Borderlines Podcast #23 – Appellate Advocacy Tips, with Former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Marshall Rothstein

10th Oct 2018 Comments Off on Borderlines Podcast #23 – Appellate Advocacy Tips, with Former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Marshall Rothstein

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 about: Borderlines Podcast #23 – Appellate Advocacy Tips, with Former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Marshall Rothstein  »

Read more ›

Certified Questions After Kanthasamy

1st Apr 2016 Comments Off on Certified Questions After Kanthasamy

Section 74(d) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides that an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal may be made only if, in rendering judgment, the Federal Court certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved and states the question.  Certified questions have traditionally resolved divergent jurisprudence at the Federal Court, and have typically provided certainty on how immigration law is to be interpreted.  However, as a result of recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions, this is changing.

In Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)the Supreme Court of Canada applied the reasonableness standard to answer the following certified question:

When determining a ss. 34(2) application, must the Minister of Public Safety consider any specific factors in assessing whether a foreign national’s presence in Canada would be contrary to the national interest?

The decision to not provide a definite answer caused some confusion at the Federal Court of Appeal, which declared in Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FCA 113, that:

 A decision made under the Act is subject to judicial review only if leave is granted by the Federal Court (subsection 72(1) of the Act). The Federal Court’s decision on the judicial review cannot be appealed unless the Federal Court certifies a serious question of general importance (paragraph 74(d) of the Act). This case, like Agraira has proceeded to this Court on the basis of a certified question from the Federal Court. In this case, as in Agraira, the certified question asks a question that requires an interpretation of a provision of the Act.

This Court has consistently taken the view that where a certified question asks a question of statutory interpretation,

 » Read more about: Certified Questions After Kanthasamy  »

Read more ›

Standard of Review in Refugee Appeal Division Hearings

22nd Aug 2014 Comments Off on Standard of Review in Refugee Appeal Division Hearings

On December 15, 2012, the Refugee Appeal Division (the “RAD“) began considering appeals against decisions from the Refugee Projection Division (the “RPD“) to allow or reject refugee claims.  According to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s website, the steps to a RAD appeal are:

  • Once you receive the written reasons for the decision from the Refugee Protection Division, you have 15 days to file a Notice of Appeal.
  • You have 30 days from the day you received your written reasons for the RPD decision to perfect your appeal by filing an Appellants Record.
  • The Minister may choose to intervene at any point in the appeal.
  • The RAD Member makes a decision on your appeal. In most cases, this decision will be provided to you no later than 90 days after you have perfected your appeal, unless an oral hearing is held.

Almost immediately there was uncertainty over what the role of the RAD was.  The RAD began operating under the assumption that it would review RPD decisions using the reasonableness standard, and its members began stating that the following principles governed its appeals:

  • that deference is owed to RPD findings of fact and questions of mixed law and fact;
  • that deference is owed to the RPD where the issue in a claim is factual;
  • that the role of the RAD was to ensure a fair and efficient adjudication and that refugee protection be granted where appropriate. As such, the RAD can substitute the RPD’s determination with its own;
  • that in some cases the RAD, in order to bring finality to the refugee process,

 » Read more about: Standard of Review in Refugee Appeal Division Hearings  »

Read more ›