

Written Discipline Hearing

Finding

The College and the RCIC filed a Settlement Agreement Application in writing. The RCIC admitted her conduct was in violation of the Code of Professional Ethics and accepted full responsibility for her misconduct. 

The RCIC was retained by the client to file an application for permanent residence with the British Columbia Provincial Nominee Program “BC PNP”.  The client paid the RCIC, however received no retainer agreement. The RCIC completed and submitted the application to BC PNP; however, failed to confirm details of the application with the client before submitting it. She entered incorrect information and did not complete a Use of Representative Form nor register herself as the client’s immigration representative, and failed to provide the client with login details for the BC PNP application portal.

The RCIC created an email account in the client’s name for the purpose of the BC PNP application, without the client’s consent and without providing him with the account information. The client informed the RCIC his current employer had changed and asked the RCIC about updating the BC PNP about the change. The RCIC, however, failed to update the BC PNP program of the change and advised the client he did not require to update the application.

The client informed the RCIC he no longer wanted the RCIC to represent him and requested several times for the RCIC to share the BC PNP application portal login information, including the password. The RCIC failed to respond to the client’s communications and failed to provide the requested information. As a result of the RCIC’s failure to update the BC PNP on the client’s employment status, the client needed to withdraw his application and start a new one.

Outcome

The RCIC is to make restitution to the client in the amount of $500 within 30 days of the date of the Discipline Committee Order; pay a fine to the College in the amount of $1,000 and within 60 days from the date of the Discipline Committee Order and be reprimanded, and the RCIC is to complete the Retainer Agreement and Client File Management PME courses within 12 months of the date of the Discipline Committee Order.

Costs

The RCIC is to pay costs to the College in the amount of $1,000 within 90 days of the date of the Discipline Committee Order.

Discipline Committee Decision

Licensee

Anuraj Sandhu, R418399

Company Name/Location

Canam Consultants Ltd.
Chandigarh, India 

Proceedings

Oral Disciplinary Hearing

Finding

The client hired Canam Consultants Ltd. to assist with a permanent residence application. No retainer agreement was issued. The agency staff uploaded the Express Entry profile using the agency email; however, no Use of Representative Form was completed. The agency submitted the application to the Ontario Immigration Nominee Program (OINP). The client paid additional fees prior to the application being submitted. The client noticed the agency did not disclose itself as the immigration representative on the OINP application and when the client contacted the agency to inquire about that, he received no response.

OINP emailed the client to indicate that several other applicants used the same contact information as his and requested that he respond. The client reached out to the agency who advised him to tell OINP that he received unpaid advice for preparing the application. The client advised the agency that their response was misleading. The client wrote to OINP saying that he retained the agency who had completed the OINP form in that manner. OINP informed the client that the matter would be referred to the Program Integrity Unit for further verification. OINP was concerned that the client had used undeclared representatives and that this was considered misrepresentation.

During the application process, the client received advice, instruction and direction from agents of the agency who were not licensees of the College. The RCIC did not oversee the processing of the client’s application.

The Discipline Panel concluded that the RCIC had breached the following articles and sections of the Code.

2012 Code – Articles/Sections 2.2.8(ii), 2.2.8(iv), 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.5, 6.2, 7.1, 7.3, 7.4.(1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and 7.5. 
2016 Code – Articles/Sections 3.1, 6.3.1, 7.1 and 7.2. 

Outcome

The RCIC is to serve a 3-month Disciplinary Suspension commencing March 31, 2022, and within 3 months, is to take the College Practice Management Education (PME) course on Ethical Practice.

Costs

The RCIC is to pay costs to the College in the amount of $15,520 by June 29, 2022.

Discipline Committee Decision

Licensee

David Weinshtein; R421319

Company Name/Location

Global Network Associates
Markham, ON

Proceedings

Written Disciplinary Hearing

Finding

Outcome

The RCIC is to make restitution to the client in the amount of $2,177.60; pay a fine to the College in the amount of $500 and within 12 months of the date of the Discipline Committee Order, complete the following Practice Management Education (PME) courses: Retainer Agreement and either Client File Management or Client Account.

Costs

The RCIC is to pay costs to the College in the amount of $2,500.

Discipline Committee Decision

Licensee

Hazel Roque, R511671

Company Name/Location

CIC Passages
Toronto, ON

Proceedings

Written Disciplinary Hearing

Finding

The Discipline Hearing dealt with 4 complaints involving the RCIC. 

Complaint # 1 
The panel found that the RCIC who was hired by the client to assist with a permanent resident visa application to Canada had failed to file an application or pay the filing fee to CIC (now IRCC). The RCIC never refunded any unused portion of her fee. The RCIC failed to communicate with her client in a timely way and failed to respond to requests for information and queries about the status of the application.  

Complaint # 2
The panel found the RCIC who was hired by the client’s sister-in-law to assist the client with a study permit (PR) and temporary resident visa (TRV) misappropriated the tuition fees and acted dishonestly and without integrity when she failed to remit the tuition fees back to the client, which she had no legal right to retain as they were being held in trust. The RCIC further failed to refund any unused or unearned fees, failed to adequately communicate with, or respond to, the client and failed to keep her client adequately apprised of information. 

Complaint # 3
The panel found the RCIC who was retained to assist a client with a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) under the Live-In Home Caregiver Program, failed to render the immigration services that she was retained to provide. The RCIC failed to communicate with and respond to numerous inquiries from the client and failed to keep her client adequately apprised of information. 

Complaint # 4
The panel found the RCIC who was retained to assist a client with an application for a study permit and temporary resident visa had suggested to the client the tuition be paid by the client directly to the RCIC and the RCIC would hold the money in trust and in turn pay the school on the client’s behalf. The client was issued a study permit; however, when she arrived at school, she discovered that the RCIC had failed to pay the tuition fees. The RCIC never refunded the client the tuition fees.

The panel considered the totality of the RCIC’s conduct and found that it did not support a finding that the RCIC was ungovernable.

Outcome

The RCIC’s licence was revoked effective March 17, 2022, and a fine imposed, payable to the College in the amount of $20,000 to be paid by May 16, 2022.

Costs

The RCIC is to pay costs in the amount of $18,850 by May 16, 2022.

Discipline Committee Decision

Licensee

Kwang Woo Park, R416999

Company Name/Location

Futurelink Immigration & Education Consulting Services Inc.
Burnaby, BC

Proceedings

Written Disciplinary Hearing

Finding

The College and the RCIC filed a Settlement Agreement Application in writing. The RCIC acknowledged he faced allegations of professional misconduct. However, as he had retired from practice as an immigration consultant, he did not wish to proceed with a hearing in this matter.

The RCIC advised a client to invest in a company and failed to notify the client that the RCIC would receive a commission in exchange for the client’s investment. As a result of this investment, the RCIC received $70,000 in commission.  

Outcome

The RCIC voluntarily consented to a permanent revocation of his College licence effective May 12, 2022.

Costs

N/A

Discipline Committee Decision

Licensee

Nasir Mahmood, R414999

Company Name/Location

IPA International and CFI Canada First Immigration
Toronto, ON

Proceedings

Written Disciplinary Hearing - Settlement

Finding

The parties filed a Settlement Agreement Application in writing. In the Agreed Statement of Facts, the RCIC admitted his conduct was in violation of the Code of Professional Ethics and accepted full responsibility for his misconduct. 

The RCIC entered into a written retainer agreement (“PL agreement”) with a company to act as counsel, applying for a Labour Market Opinion (LMO) for a job offer to hire the complainant. The PL agreement called for total fees of $5000 in respect of the LMO application. If the application was approved, the RCIC would charge an additional $2000 for preparing an application for permanent residence by the complainant on the basis of an approved LMO. An approved job offer was considered as arranged employment in a skilled worker application. The PL agreement called for an initial non-refundable retainer fee of $2,500, and a further $2500. In respect of the further $2500, the agreement states: “following approval from HRSDC $2,500.00 (Non refundable, once applied for LMO. If LMO is refused, an effort to resubmit or alternative options will be explored)”.

The PL agreement was signed by the company, as the client. The company provided the complainant’s name to the RCIC. The RCIC met with the complainant several times and received his resume; however, the RCIC always considered the company as his client while facilitating the hiring of the complainant to work in Canada. The complainant paid $5000 to the RCIC. However, no receipt or invoice was provided by the RCIC.

The RCIC had difficulty getting instructions and particulars from the company. It was decided that the company would apply under the Provincial Nominee Program (“PNP”) of Ontario. A new retainer agreement was not entered into for the change in work, nor was the existing PL agreement amended to reflect the change. The RCIC wrote the complainant that he would try to get the complainant in through the PNP. The RCIC e-mailed the complainant to advise him of the next step in the process, to complete a PNP package. He also asked for payment of the $2000 installment fee for processing the rest of the nomination application and an additional $2000 to pay Ontario’s PNP certificate processing fee. The complainant provided the RCIC with an updated resume and requested that the PNP be redone and that a Pre-screen application be resubmitted for a position that truly reflects his professional skills.

The RCIC admitted to the following:

• Failing to consider a client-consultant relationship exists with a prospective immigrant (“PI”) who has paid fees related to immigration services provided to a prospective employer to facilitate the person’s admission to Canada as a permanent resident is a breach of section 3.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC RPC);

• Not having a written retainer agreement with a PI where an RCIC is also providing immigration services to a prospective employer to facilitate the PI’s admission to Canada is a breach of section 9.1 of the CSIC RPC;

• Representing a PI and a potential employer in providing immigration services that relate to the PI’s admission to Canada, without adequate disclosure to and without the consent of the parties, is a breach of section 6.1 of the CSIC RPC;

• Article 19.3 of the ICCRC Code of Professional Ethics in force and effect from June 2012 up to and including February 2016 (the “ICCRC Code”), states an ICCRC member who was a CSIC member immediately before joining ICCRC is subject to the disciplinary authority of ICCRC for conduct which occurred during the period of CSIC membership which constitutes a breach of the ICCRC Code.  

Outcome

Within 12 months of the order, the RCIC is to:

• Pay restitution in the sum of US$5000 to the complainant;
• Pay a fine to the College in the sum of $2000;
• Complete a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) course on conflicts of interest and client management;
• Complete the Practice Management Education (PME) course Retainer Agreement.

Costs

N/A

Discipline Committee Decision

Licensee

Yan Chi, R509252

Company Name/Location

Golden Pinnacle Consultants Ltd.
Edmonton, AB

Proceedings

Written Disciplinary Hearing

Finding

The Discipline Hearing dealt with 14 complaints involving the RCIC.

In summary, of the 14 complaints against the RCIC, 11 deal with skilled worker applications under the Alberta Immigrant Nominee Program (“AINP”). The AINP complaints are similar in that they all allege that the RCIC and the company (“GP”) acted in a conflict of interest by representing both the complainants (employees) and employers without disclosing their affiliation to the complainants. The RCIC and GP collected job placement fees from the complainants, misrepresented the jobs they presented to the complainants and exploited the complainants at these jobs. The RCIC and GP provided false or misleading advertising information or representation and the RCIC and GP failed in the quality of service they provided to the complainants.

In 2 of the AINP complaints, the RCIC encouraged her clients to invest in one of her businesses. (i.e., purchase shares in the company), placing her clients into companies with whom she is affiliated, to support their AINP applications, then forcing the clients to sell their shares. 

The 3 non-AINP complaints deal with alleged incompetence and a violation of Quebec immigration laws.

The RCIC actively recruited international postgraduate students looking to remain in Canada by promising them jobs with her various companies and guaranteeing them a positive outcome with their permanent resident applications under AINP if they were to retain her services. The RCIC misrepresented the nature of the jobs that she would arrange for them, and once the clients became committed to her, exploited them by way of overwork, underpayments and poor working conditions. The RCIC required some clients to purchase shares in her companies or in companies with which she was affiliated in exchange for immigration services. The RCIC also permitted non-RCICs to provide immigration advice and facilitated misrepresentations on AINP applications. 

The panel found that the RCIC had committed professional misconduct or unbecoming conduct in breaching the following articles of the 2016 Code of Ethics: Article 2.2.3 – Conduct Unbecoming a Member; Article 2.2.9 – Professional Misconduct; Article 3 – Duty of Good Faith; Article 6.1 – Maintenance of Quality Service; Article 6.3 – Responsibility for Agents and Staff; Article 7.1 – Honesty and Candour Required; Article 8.3 – Protection of Confidential Information; Article 9.1 – Prohibition Where Conflict; Article 12.1 – Mandatory Identification; and Article 14.2 – Obligation to Respond to the ICCRC of the 2019 Code of Ethics.

The panel also finds that the RCIC has committed professional misconduct or unbecoming conduct unbecoming in breaching the following articles of the ICCRC By-Laws: Section 27.1 – Required Familiarity and Compliance; Section 31.11 – Additional Authority – Being Ungovernable.  

Outcome

The RCIC’s licence was revoked effective April 12, 2022. The RCIC is to make restitution to all 14 clients totaling the amount of $303,838.84 within 6 months of the date of the Discipline Committee Order and pay the College a fine in the amount of $100,000 within 12 months of the date of the Discipline Committee Order.

Costs

The RCIC is the pay costs to the College in the amount of $98,981.29 within 12 months of the date of the Discipline Committee Order.