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
Leaving Canada by the end of Authorized Stay
How can temporary foreign workers show that they will leave Canada at the end of their work permit?
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 ...
Understanding Judicial Review
When a visa application has been refused and an applicant is convinced that the decision is unreasonable then it may be advisable to file an Application for Leave to Commence Judicial Review with the Federal Court of Canada (the "Federal Court" or the "Court"). The Federal Court has the jurisdiction to review the decisions of visa officers. The Court will determine whether an immigration officer committed any reviewable errors that should result in the decision being set aside. Reviewable errors include errors of fact, law, or breaches of procedural fairness. If an applicant succeeds in Federal Court, then the Court will order that the immigration officer’s decision be set aside, and typically that the application be reconsidered by a different officer. Usually, a successful judicial review will ultimately result in a positive decision from the second visa officer. However, this is not always the case. Furthermore, as the Federal Court of Appeal determined in Lee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2004 FCA 143, there is no obligation on the second immigration officer to specifically refer to the order of the Court in the judicial review and provide reasons as to how and why the second decision differs from the ...
