On July 15, 2026, new regulations came into force establishing a client compensation fund for CICC licensees. Clients who suffered financial harm can now apply to the College for compensation. The College then acquires subrogation rights against the licensee responsible. The gap visible in decisions like Mittal is now closed. RCIC's financial exposure has changed.
Rishi Mittal had 3,032 immigration clients in a single year. His staff conducted every consultation, gave every piece of advice, and handled every file. His name was on the retainer agreements. He was functionally absent from every one of them. Forty-five complaints reached the College. Four form the basis of this decision. His licence is permanently revoked
A Law Society motions panel has done something most AI commentary in law does not: it explained the mechanism of failure, not just the symptoms. A large language model cannot verify its own output, does not know the limits of its knowledge, and does not know when it is inventing something. The costs were $31,150.
Criminal defense lawyer accepted an informal retainer where communication with a client depended entirely on third parties he could not control. When one link broke four days before trial, everything unravelled. The communication chain was the problem. The adjournment was just the symptom.
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.