Here are the recent Tribunal Actions by the College. Visit the Disciplinary Proceedings and Tribunal page to view the full decisions.
• Denis Korobov, of CWR Immigration Consulting, in Vancouver, British Columbia, brought a motion to sever two discipline proceedings involving a second licensee. The RCIC submits that the allegations, factual issues, evidence and witnesses relating to their matter are different from those relating to the second RCIC and holding separate hearings would better promote fairness, efficiency and the independent assessment of the evidence against both RCICs. The College opposed the motion and argued that consolidating the proceedings is the most efficient, proportionate and fair means to adjudicate the complaints as it will enhance procedural efficiency, minimize the risks of the Discipline Committee making conflicting findings of fact, law or policy and reduce litigation costs for all parties. The committee dismissed the motion and determined the consolidation of these matters is the most efficient, proportionate and fair means to adjudicate the complaints and these matters will proceed together to a hearing.
• Sufian Ahmed, of Zohfar Canada, in Mississauga, Ontario, brought a motion to stay the proceedings due to a lengthy delay in the College’s investigation into the criminal charges and conviction. The RCIC requested that if the stay is not granted, the delay be considered a significant mitigating factor in the determination of their penalty at the Discipline Hearing. Finally, the RCIC asked for an order requiring the College to produce certain documents relating to their exchange of information with the College between 2016 and 2018. The committee dismissed the motion as the RCIC failed to establish that the delay in this matter constituted an abuse of process. The Discipline Committee hearing the parties’ penalty submissions will determine the impact, if any, of the delay on the outcome of the proceeding. Finally, the committee found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that further disclosure by the College was warranted. Costs to be determined by the hearing panel considering the merits of this matter.