Stewart Sharma Harsanyi Immigration Law Firm Blog

Bad Faith in Immigration Proceedings

What can be done when an immigration officer acts in bad faith? We need to first define this legal term of art. Bad faith by a public officer was described in the case of Enterprises Sibeca Inc. V. Frelighsburg (Municipalite), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 304 as follows: “The concept of bad faith is flexible, and its content will vary from one area of law to another. As LeBel J. noted inFinney v. Barreau du Québec, 2004 SCC 36 (CanLII), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17, 2004 SCC 36, the content of the concept of bad faith may go beyond intentional fault (at para. 39): Bad faith certainly includes intentional fault, a classic example of which is found in the conduct of the Attorney General of Quebec that was examined in Roncarelli v. Duplessis, 1959 CanLII 50 (SCC), [1959] S.C.R. 121. Such conduct is an abuse of power for which the State, or sometimes a public servant, may be held liable. However, recklessness implies a fundamental breakdown of the orderly exercise of authority, to the point that absence of good faith can be deduced and bad faith presumed. The act, in terms of how it is performed, is then inexplicable and incomprehensible, to the... Read more →

Options for Victims of Domestic Violence - Calgary Family Lawyers

Options for victims of domestic violence in Calgary. Read more →

Video: Stewart Sharma Harsanyi Law Firm Featurette

Video: Stewart Sharma Harsanyi Immigration lawyers in Calgary

Drafting error allows some failed refugee claimants an unintended appeal

So they can't "fix" it after all! http://www.canada.com/Federal+government+concedes+drafting+error+refugee+legislation/8058722/story.html Federal government concedes to ‘drafting error’ in refugee legislation By Tobi Cohen, Postmedia News March 6, 2013 OTTAWA — The federal government has quietly conceded that it made a “drafting error” in its oft-criticized refugee legislation passed last June and it appears a new law may be the only way to fix it. A “note” posted on Citizenship and Immigration’s website just above an explanation about Canada’s new Refugee Appeal Division suggests the new provision, which allows certain failed asylum claimants to seek a second opinion, came into force four months before it was supposed to. Citizenship and Immigration estimates the “legislative error” means about 1,650 claimants who filed their application between Aug. 15 and Dec. 15 last year will now be able to access the Refugee Appeal Division if initially turned down. “It was never the government’s intention to have the new Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) come into effect before the new asylum system started on Dec. 15, 2012,” says the disclaimer. “As this remains the intent, we are working to correct a drafting error in the legislation that some have claimed could be interpreted to inadvertently allow some claimants, whose... Read more →