this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
53 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

9467 readers
750 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Election Interference / Misinformation

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Bar organizations are warning Ottawa that a new penalty regime to be applied to legal professionals — featuring penalties of up to $1.5 million for immigration and refugee lawyers determined by federal officials to have participated in clients’ misrepresentations — will be constitutionally challenged if lawyers are not exempted from the proposed regulations, which are expected to come into force later this year.

The proposed regulations prohibit a legal professional, who represents or advises someone for payment, from misrepresenting or withholding information, advising them to misrepresent or withhold information, or communicating misleading information.

The new administrative penalties regime would apply to the country’s approximately 12,000 immigration consultants and to all immigration lawyers.

The Canadian Bar Association, the law societies of Ontario, B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador, the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association (CILA), and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) wrote to Immigration Canada objecting to applying the proposed penalty regime to legal professionals.

The Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association says “the proposed regulations would be unconstitutional and illegal in their application to lawyers.”.

The baseline penalties for the two types of violations are significant: $15,000 for misrepresentation and $5,000 for representation or advice without authorization.

Consequences for those found to have violated the regulations would include Immigration Canada publishing on its website their names and business information, as well as the nature of the violation(s) and the penalties imposed

https://www.law360.ca/ca/articles/2322169/constitutional-clash-brewing-as-ottawa-targets-immigration-bar-with-up-to-1-5-million-in-admin-penalties

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Going after lawyers who lie? That seems like a wide net.

[–] Typotyper@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Also seems like a great idea.

[–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days ago

Yeah, true enough .

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago

I, for one, think the world would be a better place if perjury charges were taken a lot more seriously. For a lawyer, perjury should be career-ending.

The justice system only works if it operates on facts. If either side is not being honest about those facts, things break down.

I've heard that, at least in the US, this is especially bad when it comes to immigration. Lawyers coach their clients on exactly what to say so that they can get refugee status, even if they're really just economic migrants. This is unfair to real refugees, unfair to people immigrating legally, and to society in general.

OTOH, you have to be careful about how something like this is managed. If the government is too free to discipline and fine lawyers, you can end up in a situation like you have down south, where law firms that dared to represent the other side are being destroyed by the government.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Among the legal organizations’ expressed objections and flaws they contend mar the proposed regime in its application to legal professionals:

  • IRCC’s proposed broad powers to inspect and search, based on an IRCC officer’s determination that there are “reasonable grounds to suspect” a violation, and to demand documents from lawyers, without safeguards, as well as the lack of any mechanism to allow lawyers to fully and effectively defend themselves, without breaching established principles of solicitor-client confidentiality;
  • unfairness, expense and other negative impacts on legal professionals, and the risk of inconsistent results by needlessly subjecting them to dual regulation;
  • failure to respect the fundamental principles of independence of the bar as well as solicitor/client privilege/confidentiality, which are protected by the common law and the Constitution;
  • the lack of procedural protections and accountability;
  • IRCC’s lack of neutrality vis-à-vis immigration and refugee lawyers who advocate for clients, often in opposition to IRCC and its counsel, including representing in court those accused of offences, including misrepresentation. “Granting the same entity the authority to discipline the very lawyers who challenge it creates a glaring conflict of interest — comparable to allowing Crown counsel to oversee the discipline of criminal defence lawyers,” the CBA asserts in its submission to IRCC; and
  • Ottawa exceeds federal jurisdiction by purporting to regulate and penalize lawyers and paralegals doing paid immigration and refugee work, including by naming violators and publishing particulars on IRCC’s website, an interference with a lawyer’s ability to practise law, which is the exclusive preserve of law societies.