Will Tao is a Canadian immigration and the founder of Heron Law Office. During this episode we discuss what got Will into immigration law, why he started his own firm, how he balances client files, advocacy and family life, whether he will take paternity leave after his second child is born, whether he thinks it is possible to take lengthy sabbaticals, his approach to practice and his general apporach to the practice of law.
This episode is a joint recording of Borderlines and Ask Kubeir, a popular YouTube channel about Canadian immigration news and updates, hosted by Kubeir Kamal, a regulated immigration consultant in Toronto. We discuss how obtaining Canadian permanent residence is becomming more difficult for several groups, including recent international graduates, as well as how some immigrants feel let down by the high cost of living and the inability to get their credentials recognized.
Jandu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1787, was a decision where the Federal Court quashed several visa refusals and misrepresentation findings for truck drivers. The case raised several interesting issues, including the roles of Service Canada and IRCC in assessing genuineness, and what documentation visa officers can reasonably expect work permit applicants to provide. Rafeena Rashid and Jelena Urosevic were counsel for the refused truck drivers.
3:00 The facts of Janndu 11:00 Conflicts when representing employers and employees. 13:00 The lack of communication between Service Canada and IRCC when it comes to work permit applications. 20:00 Assessing genuineness. 23:00 Unreasonable documentation requests. 28:00 Lessons from the case for future work permit applications. 37:00 The distinction between a lack of genuineness and a finding of misrepresentation. 54:00 What is the line between misrepresentation and lack of genuineness?
Sean Rehaag is an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, the Director of the Centre for Refugee Studies and the Director of the Refugee Law Laboratory. Today we discuss his use of GPT to conduct legal research, artificial intelligence and decision making, differential results in Federal Court and Immigration and Refugee Board decisions, and how to identify if differential outcomes are actually a problem or significant.2:00 Using GPT to conduct research. 14:00 Issues with unreported decisions or decisions lacking precedential value. Do all decisions need to have precedential value given that it results in inconsistent jurisprudence? 19:00 AI making decisions vs. AI helping to write decisions. 22:00 Bias in decision making in LGBT claims around physical appearance. 28:00 AI leading to uniformity in decision making. 38:00 The receptiveness of the Federal Court to research into judicial decision making. 42:00 Forum shopping as a result of judicial research. 46:00 Should AI play a role in helping judges write decisions. 52:00 Baker as an example of transparency in decision making. 54:00 Is it possible to tell if AI is starting to render unintended decisions? 1:05 Trauma in refugee decision making. 1:14 How do you decide if differential results are problematic? For example, asylum claims for lesbians are higher than gay which is also higher than bi. Is this a problem?