Former immigration consultant deemed vexatious litigant

Article content

A judge has declared an Ontario immigration consultant who ran afoul of his regulatory body for professional misconduct a vexatious litigant for launching multiple legal proceedings questioning the signatures of clients who testified against him and his brother.

The College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants took Parvinder Singh Sandhu to Federal Court to stop him from launching more legal challenges against the regulator and to prevent him from following through with others, except with permission from the court.

Article content

“This is not the case of a needy, persistent self-represented litigant who is responsive to court assistance and guidance,” Justice Michael Manson wrote in a recent decision.

“The respondent has demonstrated himself to be an ungovernable litigant: one that flouts court orders and persists in litigation doomed to fail — resurrecting it after it is struck, and then resurrecting it again and again. There is no indication that the respondent is open to or receptive of court orders and guidance. To allow him to continue unregulated will only cause more damage to the court system. The respondent’s ungovernability and harmfulness towards the court and the college justifies a leave-granting process for any new proceedings.”

Parvinder Singh Sandhu and his brother, Devinder Singh Sandhu — the directors of a group of businesses, collectively called the Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Canada Inc. — saw their immigration consultant licences revoked by the college’s discipline committee last April for “using unlicensed employees to provide immigration consulting services and encouraging clients to apply for immigration programs for which they were not qualified and otherwise providing inadequate services,” said the Federal Court decision.

Article content

Article content

They were ordered to refund clients $40,442, pay $10,000 in fines and cover the $152,800 the regulator shelled out for the investigation and litigating the complaints against them.

According to court documents, their company “has more than 20 offices worldwide and approximately 450 employees. Their Canadian offices are headquartered in Mississauga, Ontario.”

Twenty-six complaints were filed against the brothers (13 each) from 2015 to 2022.

“The complaints allege, among other things, that the Sandhus submitted incomplete applications on behalf of clients, failed to provide clients with a receipt and/or statement of account, failed to respond to clients at all or in a timely manner, failed to register affiliated firms with the college, had clients sign multiple retainer agreements with WWICS-affiliated firms, and in some cases, asked clients to withdraw their complaints in exchange for a nominal refund,” Manson said.

Those complaints were consolidated in August of 2022, to be heard in a single session.

“In December 2022, the Sandhus filed a motion to exclude some of the college’s witness evidence forms from evidence … alleging that the signatures on these (witness evidence forms) were not authentic,” Manson said.

Article content

The college dismissed that motion on Feb. 1, 2023, but the legal challenges kept on coming.

“Over the course of a two-year period, (Parvinder Singh Sandhu) has initiated, against the (college), three judicial reviews, two Federal Court actions, an appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal, and multiple motions,” said Manson’s decision.

“Additionally, (Parvinder Singh) Sandhu has sent numerous letters to the Federal Court in relation to his files, alleging, among other things, that the college has misled the court and engaged in fraud and deceit, and that the attorney general and the college are working together to stop him from exposing the criminal violations being done at the college.”

Last August, he filed an application against the “attorney general and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for a (court order), requiring an investigation into his allegations of forgery and fraud against the college,” said the judge.

Article content

“As community property, courts allow unrestricted access by default: anyone with standing can start a proceeding. But those who misuse unrestricted access in a damaging way must be restrained. In this way, courts are no different from other community properties like public parks, libraries, community halls and museums,” Manson said.

“The Federal Courts have finite resources that cannot be squandered. Every moment devoted to a vexatious litigant is a moment unavailable to a deserving litigant. The unrestricted access to courts by those whose access should be restricted affects the access of others who need and deserve it. Inaction on the former damages the latter.”

It’s not “just a zero-sum game where a single vexatious litigant injures a single innocent litigant,” said the judge.

“A single vexatious litigant gobbles up scarce judicial and registry resources, injuring tens or more innocent litigants. The injury shows itself in many ways: to name a few, a reduced ability on the part of the registry to assist well-intentioned but needy self-represented litigants, a reduced ability of the court to manage proceedings needing management, and delays for all litigants in getting hearings, directions, orders, judgments and reasons.”

Article content

Parvinder Singh Sandhu “has continuously sought to relitigate and seek investigation into his assertion that the college and its affiliates have forged signatures,” said the judge, who noted the former immigration consultant’s allegations “regarding the criminal violations of the college, are false.”

He “frivolously and continuously raises these allegations in proceedings and motions where it’s irrelevant to the issues at play,” Manson said.

His “continued and repeated allegations against the college regarding forgery, fraud, tampering with evidence, unethical practices, and ‘serious criminal violations,’ are scandalous, frivolous, and without adequate support.”

Manson declared Parvinder Singh Sandhu “a vexatious litigant and (ordered that he) may not commence any proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave to do so. Any proceedings now before this court are stayed and may not be continued without leave.”

The judge also ordered the former immigration consultant to pick up the $10,822 tab to cover the regulator’s costs in the vexatious litigant application.

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Article content