Robert Tibbo is a Canadian lawyer based in Hong Kong, where he has an active human rights and refugee law practice. He has served as counsel in many notable cases, including Edward Snowden, a former contractor for the United States government who copied and leaked classified information from the National Security Agency in 2013.
Peter and Robert discuss what it is like to practice refugee law in Hong Kong and about Robert’s representation of Edward Snowden, which at one point included arranging for Mr. Snowden to stay with other asylum claimants in Hong Kong to avoid being detected by the authorities.
2:00 – What was Robert’s career path that led him to become a human rights lawyer in Hong Kong?
7:12 – What are the primary source countries of people who are coming into Hong Kong to make refugee claims?
9:00 – What is the asylum claim process like in Hong Kong?
17:20 – What does everyday life look like for an asylum claimant in Hong Kong?
26:30 – How did Mr. Tibbo come to represent Edward Snowden?
34:00 – What was Mr. Tibbo’s legal strategy for Edward Snowden?
38:00 – What was the legal context in which Mr. Tibbo helped Edward Snowden evade detection?
42:00 – Did Mr. Tibbo have any ethical concerns when Edward Snowden was “housed” with a few of his other asylum claimant clients?
50:30 –What is the current status of the seven asylum claimants who housed Edward Snowden?
55:20 – What was the final legal status for Edward Snowden in terms of his status in Hong Kong?
Read more ›
The Government of Canada, as well as several provincial governments, have introduced several measures to protect temporary foreign workers and maintain the integrity of Canada’s foreign worker programs.
Meera Thakrar is a Canadian immigration lawyer whose practices focus on helping companies recruit and retain foreign workers.
Meera joins Peter Edelmann, Deanna Okun-Nachoff and Steven Meurrens to discuss various measures that different levels of government have introduced to protect foreign workers, challenges do governments face in this task and how employer compliance inspections work.
2:15 – Deanna discusses vulnerabilities that caregivers face. These include nonpayment of wages, excessive hours and more. What aggravates the situation is that because caregivers typically seek permanent residency and reporting abuse could potentially jeapordize this.
4:30 – What are some of the motivations of caregiver employers who exploit their foreign workers? What are some possible solutions to reduce the vulnerability of caregivers?
10:20 – Do what extent does the caregiver program deflate Canadian wages? To what extent does the fact that foreign workers provide cheap labour, making goods and services affordable, create a disincentive to stricter enforcement of foreign worker rights.
12:20 – An overview of how the government’s enforcement of compliance in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and the International Mobility Program works.
14:55 – Canada and British Columbia have an agreement whereby foreign workers who have been exploited can get a six month open work permit. How is this working out? What about the new British Columbia law to protect vulnerable foreign workers? How likely is that to succeed?
25:30 – Peter summarizes a criminal case that he had recently in which a trucking company was charged criminally for paying foreign workers by the mile instead of by the hour.Read more ›
The Temporary Foreign Worker Program, also known as the Labour Market Impact Assessment, is the main program through which Canadian companies hire temporary foreign workers.
Kyle Hyndman and Meera Thakrar are both Canadian immigration lawyers whose practices focus on helping companies recruit and retain foreign workers.
We discuss numerous aspects of obtaining Labour Market Impact Assessments, including prevailing wage, recruitment, transition plans, processing times, job match, the Global Talent Stream and the Owner – Operator LMIA.
3:00 – What are the first questions or things that Kyle and Meera tell Canadian employers that want to apply for Labour Market Impact Assessments?
3:57 – What is the difference between the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and the International Mobility Program?
8:00 – Why are companies generally reluctant to obtain Labour Market Impact Assessments?
8:20 – What are the recruitment requirements for a Labour Market Impact Assessment?
12:50 – What is Job Match?
19:00 – What do companies have to show and demonstrate through the recruitment process?
23:20 – What is the wage requirement for a LMIA? What is the prevailing wage?
25:00 – Do employers hire foreign workers to undercut Canadian wages?
26:30 – Can employers of foreign workers offer raises or bonuses?
30:00 – What are Transition Plans in High Wage LMIA applications?
36:00 – How does the Low Wage cap work?
37:00 – How does an employer show they can afford to pay the foreign worker?
39:00 – Can recruitment have a language requirement?
41:00 – What is an Owner Operator Labour Market Impact Assessment?
42:15 – What is the Global Talent Stream?
47:25 – How long do LMIAs take to process?Read more ›
Marshall Rothstein served as a Justice on the Supreme Court of Canada from 2006 – 2015. He previously was a Judge on the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal.
Garth Barriere is a criminal defence attorney in Vancouver. He was counsel in Khosa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration, a major Supreme Court of Canada immigration decision in which Justice Rothstein wrote a concurring opinion.
In this episode Justice Rothstein provides tips for written and oral advocacy. While the focus is on appellate litigation, anyone interesting in strengthening their advocacy skills will benefit from what he has to say. We also discuss the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Khosa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), and its impact on administrative law in Canada. It is a frank conversation.
9:00 – What it was like for Justice Rothstein when he was appointed to the Federal Court of Canada and to adjudicate cases on which he had no previous experience?
12:30 – How was it different being on the Federal Court vs. the Federal Court of Appeal vs. the Supreme Court of Canada?
14:20 – What strategies or approaches would Justice Rothstein suggest for counsel appearing at the appellate level instead of at the trial division?
18:23 – What is the most important thing to remember in written advocacy? What is “point-first writing?” A helpful piece to read on this can be found here. http://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/ps/speeches/forget.htm
21:10 – What tips does Justice Rothstein have for oral advocacy at the Supreme Court of Canada?
31:30 – What makes a good factum? Does Justice Rothstein believe that the IP bar produces the best factums?
36:20 – What was the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v.Read more ›
Office of the Children’s Lawyer v. Balev is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine what the test should be for determining where to return a child under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention).
Ari Wormeli is a lawyer at YLAW Group, a prominent Vancouver family law firm.
We discuss the Supreme Court decision, and Ari discusses what it is like being a family law lawyer, what he thinks is the number one indicator of whether a marriage will end in divorce and whether he has ever felt threatened by an opposing party.
1:00 – The facts of the case. A couple is married in Ontario. They move to Germany in 2001 where their two children are born. They struggle with school in Germany so the father gave his time‑limited consent for the children to move to Canada with the mother for the 2013‑14 school year. The children attended school in Ontario where they resided with the mother and their grandparents. Because he suspected that the mother would not return the children to Germany at the end of the school year, the father purported to revoke his consent, resumed custody proceedings in Germany, and brought an action under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Hague Convention”) for an order that the children be returned to Germany.
2:53 – What is the Hague Act?
4:11 – How often do interjurisdictional
5:10 – The Hague Convention says that children have to be returned to the country where they are habitually resident, without defining residency. How do you determine what a child’s residence is?Read more ›
West Fraser Mills Ltd. v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal)is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine whether it should overturn the WCAT’s decision to expand the duty of employers to ensure that their operations are planned and conducted in accordance with safe work practices to owners. The case provides a useful context to explore the topic of “standard of review,” which is extremely divisive in Canadian jurisprudence.
Robert Danay is a lawyer with Canada’s Department of Justice who has a passion for this topic, and has researched every Supreme Court of Canada decision on the issue going back twenty years. He can be found on Twitter at @RobertDanay.
3:10 – An overview of the facts.
6:00 – What got Robert Denay into administrative law and an interest in the “standard of review.”
10:00 – What is an administrative tribunal?
11:30 – What is judicial review?
12:10 – What is standard of review?
16:50 – In the reasonableness standard, who determines what is reasonable?
18:10 – What is the trend in standard of review jurisprudence in terms of the amount of deference that should be shown to administrative tribunals?
22:30 – The Supreme Court has announced that it is looking to revisit the standard of review. What is the background of this, and what are some likely outcomes?
24:30 – What was the result of Westcoast ?
43:00 – What is Justice Rowe’s concern regarding whether administrative tribunals have an expertise in statutory interpretation? Should all administrative tribunals get the same deference?
46:00 – Why has standard of review been so challenging for the courts to develop a doctrine on?Read more ›
Darryl Larson practiced immigration law in Vancouver, British Columbia for almost thirty years. He was a former Chair of the Canadian Bar Association of British Columbia’s Immigration Section, counsel to both individuals and corporations, at one point represented China’s most wanted fugitive, and successfully implemented a succession plan when he retired in 2018.
In this episode Peter, Steven, Deanna and Darryl discuss Darryl’s career as an immigration lawyer in a candid discussion about what practicing immigration law is like.
00:51 – Why did Darryl get into immigration law? (Darryl’s answer really becomes a tale of his move from Edmonton to Vancouver).
8:20 – Who were Darryl’s initial clients? How did Darryl get his initial clients?
11:15 – What was practicing immigration law like in the 1990s compared to what it’s like now? Was the introduction of the IRPA really that big a game changer?
18:15 – What steps did Darryl take to become an expert in the area of immigration?
20:00 – How did Darryl go from practicing mainly immigration enforcement to developing a corporate immigration practice?
22:30 – What were some of Darryl’s most memorable cases?
37:45 – How did some of those cases change Darryl’s perspective on being an immigration lawyer.
41:00 – What did the last ten years of Darryl’s practice look like? How did succession planning work?
43:00 – What would Darryl say to people looking to enter the immigration field?
44:00 – Did Darryl encourage his kids to go to law school?
44:55 – Where does Darryl see the profession going in the next 4-5 years?
48:50 – What things does Darryl think he did right? What things would Darryl have done differently?Read more ›
Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine whether a commercial garage owed a duty of care to a teenager who had broken into the garage and stole a car. The teenager was injured after the car was involved in a crash. He sued the commercial garage for negligence.
Saro Turner is a Partner at Slater Vecchio LLP, a prominent Vancouver personal injury law firm. He can be found at @saroturner online.
We discuss the Supreme Court decision, and Saro describes the four elements of a negligence lawsuit – the duty of care, the standard of care, causation and damages. It is Tort Law 101! Saro also tells people who have suffered losses what they should look for when choosing a personal injury lawyer.
1:20 – An overview of the facts of the case. In brief, two drunk teenagers steal a car from a commercial garage. There is a car crash. One of the boys suffers a brain injury. He sues the garage.
2:41 – When you’re making out a claim of negligence what does the plaintiff have to establish? In brief, you have to establish a duty of care, a standard of care, causation and damages.
5:45 – What is a duty of care?
13:20 – What is a standard of care?
16:51 – What is causation?
19:45 – What are damages?
24:40 – What things should someone look for in a personal injury lawyer? If someone has been injured, how should they select their lawyer?
Read more ›
Last updated on May 18th, 2018
R v. Alex. is a 2017 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine whether the Crown needed to prove that a police officer’s request that an individual blow into an approved screening device was reasonable before it could admit the results of the breathalyzer without having to call a toxicologist and a technician as a witness.
1:20 – An overview of the facts of the case in R v. Alex. A person is pulled over during a seatbelt check in Penticton, British Columbia. A police officer notices that he smelled an odour of liquor as he approached the vehicle and there was an open beer can on the floor near the passenger side. The driver, Mr. Alex, had “red cheeks” and “watery eyes.” There was nothing else to suggest that the person was impaired. The driver had no difficulty parking the car and no difficulty exiting the vehicle. The police officer did not take any notes about why he thought Mr. Alex was drunk, but says that he wouldn’t have pulled him over if he did not think he had a reasonable suspicion. The police officer requires that Mr. Alex use an approved screening device which he fails, which is almost double the legal limit of 0.08. He then takes him to a police station where his breath samples registered .140 and .130 mg of alcohol, which is almost double the legal limit.
1:34 – Introduction to who Kyla Lee is.Read more ›
Gordon Maynard is a Vancouver based lawyer who practices exclusively in Canadian immigration law. He is a past Chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s Immigration Section.
In this episode we discuss the biggest immigration scam in Vancouver’s history, which is still unfolding. Xun (Sunny) Wang was a ghost consultant who is estimated to have made $10 million by filing fraudulent immigration applications for clients of his two firms, New Can Consulting and Well Long Enterprises. Mr. Wang, who is currently serving an eight year jail sentence, and his staff, apparently put fake passport stamps in peoples’ passports in order to lie about having spent sufficient time in Canada to qualify for various immigration programs. The Canada Border Services Agency is now endeavouring through what the Department is calling Project New Can to remove over 1,500 former clients of his for having committed misrepresentation to obtain Canadian permanent residency and/or maintain it. All of the lawyers involved in this podcast have and are representing some of his clients in these removal proceedings.
1:39 – Gordon provides an overview of the timeline involved in Sunny Wang’s alleged fraud.
7:50 – What constitutes misrepresentation in Canadian immigration applications?
10:30 – We discuss some of the mechanics of what Sunny Wang is alleged to have done.
12:00 – Many New Can clients are saying that they signed blank forms and did not know that the applications were fake. Is this a defence to misrepresentation in Canadian immigration law? Plus Steven reads a summary of what a typical Project New Can procedural fairness letter or allegation looks like.
19:30 – What is the process for having a permanent resident or a foreign national removed from Canada for misrepresentation?
23:00 – What sorts of misrepresentations can actually lead to removal from Canada?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