Last updated on April 6th, 2021
Aris Daghighian is a senior associate with Green and Spiegel LLP in Toronto. He represented the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers as intervenors in Brown v. Canada, 2020 FCA 130.
In this episode we discuss the issues raised in the case, including how immigration detention works in Canada, what the disclosure obligations should be on the government in an immigration detention proceeding and whether there should be a maximum time that someone can be held in immigration detention.
On April 1, 2021 the Immigration and Refugee Board issued updated detention guidelines in response to the Brown decision. They stated:
As a result of the FCA decision in Brown and the feedback received through our consultations, the IRB has revised the Guideline in the following ways:
- Clarify that there must be a nexus to an immigration purpose for detention to continue.
- Reinforce the Division’s obligation to consider sections 7, 9 and 12 of the Charter in exercising its discretion concerning whether or not detention is warranted.
- Confirm that consideration of conditions of detention is an extension of the ID’s Charter jurisdiction.
- Reinforce that the Minister has the legal burden to establish that detention is lawfully justified and remains on the Minister throughout the detainee’s period of detention.
- Reinforce that the Division must decide afresh whether continued detention is warranted at each detention review.
- Recognize that there is no obligation on the person concerned to lead fresh evidence between detention reviews for the ID to reach a different result.
- Clarify that the Minister must disclose all relevant information in advance of the hearing and in a timely manner.
Civil forfeiture is a process in which the government seizes assets from persons suspected of involvement with crime without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing. Did you know that in British Columbia the government can seize and forfeit your car if you speed? Or that police can “seize first ask later” for property that is less than $75,000? This was a fascinating look at an area of law that receives little scrutiny, especially in how it can relate to immigration.
Bibhas Vaze is a criminal defence lawyer in Vancouver.
4:45 – An overview of New Can and how it relates to civil forfeiture.
5:30 – What is civil forfeiture?
13:15 – Who has the onus of proving there is a tracing of property to unlawful activity?
16:50 – Can the government seize property that is partially the proceed of crime or that was used to commit unlawful activity?
17:10 – What is unlawful activity in the civil forfeiture context?
19:20 – What is the size of British Columbia’s Civil Forfeiture Office? How much property has it seized since its inception?
20:30 – Do all civil forfeiture cases have to go to trial?
25:10 – When is the property actually seized?
29:00 – What level of connection between the unlawful activity and the property is necessary in order for property to be seized?
32:20 – What is constitutional creep, and how does it play into civil forfeiture?
37:50 – If someone is ordered by a criminal court to pay a fine or restitution, can they they be subject to civil forfeiture,Read more ›
The Supreme Court of Canada in October issued its decision in R v. Tran, a case which Peter litigated. Deanna, Peter and Steve discuss the issues that the Supreme Court addressed in this landmark decision, including whether conditional sentences are terms of imprisonment for the purposes of deportation and retrospectivity in law.
This was the first of two Supreme Court cases that Peter arguedin Ottawa this year. While he was in Ottawa for the second case, he joined Michael Spratt and Emilie Taman, the creators of the Docket, a fantastic podcast about criminal law in Canada. Peter, Emilie and Michael discussed all sorts of issues regarding the intersection of immigration and criminal law, and Peter even explained how he got into practicing immigration law.
Read more ›
Regulation 200(3)(a) provides that an officer shall not issue a work permit to a foreign national if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the foreign national is unable to perform the work sought.
In jurisprudence on applications for skilled worker class permits it has also been held that if the officer has concerns about the veracity of documents, procedural fairness demands that the officer make further inquires. However, an officer is generally not under a duty to inform a skilled worker class permit applicant about his concerns when they arise directly from the requirements of the legislation or regulations. As the Federal Court of Canada noted in Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 484, the same applies in work permit applications.
As the court held in Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 935, because of the legislative requirement that officers not issue work permits to foreign nationals if they believe that the foreign national is unable to perform the work sought, then even if Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s online checklist does not specifically require documents such as diplomas, academic transcripts, or certificates of English proficiency, an officer can refuse an application if they are not provided when requested by an officer.
On the specific issue of language proficiency, officers can expect more than an English language application and cover letter to verify an applicant’s ability to speak and write in English, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that such language skills are necessary to perform the work sought.Read more ›
One of the interesting trends of Canadian immigration during the past five years has been the explosion of India as a source country, the flat-lining of China, and the decline of the Philippines. There has also been a steady increase in immigrants from Brazil, Eritrea, the USA and Nigeria.
Read more ›
There would be perhaps few things as frustrating for the potential employers of foreign workers than to go through the Labour Market Impact Assessment process only to learn that they were not considered to be an employer by the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada.
According to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program manual, an employer is an entity (e.g. person, business, corporation or organization) that makes an offer of employment to one or more foreign nationals who provide labour in return for compensation for a specified period of time. The employer is generally the entity that hires, controls working conditions and remunerates the foreign national.
The Manual further states:
Entities Considered the Employer of a Foreign National under the TFW Program:
A person, business, corporation or organization based in Canada that makes an offer of employment to one or more foreign nationals.
A person, business, corporation or organization that is not based in Canada that makes an offer of employment to one or more foreign nationals to work in Canada. For identification purposes, it is strongly recommended that the foreign-based employer obtain a Canadian business number to facilitate the TFW Program’s assessment of their genuineness.
Group of Employers
In cases where two or more entities are determined to share employer responsibilities by the Department, a group of employers may make an offer of employment to a foreign national.
• All parties handling employer responsibilities relating to the employment of a foreign national (via an LMIA) are considered to be part of a group of employers for the purpose of the TFW Program.
• The Department determines who is able to apply under a Group of Employers,Read more ›
Section 203(3)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations states an assessment provided by the Department of Employment and Social Development (“ESDC”) with respect to the whether the entry of a foreign national is unlikely to have a positive or neutral effect on the labour market in Canada shall be based, in part, on whether the employment of the foreign national is likely to adversely affect the settlement of any labour dispute in progress of the employment of any person involved in the dispute.
ESDC policy is short on this matter, and states that employers should not use the Temporary Foreign Worker Program to circumvent a legal work stoppage or to influence the outcome of a labour dispute.
A labour dispute is defined as occuring when the parties to a collective agreement have reached an impasse in their efforts to enter into, renew or revise a collective agreement and require the intervention of a third party (e.g., government labour officials) to resolve the differences.
It does not include all grievances between a union and employer.
Labour disputes, which often arise during collective agreement/contract negotiation between an employer and a union, may include: work stoppage, strikes, refusal to work, picketing, lockouts, etc. They also arise in situations that are in reaction to working to conditions dictated by legislation such as refusal to perform duties when employees feel that their security might be jeopardized, or different views on issues related to labour standards such as overtime, wages and holidays.
Read more ›
Please note that none of the information on this website should be construed as being legal advice. As well, you should not rely on any of the information contained in this website when determining whether and how to apply to a given program. Canadian immigration law is constantly changing, and the information above may be dated. If you have a question about the contents of this blog, or any question about Canadian immigration law, please contact the Author.
- Business and Entrepreneur Immigrantion
- Citizenship Applications and Revocations
- Family Class (Spousal Sponsorships, Parents & Grandparents)
- Humanitarian and Compassionate
- Immigration and Refugee Board
- Immigration Consultants
- Immigration Trends
- Judicial Reviews
- Labour Market Impact Assessments
- Maintaining Permanent Residency
- Provincial Nominee Programs
- Skilled Immigration (Express Entry, CEC, FSWC, Etc.)
- Study Permits
- Tax and Trusts
- Temporary Resident Visas
- Work Permits