Citation: CICC v Zaidi, 2025 CICC 19 (Reasons: May 6, 2025)
Parties: College (Applicant) v. Izhar Ul Hassan Zaidi, R421959 (Respondent; Applewood Immigration & Settlement Services)
Hearing: Written hearing (July 2024–April 2025). Respondent denied Requests to Admit, offered minimal participation, filed bankruptcy notice late in process.
Result: Licence revoked; 2-year re-application bar; restitution, fine, and costs ordered
TL;DR (for busy readers)
Zaidi’s licence was revoked after the panel found (1) three instances of job-selling (including a paid USD $15,000 deposit), (2) false Saskatchewan PNP filing plus a proposed paid “relative” stand-in, (3) misleading/incorrect eligibility advice (including telling one client they were ineligible when they were), (4) failure to provide services, (5) chronic non-communication (blocked calls, hidden refusal letter), (6) refund failures, and (7) regulatory breaches (file management, unregistered agents, retainers, client accounts). Offshore “satellite offices” did not dilute College obligations.
The Case in Plain Terms
1) Job-selling (three files)
- Quotes of USD $20,000–$30,000 to arrange employment/LMIA pathways; one client paid USD $15,000.
- Panel holds that “holding out” or offering job-selling is itself misconduct—even if no job is obtained or the client declines.
2) Falsified filings (MB)
- Respondent submitted an Expression of Interest to Saskatchewan PNP falsely claiming the client had a provincial relative, then proposed a paid stand-in “relative.”
- Panel treats this as a serious honesty/candour breach and conduct unbecoming.
3) Misleading/erroneous advice (four files)
- Shifting or incorrect guidance on IELTS/eligibility; in one case, client actually qualified when told they did not.
- Findings under duty of competence, good faith, and quality of service.
4) Service, communications, refunds
- Failure to apply as instructed (e.g., “all available PNPs”).
- Silence/blocked calls; refusal letter concealed for years.
- Refund failures in four files (unearned fees not returned).
5) Regulatory compliance breaches
- Client File Management Regulation: incomplete/missing files, poor storage.
- Agents Regulation: unregistered “agents” in satellite offices (Pakistan/Middle East).
- Retainer Agreement Regulation: missing retainer (MF).
- Client Account Regulation: non-compliant/missing client accounts.
Sanctions at a Glance
- Revocation: Immediate (May 6, 2025).
- Re-application bar: 2 years (to May 6, 2027), contingent on paying all amounts.
- Restitution (USD $24,290) by Nov 6, 2025
- MF: USD $17,000 (includes USD $15,000 job-selling deposit + USD $2,000 service fee)
- SA: USD $2,000
- AR: USD $2,000
- ZM: USD $3,290
- Fine: $15,000 by Nov 6, 2025
- Costs: $46,740 by Feb 6, 2026
- Return certificate/ID + client notifications within 15 days (by May 21, 2025), with statutory declarations per order.
Key point: Bankruptcy did not shield against revocation, restitution, fines, or costs.
Why This Decision Matters (Takeaways for RCICs)
- Job-selling is a bright-line breach
Even offering to procure jobs for a fee crosses the line. RCIC licensure is not a recruitment licence. - Falsification invites revocation
Inflating points with fabricated “relatives” (or proposing paid stand-ins) is aggravated misconduct. - Competence is dynamic
Eligibility advice must track current draw thresholds and program criteria. Guesswork or shifting explanations undermine competence. - Offshore operations ≠ compliance bypass
Foreign “agents” and satellite offices still trigger registration, retainer, file, and client-account rules. - Communication duties are substantive
Blocking clients, vague “trying my best” updates, or withholding refusal letters are serious quality-of-service failures—especially where timing affects program eligibility.
Questions & Answers
Does merely offering to arrange a job for a fee count as job-selling?
Yes. “Holding out” is enough, even if no money changes hands or no job is delivered.
Can I rely on overseas “agents” without registering them with the College?
No. You need an agency agreement and proper College registration before they interact with prospects/clients.
How serious is “tuning” a PNP profile with a friendly “relative”?
It’s falsification and conduct unbecoming. Expect severe sanctions.
If the client later qualifies, does earlier improper advice still matter?
Yes. Incorrect or improper advice breaches competence and quality-of-service duties regardless of eventual eligibility.
I don’t have full files because a satellite office closed. Is that a defence to CICC allegations?
No. You remain responsible for safe storage and complete records under the Client File Management Regulation.
Can bankruptcy reduce fines or restitution sought by CICC?
In this case, insolvency did not blunt revocation, restitution, fine, or costs orders.
For RCICs Facing a CICC Complaint or Hearing
I defend RCICs before the College on regulatory files. I focus on early risk containment, document remediation, and strategic positioning to protect your licence and livelihood.
This commentary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Contact Tamir Litigation Law Firm today at 416-499-1676 or visit tamirlitigation.com to learn how you can protect your licence and your reputation. You can also message us on WhatsApp for a free initial chat.