Law

Episode 19 – An Introduction to Canadian Extradition Law, with Amanda Lord

Steven Meurrens

Amanda Lord is a lawyer in the Criminal Law and International Assistance group at the Department of Justice of Canada. Her work involves court proceedings regarding Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance requests from foreign states and civil litigation on behalf of government agencies.

In this episode we discuss the current state of Extradition Law in Canada.

2:30 Amanda Lord clarifies the distinction between extradition and immigration deporting proceedings. It is a different process with a different set of principles that apply, so it is important that people understand what extradition entails.

6:30 She explains the conditions for which a country will extradite an individual, the international treaties that must have been ratified by the Parties as well as the concept of double criminality.

8:50 Amanda explains the second criteria for extradition which is that it be an indictable offence with a minimum prison sentence of two years.

13:00 We ask about the process of extradition from foreign countries to Canada. Amanda explains that her department is not responsible for these, and she describes the procedures to be followed in such scenarios.

14:45 Amanda explains the extradition treaties to which Canada abides to and the differences between them.

18:45 An overview of the committal process and Charter protections.

25:45 The question of where an individual can be prosecuted is one that is commonly misunderstood. Amanda explains that foreign states decide if they can prosecute a person for offences committed outside their boundaries. Persons who commit offences in Canada may still be at risk of extradition where the effect of the offence is felt in a foreign state. An example would be sexual exploitation of children over the Internet though explicit messaging and photos, or distribution of child pornography.

36:13 An overview of how to challenge the prosecutor’s evidence.

43:00 Amanda provides examples of cases that resolve by way of a voluntary agreement at the Committal stage.

49:20 Amanda and Peter discuss the surrender stage.  Will a person be surrendered? If so, will there be conditions?

56:00 When should assurances be given? Would Canada extradite to countries that torture?

Episode 12 – Tips on making written and oral arguments in court, with Justice Alan Diner

Steven Meurrens

The Honourable Alan S. Diner is a judge with the Federal Court of Canada.   Prior to his appointment, Justice Diner headed Baker & McKenzie LLP’s immigration practice.  He was also involved with managing the establishment and implementation of Ontario’s Provincial Nominee Program for the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration.

We are grateful to Justice Diner for the time that he took in preparing for this podcast about tips and best practices in appearing before the Federal Court of Canada, including in providing a customised powerpoint.  As Justice Diner notes, many of the tips and strategies contained in this episode are applicable beyond judicial review, and will be beneficial to anyone preparing written submissions or making oral presentations.

A review of what we discussed is as follows:

1:18 – Justice Diner describes his history going from being an immigrant in Canada to leading a corporate immigration law practice to becoming a judge with the Federal Court of Canada.

14:30 – We discuss how the practice of immigration law is changing as larger firms and global accounting firms enter the practice area.

18:30 – Justice Diner provides his first three tips to lawyers appearing  in Federal Court, which are to treat everyone with respect, to prepare your case and arguments properly, and to respect timelines.

23:10 – Peter asks Justice Diner whether immigration representatives should consider preparing visa applications with possible litigation in mind and how long judicial review applicant records should be.

28:00 – How many arguments should someone make in a judicial review application?  If one thinks that an immigration officer made 10 mistakes, should the lawyer in a judicial review application list all 10?

35:00 – Given that there is a chance that the judge reading judicial review submissions could be a new judge, how much should lawyers explain what the law is in their legal submissions?

42:30 – When should counsel propose certified questions?

46:00 – Tips for citing cases.

49:30 – Is the increased number of sources of immigration law (legislation, Ministerial Instructions, guidelines, the immigration website, etc.) complicating the Federal Court’s ability to determine whether a decision was reasonable, and counsel’s ability to make arguments?

57:00 – Who makes a better litigator? Someone who is also a solicitor or someone who practices exclusively in judicial reviews and appeals?

1:01:00 – Tips for oral advocacy.

1:12:00 – Justice Diner reminds counsel on the need to balance strong representation of a client with being an officer of the court.

1:17:00 – We end with what might be the most important tip of all – the importance of not procrastinating.

Episode 11 – Tensions between political oversight and politicizing officer decisions, with Lorne Sossin

Steven Meurrens

We discuss three topics. The first is the oversight of police, CBSA, and immigration officers in Canada. How do we ensure that there is political oversight and accountability without politicizing the day to day operations of individual officers? The second topic is a discussion of Charter rights and Charter values in the immigration context. Finally, we talk about whether it is OK that in Canada individual immigration officers can create an apply their own standards of the law.

Lorne Sossin is the Dean of Osgoode Hall Law School. Prior to his appointment, he was a Professor with the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto. Dean Sossin also serves on the Boards of the National Judicial Institute and the Law Commission of Ontario. He has also acted as Research Director for the Law Society of Upper Canada’s Task Force on the Independence of the Bar.

A review of what we discussed is as follows:

00:00 – Introduction

00:51 – Steve Meurrens says what one of his favorite things about law school is.

01:14 – Overview of topics

02:55 – The role of federalism in police oversight.

06:30 – Is criminal law local or is it national?

09:09 – What are the mechanisms which limit executive oversight and police accountability in Canada and how can this be balanced for the need to avoid political interference in day-to-day police activity. Who decides on the operational day to day activities of police?

13:30 – Can a cabinet minister issue an edict directing police not to arrest people? For example, the Trudeau government wants to legalize marijuana, so can they just issue an edict stating that arrests should stop. Who should make the decision?

17:40 –   If individual decision makers or police units drive decisions there will be inconsistencies. What methods exist for people to address inconsistencies?

19:45    Many jurisdictions are creating independent oversight offices. What is the success of these? As well, what role does prosecutorial discretion play in both insulating decisions and providing oversight?

25:00    What role do departmental guidelines play in decision making?

27:30    In immigration law the Minister can make decisions that differ from visa officers. Indeed, the Immigration Minister has an office to receive applications and intervene in applications. Is this appropriate?

30:30    What is the Charter? What is an administrative tribunal?

34:20    Immigration officers are considered to be administrative tribunals, Should visa officers, IRB members, etc. consider the Charter when making decisions.

37:00    When is the distinction between Charter rights and Charter values?

42:10    Do Charter rights and/or Charter values apply outside of Canada?

43:15    Are Charter values arguable before visa officers or at the IRB?

48:20    Is it a breach of the rule of law that different visa officers can develop different tests for immigration?

57:30    How is standard of review jurisprudence likely to develop?