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.

Episode 21 – What a Thirty Year Career as an Immigration Lawyer was Like, with Darryl Larson

Steven Meurrens

Darryl Larson practiced immigration law in Vancouver, British Columbia for almost thirty years. He was a former Chair of the Canadian Bar Association of British Columbia’s Immigration Section, counsel to both individuals and corporations, at one point represented China’s most wanted fugitive, and successfully implemented a succession plan when he retired in 2018.

In this episode Peter, Steven, Deanna and Darryl discuss Darryl’s career as an immigration lawyer in a candid discussion about what practicing immigration law is like.

00:51 – Why did Darryl get into immigration law? (Darryl’s answer really becomes a tale of his move from Edmonton to Vancouver).

8:20 – Who were Darryl’s initial clients? How did Darryl get his initial clients?

11:15 – What was practicing immigration law like in the 1990s compared to what it’s like now?  Was the introduction of the IRPA really that big a game changer?

18:15 – What steps did Darryl take to become an expert in the area of immigration?

20:00 – How did Darryl go from practicing mainly immigration enforcement to developing a corporate immigration practice?

22:30 – What were some of Darryl’s most memorable cases?

37:45 – How did some of those cases change Darryl’s perspective on being an immigration lawyer.

41:00 – What did the last ten years of Darryl’s practice look like? How did succession planning work?

43:00 – What would Darryl say to people looking to enter the immigration field?

44:00 – Did Darryl encourage his kids to go to law school?

44:55 – Where does Darryl see the profession going in the next 4-5 years?

48:50 – What things does Darryl think he did right? What things would Darryl have done differently?

52:00 – Does Darryl think that there has been a decline in the number of sole practitioners practicing immigration law?

Episode 20 – An Overview of Canadian Medical Inadmissibility Law, with Erin Roth

Steven Meurrens

Erin Roth is a Lawyer with Edelmann & Co. 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 Deanna and Erin discuss issues in Canadian medical inadmissibility law.  When can someone be inadmissible to Canada because they are sick?  How does one confront such an allegation? What changes are upcomming?

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?