Last updated on September 24th, 2020
Last Updated on September 24, 2020 by Steven Meurrens
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 Court has closely followed the above two requirements when determining whether an alleged incompetence is a ground for review. In the frequently cited case of Memari v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), the Federal Court stated that:
…the performance component must be exceptional and the miscarriage of justice component must be manifested in procedural unfairness, the reliability of the trial result having been compromised, or another readily apparent form.
In Galyas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), Justice Russell stated that it is generally recognized that if an applicant wishes to establish a breach of procedural fairness on this ground, he or she must:
a. Provide corroboration by giving notice to former counsel and providing them with an opportunity to respond;
b. Establish that former counsel’s act or omission constituted incompetence without the benefit and wisdom of hindsight; and
c. Establish that the outcome would have been different but for the incompetence.
In the often cited case of Shirwa v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  2 FC 51, the Federal Court explained that there must be sufficient evidence to establish the “exact dimensions of the problem.” Where the incompetence or negligence of an applicant’s representative is sufficiently specific and clearly supported by the evidence, such negligence or incompetence is inherently prejudicial to an applicant. For example, in Kim v. Canada, 2012 FC 687, the Federal Court held that where an officer specifically refers to the lack of evidence, and where the submissions by a consultant are limited, then the failure to submit evidence causes a prejudice to the Applicants amounting to a miscarriage of justice.
Another example where a refusal was set aside based on incompetence occurred in Yang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration Canada), 2019 FC 402. There, an immigration lawyer and the lawyer’s representative did not make the applicant aware of a procedural fairness letter that had been provided, and instead fabricated a response.
Finally, the Federal Court has ruled that in cases where previous counsel did not present any evidence, that absent previous counsel’s participation, this cannot be written off as merely a litigation strategy.
March 7, 2014 Procedural Protocol
The March 7, 2014, Procedural Protocol describes the procedure that counsel must follow where an applicant alleges professional incompetence, negligence, or other conduct against an applicant’s former legal counsel, or other authorized representative, which includes consultants, within the context of an application for leave and judicial review.
To paraphrase the Procedural Protocol (which I have embedded below), the procedure is:
- Prior to pleading incompetence, negligence or other conduct by the former counsel/representative as a grounds for relief, current counsel must satisfy him/herself, by means of personal investigations or inquiries, that there is some factual foundation for this allegation. In addition, current counsel must notify the former counsel/representative in writing with sufficient details of the allegations and advise that the matter will be pled in an application described above. The written notice must advise the former counsel/representative that they have seven days from receipt of the notice to respond, and include a copy of the Procedural Protocol. In cases where privilege may be applicable, current counsel must provide the former counsel/representative with a signed authorization from the applicant releasing any privilege attached to the former representation.
- Current counsel should, unless there is urgency, wait for a written response from the former counsel/representative before filing and serving the application record. If the former counsel/representative intends to respond he or she must do so, in writing to current counsel, within seven days of receipt of the notice from current counsel.
- If after reviewing the response of the former counsel/representative, current counsel believes that there may be merit to the allegations, current counsel may file the application or appeal record. Any perfected application which raises allegations against the former counsel/representative must be served on the former counsel/representative and proof of service be provided to the Court.
- Where it becomes apparent that current counsel’s pursuit of this investigation may delay the perfection of the application record or appeal record beyond the timelines provided for by the Rules, then current counsel may apply by motion for an extension of time to perfect the record.
- If the former counsel or authorized representative wishes to respond to the allegations made in the record, he or she may do so in writing by sending a written response to current counsel and to counsel for the government within ten days of service of the application or appeal record or such further time as the Federal Court may direct.
- Current counsel who wishes to respond to the communication received from the former counsel/representative must file a motion for an extension of time and for leave to file further written submissions with respect to the new material received.
- If no response from the former counse /representative is received within ten days of service, and no extension of time has been granted, current counsel must advise the Court and the lawyers for the government that no further information from the former counsel/representative is being submitted and the Court shall base its decision without any further notification to the former counsel/representative.
While the Procedural Protocol adds several new mandatory steps to Applications for Leave to Commence Judicial Review involving allegations of incompetence/negligence, it also removes uncertainty involving such applications. As well, if the Procedural Protocol results in the Federal Court removing the previously developing requirement that current counsel file a complaint with the previous counsel’s/representative’s licensing body, then there may actually be less steps, and time consumed, in these applications.
As a result of the Procedural Protocal, and as per the Federal Court of Canada’s decision in Guadron v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1092 in order to succeed on the basis of a procedural fairness violation resulting from incompetent representation, an individual must establish that:
- The representative’s alleged acts or omissions constituted incompetence;
- There was a miscarriage of justice in the sense that, but for the alleged conduct, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the original decision would have been different; and
- The representative was given notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond.