Category Archive

This is the second instalment (Part 1 is Episode #105 in this mini-series on Trauma-Informed Lawyering. In this segment, Deanna’s own clinical counsellor, Dr. Deborrah Dunne discusses in more depth: a) vicarious trauma and compassion fatigue; b) the importance of self-care in running a trauma-informed practice; b) strategies for identifying trauma (in yourself and your clients); c) tools on how to “get present,” and ideas for how to help your client get there too Thank you again, Deborrah for all of your precious time!

https://open.acast.com/networks/659f1a800d2a2c0016051d93/shows/659f464c3f69070017409684/episodes/662c4181437bd7001272ab8e   In this episode, we speak with Dr. Sharalyn Jordan (Associate Professor in Counselling Psychology and Equity Studies in Education at Simon Fraser University, and chair of the Rainbow Refugee society in Vancouver BC), and Dr. Deborrah Dunne, clinical counsellor. Our guests take us through a “Trauma 101” style overview of PTSD, C-PTSD and the neurobiology of trauma. We also start in on a discussion of “tips and techniques” for trauma-informed lawyering. Regrettably, we had to lose Dr. Dunne toward the end of the episode (because our discussion went on for too long). Happily, we have undertaken to produce a “part 2” episode with Dr. Dunne’s further thoughts on how to work with traumatized clients. Central to that conversation will be a discussion of how advocates should address their own trauma (including vicarious trauma) to set the stage for “optimal engagement” with their clients. Look out for that episode in the days to come! And please subscribe to our channel and send any comments/questions/suggestions for future consideration.

  Samuel Hyman is a Vancouver lawyer with one of the more well known practices in Canadian customs law. We dive into Canadian customs law for individuals, examining the procedures and rights that Canadians have at the border around the seizure of goods, the imposition of administrative monetary penalties and loss of NEXUS. We discuss the consequences of violating customs regulations and how to challenge CBSA decisions. After, Sam shares his view on why eliminating the distinction between immigration and tax status could unlock significant revenue gains for the government.

Section 16 of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states: 16 (1) A person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires. In other words, all applicants must provide truthful answers throughout the application process and produce all necessary documents and evidence as requested by the officer. Purpose of the Law The primary objective of s. 16(1) of the IRPA is to ensure the integrity and efficiency of the immigration process. By requiring applicants to answer questions truthfully and submit all relevant documents, immigration authorities can accurately assess each individual’s eligibility and admissibility. This law serves multiple essential functions: Verification of Identity and Claims: Truthful answers and relevant documents help verify an applicant’s identity and the authenticity of their claims. This is crucial in determining whether they meet the legal criteria for entering or residing in a country. Security Measures: Ensuring that all provided information is accurate and complete allows immigration officials to perform thorough security checks. Efficient Resource Allocation: When applicants provide complete and honest information, it streamlines the processing of their applications. … Read More

“When and why did Canada develop the legal powers to detain and deport immigrants?” This is the question asked by Simon Wallace, a PhD Student at Osgoode Hall Law School and refugee lawyer, in his paper published in Queen’s Law Journal titled “Police Authority is Necessary”: The Canadian Origins of the Legal Powers to Detain and Deport, 1893 – 1902. Mr. Wallace joins us today to discuss the origins of Canadian deportation law and its initial targeting of Romanian Jewish refugees.

The Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) webstates describes the C-26 work permit as follows: Professional and semi-professional coaches and athletes working for Canadian-based teams Full or part-time paid coaches and trainers, and professional or semi-professional athletes working for Canadian-based teams require work permits. Given the international mobility in this field, they may be eligible for exemption from an LMIA pursuant to paragraph R205(b), C20, if they can prove that reciprocity exists for the particular occupation in their home country. A full-time coach is a worker who earns significant income from coaching—enough to support themselves. A part-time coach earns a significant portion towards supporting themselves in Canada. Professional Canadian teams, for which foreign athletes would require a work permit, include, but are not limited to, those in the National and American Hockey Leagues the Canadian Football League Major League Baseball and its affiliates at the A, AA and AAA levels the National Basketball Association the Canadian Soccer League Major League Soccer IMMReps Q&A

In this episode, we are joined by Gerald Chan, a privacy and criminal defense lawyer from Stockwood’s LLP. We discuss several significant cases and topics within the realm of privacy law and its intersection with Canadian immigration law. Gerald’s paper on text message privacy can be found here. Specific cases include: R. v. Bykovets, 2024 SCC 6 (whether police need warrant to obtain IP address) R v. Marakah, 2017 SCC 59 (whether police need warrant to obtain text messages) R. v. Spencer, 2014 SCC 43 (online anonymity) We also discuss the intersection between privacy law and immigration law, including when CBSA can search electronic devices, and invasive requests for documents. .

Raj Sharma is an immigration lawyer in Calgary. In Borderlines Podcast Episode 69 we discussed his case Mohammad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1, in which the Federal Court quashed an Immigration Appeal Division decision, stating that the IAD did not properly give enough weight to the unique contributions that Ms. Mohammad made as a health care worker during COVID-19, and the debt that was owed to her. The IAD disagreed with the Federal Court, and Raj Sharma sought judicial review again. The case, and today’s episode, provides an insight into how redetermination works, and the degree of deference that visa officers and the IAD need to show the Federal Court.

A. Connie Campbell is a lawyer at Edelmann & Co. We discuss inadmissibility for organized crime and answer a question about whether we think that law societies should screen lawyers for Islamophobia or anti-Palestinian sentiments.