Uncategorized

Episode 34 – Canada and the Compact for Migration, with François Crépeau

Steven Meurrens

François Crépeau is a Professor at the McGill Faculty of Law and the Director of the Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism. He was the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants from 2011 to 2017.

Peter Edelmann and François discuss migration issues generally, the Compact for Migration, and its implication for Canadian immigration and refugee law.

This episode was recorded before Peter Edelmann was appointed to the British Columbia Supreme Court.

4:15 – What does a UN special rapporteur on migration do?
8:00 – What impacts could climate change have on the future of global migration patterns?
10:37 – How does Canadian refugee law address the issue of climate refugees?
21:00 – What led up to the Compact on Global Migration and what preceded it? How has migration historically been monitored / governed on a global scale?
28:00 – What is the international definition of a refugee?
31:3– What percentage of migrants would qualify as refugees?
33:30 – What is the Global Compact on Migration?

Episode 33 – Where Canada’s Political Parties Stand on Immigration

Steven Meurrens

An overview of the immigration platforms, and general historic policies, of Canada’s political parties.

1:45 – Where do the parties stand with regards to letting provinces decide who immigrates?

13:28 – Immigration levels

23:30 – What are the promises with regards to border security and the Safe Third Country Agreement?

36:00 – Temporary Foreign Workers

42:00 – Application fees

46:00 – Settlement services and values tests

48:00 – Where parties can work together on and general trends.

Episode 23 – Appellate Advocacy Tips, with Former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Marshall Rothstein

Steven Meurrens

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. Khosa about?

41:15 – How did Khosa change the standard of review analysis?

45:00 – Justice Rothstein discusses his dissent in Khosa and his thoughts on Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, the leading case on standard of review.

57:40 –  Garth Barriere, who was counsel in Khosa, offers a critique of the Supreme Court of Canada’s standard of review jurisprudence.

1:01:20 – What, if any, guidance should be given to judges regarding when they should show deference and when they shouldn’t?

1:08:00 – At the time of Khosa did Justice Rothstein predict how far along the deference path that standard of review deference would develop?

Episode 22 – The Implications of the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R v. Wong

Steven Meurrens

R v. Wong is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada had to determine whether a person could withdraw a guilty plea if they they did not know that their pleading guilty would lead to deportation.

Peter Edelmann and Erica Olmstead are lawyers at Edelmann & Co. They represented the accused at the Supreme Court. Lobat Sadrehashemi represented one of the invervenors, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

2:00 – The facts of the case. Mr. Wong pleads guilty to trafficking cocaine. He learns afterwards that this will lead to his deportation. He did not know this when he pled. Can he reverse his plea?

4:29 – How does a guilty plea work? Is it like in the movies?

7:40 – What was the judicial history of this case?

8:50 – What was the perspective of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers regarding whether previously unknown immigration consequences should result in a person being able to set aside their guilty plea?

14:00 – When Peter, Erika and Lobat talk about whether people should know about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, what does “immigration consequences” mean? How did the court rule?

19:00 – If the Crown or a judge now have the obligation to ensure that an individual is informed about immigration consequences when they make a guilty plea, should defense counsel worry that this might usurp their role?

19:30 – What is problematic about the incompetence of counsel framework?

23:40 – What was the majority ruling in R v. Wong?

25:06 – The court ruled that to set aside a guilty plea a person has to show that their plea would have been different. What does this subjective requirement look like?

33:18 – At what point in the criminal justice system would someone’s immigration system become known?

34:45 – How complicated are the immigration consequences of a guilty plea? What level of immigration consequences should determine whether a guilty plea is informed? Is it just deportation? Or should it be other things, such as inability to sponsor a spouse, or being ineligible to apply for citizenship, for example.