In this heartfelt episode, we sit down with Gordon Maynard, a recently retired immigration lawyer, to reflect on his remarkable 35-year career. Gordon shares how he sustained a long and fulfilling practice through the camaraderie and support of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA), mentorship from peers, and the value of in-person connections. He discusses the critical role of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) in providing equitable discretion for permanent residents facing removal, critiques the erosion of human interaction in modern immigration processes due to centralization and AI, and highlights how physical activities like biking up Seymour Mountain every week helped maintain mental resilience. Gordon also offers wisdom for young lawyers, including urging them to diversify their practice across corporate and enforcement work, stay connected through the CBA, and embrace the human side of immigration law.

In this episode, Vancouver criminal defense lawyer and Driving Law podcast host Kyla Lee unpacks Canada’s criminal justice system, tackling listener questions on bail, sentencing, and mental health treatment. From the nuances of bail hearings and the presumption of innocence to the principles of sentencing like deterrence and rehabilitation, Kyla offers expert insights into how courts address crime, trauma, and addiction. She also explores controversial topics like involuntary treatment, the impact of Gladue reports for Indigenous offenders, and the challenges of prison overcrowding, while proposing solutions like supportive housing to address root causes of crime.

Ali Esnaashari and Kaveh Shahrooz join to discuss the Canadian immigration implications of Canada’s decision to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization.

Topics Explored:

Historical Context of the IRGC: Understand the origins, structure, and global activities of the IRGC, including its role in the tragic downing of Ukraine International Flight PS752.

Conscription and Inadmissibility: Learn how mandatory military service in Iran leads to Canadian inadmissibility findings for individuals performing routine tasks, such as administrative duties or even playing for government-affiliated sports teams, with no meaningful connection to terrorist activities.

Legal Framework and Challenges: A detailed analysis of Section 34(1)(f) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, its broad application, and the low burden of proof that disproportionately impacts conscripts, alongside ongoing federal court cases addressing the definition of “membership.”

Policy Shortcomings: Insight into the Canadian government’s rushed designation process, the absence of exemptions for conscripts, and the lack of consultation with stakeholders or training for immigration officers.

Why This Matters: This designation has far-reaching consequences, affecting thousands of Iranians in Canada who face inadmissibility rulings despite having no ideological ties to the IRGC, and yet are barred from accessing humanitarian relief, and face lengthy and dubious ministerial relief processes.

In this episode, our hosts are joined (again) by Connie Campbell (she/her) of Edelmann and Co. — to discuss s.35(1)(b) of the IRPA – which renders inadmissible any person who is “a prescribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6(3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act“. While it may sound straight-forward enough, and not particularly controversial, our discussion covers how over-breadth in application renders inadmissible those with no actual substantive connection to Human or International Rights violations. Our conversation takes this to consideration of whether this is consistent with the approach taken by the Supreme Court of Canada in Mason v. Canada 2023 SCC 21 in respect of section 34 (the security provisions) of the IRPA.