Practicing Exclusively in Canadian Immigration Law
Learn More
Who we are
Steven Meurrens is a Partner at Larlee Rosenberg, a highly regarded law firm in Vancouver, British Columbia that practices exclusively in Canadian immigration law.
Practice Areas
Our firm practices almost exclusively in Canadian immigration matters, including work permit applications, provincial nominations, skilled worker applications, and more.
Immigration Blog
Francophone Immigration Targets
One of the most misunderstood parts of Canada's Immigration Levels Plan is the government's francophone immigration targets. Every year there are headlines announcing that Canada is increasing or decreasing its commitment to francophone immigration outside Quebec. Those headlines are often followed by commentary suggesting that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada ("IRCC") is either succeeding or failing in meeting its obligations under the Official Languages Act. The reality is considerably more complicated. What Are the Francophone Targets? Canada's francophone immigration targets apply only to French-speaking permanent residents settling outside Quebec. Quebec selects the vast majority of its own economic immigrants and has its own immigration objectives. The federal government's francophone targets are therefore aimed at increasing the proportion of French-speaking newcomers elsewhere in Canada. The targets have increased rapidly over the past several years: 4.4% in 2023 6% in 2024 8.5% in 2025 9.5% in 2026 10% in 2027 12% in 2029 On paper, this appears to represent an ambitious expansion of French-speaking immigration outside Quebec. The Important Distinction: Percentage Versus Absolute Numbers What often gets overlooked is that these targets are expressed as a percentage of overall permanent resident admissions, not as a fixed number of people. This matters because ...
When an Administrative Delay is an Abuse of Process
The subject unreasonable delays often arise in the immigration context. In one case that I was previously involved with, an individual was in Canada for 11-years before the Canada Border Services Agency expressed concerns that he might be inadmissible to Canada for previous involvement in a group accused of terrorism. In another case, an individual who had been in and out of Canada numerous times was suddenly denied entry to Canada because of a criminal conviction that occurred eight years ago. In both cases, the client asked whether the delay amounted to an abuse of process, and if so, what the remedy was. As the Federal Court of Appeal noted in Mahjoub v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FCA 157, the Federal Court of Canada has the jurisdiction to issue a permanent stay of proceedings, and less drastic measures, as a result of an abuse of process. It is less clear whether the Immigration and Refugee Board can issue stays of proceeding for delays. In Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Najafi, 2019 FC 594, Associate Chief Justice Gagné held that it does, but certified the following question: Do the Immigration Division and the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee ...
Arguing Incompetence of Counsel in an Appeal
Many lawyers when they meet with clients often review rejected applications and/or appeals where it is obvious that the individual's previous representative was incompetent. The examples of incompetence range from missed deadlines to ignorance of the law. Some specific examples include: former counsel being told by an Immigration Appeal Division member to "sit down" because they were incompetent; an immigration consultant not knowing the difference between a "conviction" and a "dismissal"; an immigration consultant stating that the "prevailing wage = the wage paid to Canadians at the employer's company"; and a lawyer filing late because "deadlines are policy, not statute." While the previous representative's incompetence may serve as a ground for relief in a judicial review, cases based on incompetence and/or negligence of previous counsel are exceptionally difficult. The Federal Court's March 7, 2014, Procedural Protocol on arguing incompetence of counsel only make these cases more challenging. The Law on Incompetence of Counsel As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in R v. GDB for incompetence/negligence of previous counsel/representative to count as a ground for judicial review, it must be established that (1) previous counsel’s acts or omissions constituted incompetence and (2) that a miscarriage of justice resulted from the incompetence. The Federal ...
