Veronica Moye was the only licensed immigration consultant in a commercial operation that spanned Dubai, India, and Vancouver. She signed the retainer agreements. She was the authorized representative on every file. And she did essentially none of the work. When five clients complained to the CICC, her explanation was that she had too many files to supervise personally. The Panel's response was permanent revocation. Delegation is not a defence. It never was.
Many RCICs believe that giving a client portal access fulfills their duty to keep them informed. In reality, this "Portal Trap" often leads to CICC complaints. Under Section 38(2) of the Code, you are strictly liable for staff oversight, and under Section 22(3), you must provide proactive written updates regardless of portal access. Whether through outsourced neglect or assuming the client is monitoring their own file, systemic failures are not a legal defense. Learn the 3 SOPs every licensee needs to protect their license
CICC v Bayegan, 2025 CICC 26 confirms that good character in licensing turns on disclosure, not explanation. The Registrar refused an RCIC licence after finding it probable the applicant engaged in unauthorized practice and failed to disclose outstanding criminal charges in her statutory declaration. On appeal, the Registrar Appeal Committee upheld the refusal, stressing that licensing is a credibility assessment, not a trial on the merits of alleged misconduct or criminal charges. Non-disclosure itself justified refusal. Attempts to introduce new evidence and contextual explanations on appeal were rejected. The appeal was dismissed and $7,500 in costs ordered, reinforcing that statutory declarations are foundational.
CICC v Zaidi (2025 CICC 19) revokes an RCIC’s licence after five complaints revealed job-selling, a falsified Saskatchewan PNP filing, shifting eligibility advice, chronic non-communication, refund failures, and basic governance breaches with agents, retainers, files, and client accounts. The panel treated merely offering to procure employment for a fee as misconduct and condemned fabricated “relative” claims to inflate points. Sanctions include immediate revocation, a two-year bar, restitution of USD $24,290, a $15,000 fine, and $46,740 in costs. The case underscores that competence, candour, and compliant systems are non-negotiable for RCICs.
In CICC v. Sharma-Singh (2025 CICC 21), the Discipline Committee imposed an interim suspension on a consultant facing 13 complaints, including job selling, bounced cheques, and non-cooperation. The Panel stressed that interim suspensions are not about proving misconduct but about protecting the public from risk. Missing retainers, false promises, and ties to “ghost consultants” created serious concerns. The decision confirms that honesty cannot be supervised, refunds after complaints may be interference, and job selling is a red-line violation likely to result in revocation.