My Photo

May 07, 2008

The Pros and Cons of ... Practicing Solo

I had the opportunity of being interviewed by Susan Hughes for an article for the 4Students publication of Canadian Lawyer Magazine some months ago.

Link here.

Excerpt (which sounds especially damning for practicing in a firm, which wasn't actually my intent):

Raj Sharma

Immigration and administrative law, Calgary

PROS:

• The right temperament is important. “Assuming you’re entrepreneurial and you’re comfortable with a certain degree of risk — if you like to set your own hours, if you don’t like to toe the line. Those are the most fulfilling aspects of a solo.”
• Satisfaction from personal contact with clients. “It really means a lot to you when you bring someone, or their family members, to Canada.”
• Control. You can choose your own client. “It’s not a file that’s been tossed to you by a senior lawyer.”
• Files that involve humanitarian issues. “The biggest pro you have as a solo is being able to positively impact someone’s life.”
• Calgary is dynamic. “There’s a lot of  employers and people who need your services. Many of my clientele are employers looking for workers from overseas. There’s always appeals, deportations, Federal Court applications.”
• Very reasonable and affordable lease rates. “For a lawyer opening up shop, it’s not that bad. For 800 square feet, you’re looking at $30 per square foot. That would probably compare very favourably to any solo starting out in Toronto or Vancouver.”
• “I really hope more people explore the solo option. I see the look of despair in my brethren’s eyes who work in big firms and have to put in crazy billable hours. If you have a good niche going, you’ll be as profitable and you’ll have a better work/life balance. With technology these days, you can leverage yourself up to do what a larger firm can do. Fundamentally, making partner is going to cost you your soul.”

CONS:
• “There is the odd bungling of a decision with serious ramifications for your client.”
• The administrative side of things: accounting, payroll, trust account reconciliations. “You need to be able to handle technology.”
• “Starting out in practice is always difficult. It helps if you have a community, a niche, a unique skill set.”

April 23, 2008

How to make a refugee claim in Canada

The process to initiate a refugee claim/claim for protection in Canada is relatively straightforward.

There is a lot of information about how Canada determines refugee protection on line.

A starting point would be information on CIC's website here.

Additional resources are available at the IRB's website here.

Here's a publication from the Library of Parliament - dated but useful here.

In essence, once an individual within Canada (either arriving at the airport, making a claim at an inland immigration office (eg. CIC at Harry Hays building downtown Calgary) or making a claim at the US/Canada border - but is an exemption to the Safe Third Country Agreement) informs CIC of an intention to make a refugee claim, the refugee eligibility determination process begins.

This may take different permutations. For example, in Calgary, once you notify CIC of your intention to claim refugee protection at their offices at Room 170 220 4th Ave SE (Harry Hays bldg) they will give you a date several weeks away for an 'eligibility interview'. You will also need to complete a one page form indicating the refugee applicant's name, date of birth and whether they require an interpreter. If required, CIC will provide one for the eligibility interview date. They will give you refugee eligiblity forms ("Information on Individuals Seeking Protection") to complete:

Download 2008_04_22_scan_refugee_eligibility_forms.pdf

The applicant (aka claimant) will be required to bring the completed forms along with 4 passport sized photographs for the interview. At the interview, current practice appears to be to go through the forms line by line to confirm the information provided. This is slightly tedious. Counsel is allowed to be present, but their sole is strictly circumscribed - they are not to make submissions or otherwise interfere with the immigration officer.

The claimant will also be asked to set out briefly the reasons for making the refugee claim. This can achieve relative importance later, especially if there is a material omission, contradiction or other discrepancy between the information provided at the eligiblity interview and the individuals refugee claim with the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The officer is really looking at whether this individual is eligible to make a refugee claim and whether the claim can be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board for a refugee hearing - the officer isn't there to determine whether the claim is any good, or really even meritorious. Elibility is determined by ensuring (see section 101(1) and (2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act):

  • Refugee protection hasn't already been conferred on the claimant, or already rejected (no repeat claims);
  • A prior claim was ineligible to be referred or was withdrawn or abandoned;
  • The claimant has been recognized as a Convention Refugee by another country and can be sent or returned to that country; and
  • The claimant is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organizaed criminality (there's also a section dealing with serious criminality, when it applies, and when it doesn't apply to render a claim ineligible).

Once the claim has been determined to be eligible, a different officer takes over and completes the necessary paperwork, including the issuance of a removal order (which is stayed until after the refugee claim, and is affected by other statutory/judicial stays). The claimant is provided with his or her Personal Information Form (available on the IRB website) and other instructions, including medical instructions. The PIF is due 28 days from the determination of eligiblity and must be submitted to the Vancouver IRB office (in the case of claims made in Western Canada). Once proof of filing of the PIF is received, an applicant can apply for a work permit - which is sent to CPC Vegreville. The initial work permit of a refugee does not require the payment of the $150 fee.

In the case of a claimant who is exempt from the Safe Third Country Agreement and makes his or her claim at the border, he or she will likely be required to complete the eligiblity forms then and there and provided with the PIF and sent on their way. This is likely the same MO of CIC at the airport.

Adequate identification is necessary and will be seized by CIC. The claimant will be provided with a Notice of Seizure and a certified copy of the seized document.

The IRB of course will determine whether the claimant is someone requiring protection pursuant to s. 96 and 97 of the Act. Use Canlii.org to review the exact language of these particular and important sections.

One of the difficulties in having such a free, open and transparent country such as Canada is that the information that is available to assist a genuine refugee is also avaiable to concoct a fraudulent claim.

April 16, 2008

Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate

If immigration is of a 'small benefit' to the United Kingdom could the same be true of Canada?

A recent influential committee of the House of Lords indicates that immigration has had little or no economic benefit of Britons and that competition from immigrants has had a negative impact on lower salaried employees and has contributed to high house prices. The peers want limits on immigration levels.

A 2005 Fraser Institute publication - "Immigration and the Welfare State in Canada" made a similar claim and concluded that Canada's "welfare system" which relies on progressive taxation and provision of universal government benefits results in "substantial net transfers of taxpayers' money" from "Canadians to the recent immigrants."

Even if the Fraser Institute report is derided as partisan and biased, the question of the appropriateness of current immigration levels is still relevant given the foreshadow of the issues of multiculturalism and immigration from across the pond.

Expressing a sentiment that could, in any way, be construed as anti-immigrant would be political anathema in this country. The Conservatives are already shut out of the immigrant rich cities of Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.

In 1969, the iconic Lord Denning, in the British Schmidt case insisted that 'no alien has the right to enter this country [UK] except by leave of the Crown: and the Crown can refuse leave without giving any reason'.

Well, both the UK and Canada have come some way from Denning's almost laconic characterization of immigration law. Current immigration law requires the immigration department to consider every application submitted. Principles of fairness, with roots in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, require procedural fairness to be meted to every applicant.

The Conservatives' recent attempts to address the massive backlog (developed almost exclusively under the Liberals) by way of changes to the strained system giving greater flexibility to the department is of sufficient import to contribute to a possible summer election. Dion has already been warned by immigrant activists who are opposed to the recently announced immigration reforms - a failure to vote against the proposed changes could result in a loss of political support from new Canadians.

Some immigrants still remember the (failed) attempt by the Diefenbaker government to cap immigration applications during the 1950s. The present Conservative government will have to step very gingerly to avoid being labeled anti-immigrant - a designation that they've more or less inherited from their Reform ancestry.

Should economic concerns alone drive immigration policy? Is it time to lower targets or otherwise cap immigration? Can we have an an honest discussion of immigration policy in this country without labels like racism or discrimination thrown around?

My personal views are that immigration has contributed immensely to the fabric of this society, and that Canada as a whole has benefited. It is however, important to review and reappraise our policy from time to time and ask the difficult questions to ensure that immigration continues to benefit Canadian businesses and communities.

April 07, 2008

Immigration 'small benefit' to the UK

Interesting BBC article here.

I've noted before that the UK, in its approach to immigration and multiculturalism can often appear as a bellwether for Canada's own issues.

It appears that a House of Lords committee has concluded that record levels of immigration has had little or no benefit to the economic prosperity of Britons.

March 19, 2008

Updated: Justice for Khadr

My own views on Omar Khadr have been evolving over time.

I think that they've now crystallized: Omar Khadr should be returned to face justice in Canada - or face justice before a proper court in the US (their federal courts system).

Having watched an episode of CTVs "Verdict" with Paula Todd (November 2007) - Dennis Edney (my old mentor from Edmonton) made an especially eloquent statement - that the military tribunal commission set up in Guantanamo is not good enough for adjudicating an American, or British (or Australian) individuals charged with being 'unlawful enemy combatants' - and so, why should it be sufficient for a Canadian?

The Canadian Bar Association has joined the voices of Amnesty International et al. in calling for the repatriation of Omar Khadr to Canada from Guantanamo Bay. PDF of the CBA's letter to Prime Minister Harper here.

While my personal opinion is that Omar Khadr has no one to blame for his particular situation but himself (and probably his terrorist inclined family), I have to admit (with some difficulty) that the matter involves fundamental justice, notwithstanding the (strange) indifference I may feel to the individual involved.

it is a deep concern  that Khadr has been held without trial for 5 years (my guess is that a young offender convicted of murder in Canada would probably be out within 5 years). There does not appear to be an explanation of the delay - there should be little problems in the way of arranging a trial - given the apparent evidence against him.

If the Bush-Military tribunal system is not up to the task, then the US should (following the suggestion of Colin Powell) try Khadr within it's federal courts system - or send him here.

The CBA (and Amnesty) have also pointed out that Omar Khadr was a minor at the time of the commission of the offence(s).

I'll say this - the Khadr family has not helped themselves in this regard.They have probably abdicated any rights they may have had to call upon the sympathies of Canadians (given the provocative actions and statements by  family members). Maha Khadr has appealed to the Canadian public in her interview with CTV's The Verdict (CTV article here.) to little avail.

The Globe and Mail reports that CBS News has now broadcast "shocking new footage" of Omar Khadr when he was 15:

CBS News has broadcast shocking new footage of a Canadian terrorism suspect allegedly building bomb timers and planting land mines while he was a 15-year-old militant hoping to take on American soldiers in Afghanistan.

The footage, some of it shot on a night-vision camera by alleged al-Qaeda fighters before it was seized by U.S. forces after a deadly raid, leaves a more sinister impression of Omar Khadr than the widely circulated photo of him as a boy benignly smiling at the camera.

Nonetheless, we are now faced with a situation where someone - a Canadian citizen - has been denied due process. If the US cannot provide Khadr with proper due process (under the military tribunal system or its federal courts system), Canada is obligated to offer repatriation and try Khadr here.

Kudos to Dennis for his continued efforts.

** Here's an email exchange between the National Post Editorial Board and some interesting comments by readers (14 March 2008):

Jonathan Kay
The more I learn about Omar Khadr, the more I am uncomfortable with the way he is being treated by the United States. As despicable as his cause was, he was essentially a brainwashed adolescent with a psycho jihadi father — a child soldier worthy of as much pity as contempt.
...

Daniel Goldbloom
There are several problem’s with Khadr’s case:
...

3) All other Western governments have successfully repatriated their Guantanamo-held nationals. Why is a Canadian the last Western citizen in Guantanamo? Brenda Martin has been in a Mexican jail for two years, and her incarceration has prompted an intervention by a former Canadian prime minister. Omar Khadr has been in an American prison for three times as long. It’s long past time for Canada to demand Khadr’s repatriation, or at the very least, apply serious diplomatic pressure to ensure that his trial is as fair and open as possible.
...

Lorne Gunter
Khadr deserves a fair trial, not a free-pass release. And I think the Guantanamo prisoners are getting that now. It is, after all, a U.S. Navy lawyer who is raising the concerns about Khadr’s initial guilt and his treatment since his arrest, not some Amnesty or Red Cross-paid human rights lawyer out to make a name for himself.
...

An article by Clive Baldwin titled: A Child on Trial at Guantanamo is clearly sympathetic to Khadr and makes special note of his status as a minor:

But during the course of the morning, the defense also raised another vital issue: the fact that Khadr was 15 at the time of his alleged offense, and therefore, to all intents and purposes, was a child soldier. The discussion reverts to international law, and in particular the Optional Protocol to the Child Rights Convention, an international human rights treaty to which the United States is a party, which prohibits the use of child soldiers. The treaty also requires states to rehabilitate child soldiers who come into their custody. The defense says this means that the United States should treat Khadr (who, according to the evidence published by the government, was forced by his family into Al Qaeda at the age of 10), as a victim, not seek to punish him. They also say that in setting up the military commission, Congress could not have intended it to be used against persons who were children at the time of their offense.

...

But there is another country I would expect to be at the heart of the discussion about Khadr, given the importance of his case for the way that child soldiers will be treated. That country is probably the leading country in the world in taking up the issue of the protection of child soldiers, and was the first to ratify the Optional Protocol. That country is Canada, which also happens to be the country of Khadr's citizenship. But whilst every other Western country has now requested the return of their citizens from Guantanamo, Canada has not. While Canada remains silent, Omar Khadr, a Canadian, faces trial in Guantanamo Bay as a child soldier.

More new information has come to light. An article in the National Post indicates that the 'Court' has heard evidence that Khadr was about to be executed on the battlefield - and that another insurgent was still alive (casting doubt on the official version of Khadr's guilt) before he was killed (contrary to the perhaps oxymoronic Laws of War) by a US Private:

To the defence team, the officer describes in his diary how he saw R not only kill, but possibly execute, the second al-Qaeda suspect. The officer also admits to being on the verge of ordering "R," who is identified as being an army private, to effectively execute Khadr.

Since such acts would contravene the laws of war, the defence suggests the officer and the private had reason to later tell -- or surrender to a request to tell -- a different story about what happened during the firefight.

The altered battle report coincidentally reflects two versions of what may have happened. It was written by the then on-scene commander, who has been identified before the war crimes commission that will eventually try Khadr only as Lt.-Col. W.

...

"The officer's candid admissions in his diary about the circumstances under which the first combatant was killed and under which Mr. Khadr was captured -- rather than executed -- suggest that participants in the firefight may have possessed motive to fabricate parts of their account," the defence team writes.

...

Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler has suggested W's altered battle report may be part of a government bid to "manufacture" a story pointing to Khadr's guilt, and wants to ask him why he made changes to it in a way that makes the second version appear it was written as an original.

...

...

...

The early version of the battle report shows W wrote that a U.S operative had killed the person who threw the hand grenade. That suggests Khadr was not the attacker.

But in the altered version, W wrote the U.S. operative merely "engaged" the thrower, suggesting Khadr may have been culpable.