Molly Joeck and Erica Olmstead are lawyers with Edelmann & Co. They, along with Peter Edelmann, acted for the Canadian Council for Refugees as interveners before the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Chhina.

In Chhina the issue before the Supreme Court was whether immigrant detainees have access to habeas corpus. We discuss Chhina, how immigration detention works in Canada, habeas corpus and issues going forward.

2:20 – Why would someone be detained in Canada for immigration reasons?

3:50 – In the federal detention review system who decides if an immigrant should be detained? What is the Immigration Division?

4:30 – How often would an immigrant who is detained have their detention reviewed?

5:30 – What are some issues arising with long term detention?

12:20 – Is there a difference in the issues that arise in long term detention in Ontario as opposed to British Columbia?

18:00 – Is an immigrant refusing to assist with removal by not getting a passport grounds for detention?

24:30 – What is habeas corpus?

27:30 – Why would someone in immigration detention want access to habeas corpus?

30:30 – Why is habeas corpus an alternative to federal court judicial review?

36:00 – The majority in Chhina appears to have commented negatively on certain aspects of the federal detention review process without striking it down. Why did they not just strike it down?

41:00 – How long do habeas corpus applications take?

46:00 – How many times can someone file habeas corpus applications?

51:00 – How has the Immigration Division reacted to the spate of habeas applications?

57:00 – How do detention review cases make it to the Federal Court of Appeal?