Colin R. Singer Sabotaging immigration cases, delaying immigration cases, bait and switch marketing, signs people up before immigration law changes and bails out with money Montreal Quebec

"We hired Attorney Colin Singer’s services at the end of 2014 to apply for the Canada immigration.  Due to rule changes in January 2015, the initial mandate did not at first succeed and our plans became delayed.  But we accepted the fact that this was outside Mr. Singer’s control.  As we had excellent communications with his office, we had full faith in his advice to the point that we signed a second mandate with his firm.  This decision proved very beneficial to me and my family as this effort led to a coveted invitation to apply as a Federal Skilled Worker.  Mr. Singer’s creativity and insight was no doubt critical in this outcome.  The team at immigration.ca were highly professional and they gave us outstanding services during the past 3-years.

I have also become an avid follower of Mr. Singer’s extensive social media platforms.  This helped us stay informed with the latest developments and the Express Entry program.  It is clear from any objective assessment, that Mr. Singer is an experienced professional as well as a knowledgeable and dedicated individual.

As my profile shows, I am a young, experienced and motivated professional from southern India.  I am glad our research led us to this law firm.  My family and I are excited to be headed to Canada, and we look forward to continue building even stronger ties between India and Canada."

Canadian Immigration Lawyer Colin Singer Wins Landmark Online Libel Ruling Against Anonymous Defendants

The Quebec Superior Court granted a permanent injunction and awarded damages in a first time ruling in the province, against anonymous John Doe online posters.  In its 2017 ruling, the court held that five individual online internet complaints including a November 24, 2014 posting on RipOffReport, were fictitious, unlawful and defamed the reputation of lawyer Colin Singer, a well-known immigration lawyer in Canada.

In some instances, the internet posters chose pseudonyms of Singer’s name (including csinger) to post their false statements about his immigration practices.  The court accepted submissions that the postings in question could not be admitted as legitimate criticisms or expressions of opinions made in good faith, and were far beyond the limits of freedom of speech. 

It was determined their sole objective was to intentionally harm Singer’s well-known reputation.  The court endorsed the established principle that a lawyer’s reputation is of paramount importance and anything that leads to its tarnishing, could be irreparable.

The court heard that since 1994, Mr. Singer conducts his law practice through immigration.ca, a frequent contributor of online written content on immigration matters in Canada, reaching a worldwide clientele.

The practice of instituting proceedings against anonymous defendants known as “John Doe” proceedings, is controversial in many jurisdictions.  A defendant whose name is unknown may be sued, under a fictitious name, in certain circumstances, with special permission of the court.

“I am pleased that my reputation has been vindicated and that we are now in a position to take further measures to try and enforce this strong judgment” said Singer.  It is clear to me that some jealous competitors engage in such unlawful practices.

The full judgment can be read here:

Singer c. Doe

2017 QCCS 3809

SUPERIOR COURT

CANADA

PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

DISTRICT OF

MONTRÉAL

No:

500-17-096214-161

DATE:

July 13th, 2017

_____________________________________________________________________

BY

THE HONOURABLE 

CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.S.C.

_____________________________________________________________________

COLIN R. SINGER

and

CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION RESOURCE CENTER INC.

also doing business as www.immigration.ca

v.

JOHN DOE 1

and

JOHN DOE 2

and

JOHN DOE 3

and

JOHN DOE 4

and

JOHN DOE 5

JUGEMENT RECTIFIÉ

_____________________________________________________________________

[1]           CONSIDERING Plaintiffs Application for Permanent Injunction and for Damages from defamation and the Affidavit for Judgment of Mr. Colin R. Singer;

[2]           CONSIDERING Defendants unknown persons John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John         Doe 3, John Doe 4 and John Doe 5’s failure to appear;

[3]           CONSIDERING the testimony of Plaintiff M. Colin R. Singer;

[4]           CONSIDERING Exhibits P-1 to P-12;

[5]           CONSIDERING Plaintiffs’ representations in fact and in law;

[6]           CONSIDERING the clear defamatory nature of the comments identified in the Application for Permanent Injunction and for Damages from defamation;

[7]           CONSIDERING that for Mr. Colin R. Singer, like for all lawyers, reputation is of paramount importance;

[8]           CONSIDERING that Plaintiffs have proven the allegations of their case;

FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, THE COURT:

[9]           GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Application for Permanent Injunction and for Damages;

[10]        DECLARES the postings made by the following Defendants to be defamatory:

Username

Date

John Doe1

“Colin R. Singer” at complaintsboard.com

November 25, 2014

John Doe 2

“csinger” at ripoffreport.com

November 24, 2014

John Doe 3

“Arife” at complaintsboard.com

June 11, 2015

John Doe 4

“Sufferer3” at complaintsboard.com

August 9, 2015

John Doe 5

“ppanther” at complaintsboard.com

March 4, 2016

JUGEMENT RECTIFIÉ

_____________________________________________________________________

[11]        ORDERS the Defendants to remove or request the removal in writing of their respective aforementioned postings to the administrators of the website where       the posts were made namely www.complaintsboard.com and www.ripoffreport.com as the case may be;

[12]        CONDEMNS each of the Defendants, unknown persons John Doe 1,  John  Doe      2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4 and John Doe 5 to pay to Plaintiffs the sum of 1,500$           each in moral damages and of 1000$ each in punitive damages;

[13]        WITH LEGAL COSTS against Defendants.

__________________________________

CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN J.S.C.

Hearing date:

May 29, 2017

Notice is hereby given to csinger to take delivery at the office of the Superior Court of Quebec in the district of Montreal situated at 1, rue Notre-Dame E., Montreal (Quebec) within thirty (30) days in order to receive the originating application left there in your name.

You must answer the application within the time specified in the summons attached to it, failing which a default judgment may be rendered against you and you may have to pay the legal costs.

The attorneys for the Plaintiffs, Leinhos Lalonde LLP, may be contacted at flalonde@leinhoslalonde.ca.

If you think you were defrauded by Colin Robert Singer, contact his bar association and file a complaint at syndic@barreau.qc.caand greffe.discipline@barreau.qc.ca

The Quebec Bar is very lazy and they don't do anything, but if you are lucky someone competent will pick up your case. In the worst case you can contact the Canadian Bar Association: http://www.cba.org/CBA/Info/main/Contact.aspx

MAJOR VICTORY FOR ONLINE COMPLAINT FORUMS!!!

This a**hole f***ed up a client's case through standard tactics. The client then complained online, and Colin Singer sued the client for $125000. The judge recently came to a verdict: http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=67B8B56452A750FC5A857E81E51CC870

[23]        The Plaintiff may very well be the person behind the Corporation and its website.  But the Plaintiff has sought the protection of having a separate legal person between him and the services offered by CCIRC or perhaps also by his placement agency, Global Recruiters Network, operating unlder another website identified as www.grnmontreal.com.

[24]        The legal barriers between the operation of his businesses, on the one part, and his role as attorney or legal counsel of his client, on the other part, creates an advantage but this advantage comes with certain drawbacks.  If the Plaintiff wishes to benefit from such corporate protection, he must also live with the fact that the Corporation and himself are not the same “person”.

[25]        Consequently, the Plaintiff’s action msut be dismissed.  However, it is not inappropriate to look into what would have been the outcome of this matter had the action been instituted by the proper person.

[28]        I do not consider that the rest of the Defendant’s complaint in P-3 is either libellous, defamatory or otherwise prejudicial.  One may be dissatisfied with the quality or efficiency of services but expressing one’s dissatisfaction is not equivalent to defamation.

[38]        The Plaintiff seeks $100,000.00 in moral damages and $25,000.00 in exemplary damages as a result of the Defendant’s fault.

[39]        This demand is grossly exagerated.  It flirts with frivolity and abuse within the meaning given to these words in Article 54.1 C.C.P.

[42]        At trial, the Plaintiff’s evidence on the extent of the damages suffered and the effect of Defendant’s fault upon him was quasi non-existent.  He claims that he was “very upset and very disturbed”, alleging that his “credibility was on the line”.  His evidence on the extent of the damages allegedly suffered lasted but a few minutes, if that.  The evidence was purely and exclusively sel-serving.  No evidence of monetary loss was submitted and the “moral prejudice” alleged by the Plaintiff was certainly not demonstrated with any sufficient degree of probability to constitute conclusive proof

[50]        While it is true that the Plaintiff is very active in the field of immigration law, I only have his own and very brief testimony to assess the damages.  No other witness has been heard and, of course, no cross-examination was made on the Plaintiff’s testimony.  I find, therefore, that the Plaintiff has not proven his alleged damages and accordingly, I must dismiss his claim for moral damages at the sum of $100,000.00 as well as his claim for exemplary damages at the sum of $25 000,00.

[52]        Finally, there shall be no order as to costs.  The Defendant has not appeared and has incurred no disbursements.

The court also pointed out that Colin Singer only DESCRIBES HIMSELF as one of the leading immigration lawyers

[1]           The Plaintiff is a lawyer, member of the Quebec Bar, practicing in the field of immigration law.  He describes himself as one of the leading immigration counsels in Canada.

Just found out someone on reddit made a big list of complaints about this guy https://www.reddit.com/r/ImmigrationFraud/comments/2n15a9/colin_r_singer_csingerimmigrationca_ccirc_5104999/