| Edmonton, AB | TBA | CD.2024.770183 | The RCIC failed to provide competent and diligent services to the client. The client was informed they were eligible to apply for permanent residency through a Temporary Public Policy stream. This advice was incorrect. An employee RCIC had previously informed the client that they were ineligible for permanent residency because their institution was not PGWP-eligible. The Respondent’s firm pursued an application under the Temporary Public Policy, which was ultimately refused. The RCIC’s failure to properly supervise staff contributed an error. The client's dealings were primarily with employees rather than the RCIC themself, even though the RCIC signed the service agreement. The file was reassigned multiple times among staff, which resulted in recurring mistakes, miscommunication, and neglect, including the above error resulting in the refusal of the client's permanent residence application. The RCIC breached their obligations of integrity, professionalism, and good faith in their dealings with the client. Despite an admission of error by their staff member, employee RCIC and the RCIC continued to deny wrongdoing. The RCIC also failed to refund the retainer funds and raised their voice at the client during a meeting, demonstrating a lack of professionalism and accountability. The RCIC engaged in improper refund practices. The service agreement contained restrictive refund provisions that permitted refunds only in cases of error or omission by the RCIC or their staff and imposed a $500 cancellation fee if the client terminated the agreement. Such terms are in breach of the Retainer Agreement Regulation and other applicable provisions. The RCIC further failed to comply with the Retainer Agreement Regulation and the Client Account Regulation, which require retainer funds to be deposited in a client account and prohibit withdrawals before services are rendered. Despite submitting the client's application under the wrong stream, resulting in its refusal, they still failed to return the retainer funds. | |
| Edmonton, AB | TBA | CD.2024.711406-3 | The RCIC breached the Retainer Agreement Regulation, specifically in relation to the refund provisions contained in the service agreement. The RCIC signed a service agreement that contained a restrictive refund policy, permitting refunds only in cases of error or omission by the RCIC or staff and requiring a $500 cancellation fee if terminated by the client. The RCIC and the ICCRC resolved three prior complaints through the Voluntary Resolution Program (VRP). The settlement agreement identified concerns, including: the Respondent’s “Refund Policy” in their service agreements. The Respondent failed to address concerns identified as part of the VRP, including the restrictive “Refund Policy” in their service agreements. The RCIC failed to comply with the Retainer Agreement Regulation and the Client Account Regulation, which require retainer funds to be deposited in a client account and prohibit withdrawals before services are rendered. The RCIC submitted a visitor restoration application on behalf of the client but did not submit the work permit application. The RCIC refused to refund the retainer funds, or even part of the retainer funds. The RCIC also failed to provide an accounting showing services provided and total billing of services. The RCIC failed to provide the client with an initial retainer agreement for the consultation and, later, accepted retainer funds before executing the retainer agreement. The RCIC acknowledged that the initial retainer “was unfortunately missed. | |
| Edmonton, AB | TBA | CD.2022.591 | The RCIC failed to provide competent and diligent services to the client. The client's work permit extension application was not submitted before it expired but instead an incorrect application pursuing visitor status restoration was submitted resulting in the client loosing their status. Despite an admission of error a staff member; the RCIC denied any wrongdoing. The RCIC also attempted to condition the provision of a refund on the client signing a document waiving their right to file a complaint or pursue legal action. When the licent refused, the RCIC argued with him and refused to refund the retainer fees. "The RCIC failed to properly supervise their staff members. The client dealt almost exclusively with the RCIC's employees rather than with the RCIC and despite the RCIC having signed the retainer agreement. The repeated reassignment of the client's file contributed to errors, miscommunication, and neglect, including the mishandling of their work permit and restoration applications, which ultimately caused the client to lose legal status and the ability to work. The RCIC engaged in improper refund practices. The RCIC conditioned the issuance of any refund on the client's execution of a full release waiving all complaint and legal rights, while continuing to deny wrongdoing despite the staff’s admission of error. The service agreement itself restricted refunds solely to cases of error or omission by the company. Notwithstanding companies' failure to provide the contracted immigration services, the RCIC refused to refund the client's retainer fees. The RCIC and the ICCRC resolved three prior complaints through the Voluntary Resolution Program (VRP). The settlement agreement entered into as part of the VRP identified concerns, including the Respondent’s “Refund Policy” in their service agreements. The Respondent failed to address concerns identified as part of the VRP, including the restrictive “Refund Policy” in their service agreements. The RCIC failed to comply with the Retainer Agreement Regulation and the Client Account Regulation, which require retainer funds to be deposited in a client account and prohibit withdrawals before services are rendered. Despite not providing services, the RCIC refused to refund the retainer money to their client. | |
| Edmonton, AB | TBA | CD.2022.375-1 | The RCIC failed to provide competent and diligent services. The RCIC failed to submit the client's College diploma to IRCC with their permanent residence application, leading to the refusal of the application. The RCIC breached their obligations of integrity, professionalism, and good faith. Despite knowing the client's diploma was not submitted, the RCIC denied any wrongdoing and falsely informed the client that the refusal resulted from an unclear copy of the diploma. This explanation was contradicted by IRCC’s refusal letter and the RCIC later acknowledged, in response to this complaint, that they knew the diploma had not been submitted. When the client requested a refund, the RCIC argued with them and refused to refund the retainer fees. The RCIC was unprofessional and dismissive in their communications with the client. The RCIC failed to properly supervise their staff. The client dealt almost exclusively with the company employees rather than the RCIC themself, despite the RCIC having signed the service agreement. The constant reassignment of the file and the lack of direct oversight contributed to repeated errors, miscommunication, and neglect. The PR application was reviewed and uploaded not by the RCIC, but by staff. Emails show an employee RCIC made amendments and directed unlicensed staff member, to upload the application. The omission of the diploma, leading to the refusal of the application, is therefore attributable to unsupervised and unauthorized practice. The RCIC further engaged in improper refund practices. The service agreement restricted refunds solely to cases of error or omission. The RCIC also accepted retainer funds before providing any services and did not provide invoices after services were rendered or an accounting of services provided. The required required immigration services were not provided and the RCIC refused to refund the ciient's retainer fees. The RCIC failed to comply with the Retainer Agreement Regulation and the Client Account Regulation, which require retainer funds to be deposited in a client account and prohibit withdrawals before services are rendered. The RCIC issued a receipt one day before the retainer agreement was signed and before any services had been provided. The RCIC refused to return the retainer money to the client. | |
| Edmonton, AB | TBA | CD.2022.200-1 | The RCIC breached their obligations of professionalism and good faith. Despite not providing immigration services under the retainer, they refused to refund any retainer funds to the client and further required a cancellation fee as a condition of terminating the retainer. The RCIC failed to maintain a direct relationship with their client and failed to properly supervise their staff. Despite signing the service agreement, the RCIC never communicated with the client. Several staff members worked on the client’s file, some of whom were not licensed at the relevant time. Those non-licensees provided immigration advice and/or immigration services to the client . The RCIC breached the Retainer Agreement Regulation, specifically in relation to the refund provisions contained in the service agreement. The RCIC signed a service agreement that contained a restrictive refund policy, permitting refunds only in cases of error or omission by the RCIC or staff and requiring a $500 cancellation fee if terminated by the client. The RCIC failed to comply with the Retainer Agreement Regulation and the Client Account Regulation, which require retainer funds to be deposited in a client account and prohibit withdrawals before services are rendered. Despite not providing services, the RCIC refused to refund any retainer funds. The RCIC and the ICCRC resolved three prior complaints through the Voluntary Resolution Program (VRP). The settlement agreement identified concerns, including: the Respondent’s “Refund Policy” in their service agreements. The Respondent failed to address concerns identified as part of the VRP, including the restrictive “Refund Policy” in their service agreements. | |
| Edmonton, AB | TBA | CD.2021.491 | The RCIC breached the Retainer Agreement Regulation, specifically in relation to the refund provisions contained in the service agreement. The RCIC signed a service agreement that contained a restrictive refund policy, permitting refunds only in cases of error or omission by the RCIC or staff and requiring a $500 cancellation fee if terminated by the client. The RCIC and the ICCRC resolved three prior complaints through the Voluntary Resolution Program (VRP). The settlement agreement identified concerns, including: the Respondent’s “Refund Policy” in their service agreements. The Respondent failed to address concerns identified as part of the VRP, including the restrictive “Refund Policy” in their service agreements. | |