Case Study#1:

Immigration consultant Karim is preparing an Express Entry application for Josephine who has worked in Canada as an accountant on a work permit for 18 months. She now qualifies for PR in the Canadian Experience Class. Karim is collecting the details of her work history as required for the application. He emphasizes that her work history back ten years must be complete, detailed and accurate. Josephine informs him that the work history she provided on her earlier work permit form was not as detailed, in fact was not really the same - and there were probably some errors on it. She filled out her own work permit form and didn't pay that much attention.

Karim advises Josephine they can include a brief explanation of this issue now, to pre-emptively address possible questions that might be raised by the IRCC. He recommends they just admit the work history information on the PR application is not the same as she provided on her earlier work permit and apologize for any errors. She agrees.

Nevertheless, three months later, a procedural fairness (PF) letter arrives from IRCC alleging that Josephine may have misrepresented material facts in her current application or her previous temporary application. If so, this could render her inadmissible for five years for misrepresentation under s 40 of IRPA. She has 30 days to respond.

Karim is not sure how to respond to the procedural fairness letter. He does some research and writes a letter to the best of his ability explaining that these were innocent mistakes and citing some case law and policy on misrepresentation.

Despite Karim's efforts, the application is refused on the grounds of misrepresentation. Now Karim is considering his next step.He does not have experience with misrepresentation and is contemplating finding someone with more expertise to help.

Review Sections 19 and 20 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

Discussion Questions

If Karim had realized much earlier there was a good chance this client would be refused for misrepresentation, what were his options under the Code?

Case Study#2:

Lorne is a retired navy captain living in rural England. His daughter is getting married in Lethbridge, Alberta next July. He is understandably very anxious to attend her wedding. As a British citizen, he must obtain an electronic travel authorization (eTA) to come to Canada as a visitor. This is a very simple online form, which is approved for most people in a matter of minutes.

In February, Lorne started to fill out the online eTA application. He came across the following question and instructions from IRCC:

Question 2: Have you ever committed, been arrested for, been charged with or convicted of any criminal offence in any country/ territory?

Select YES if you have ever committed, been arrested for, been charged with or convicted of any criminal offence in any country/territory. If you selected YES, for each arrest, charge, or conviction, please indicate where (city, country), when (month/year), the nature of the offence, and the sentence.

When Lorne was young and foolish, he was arrested for a bar fight and pled guilty to a minor assault. He got a small fine - he can't remember how much. He is sure this was forgiven ages ago in the UK justice system; they consider this "spent" and he has no record now. He just wants to make sure he can rightfully answer "No" to this question on the eTA form. Mostly, he needs to be absolutely certain he will be able to travel to Canada for his daughter's wedding.

To be on the safe side, Lorne emailed Jennie, the immigration consultant who helped his daughter immigrate a few years ago to request a consultation. Jennie has a hunch it should be fine. However, she recalls from her immigration studies how complicated any criminal charges can be, and she has never advised anyone on criminal admissibility before. She is wondering if she can research it enough to advise Lorne.

Discussion Questions

Sometimes it is possible to become competent on a matter quickly, and this is allowable if it can be done without unreasonable delay, risk or expense to the client. Do you think it is feasible for Jennie to do some research to become competent quickly enough to advise Lorne? What impact does her own scope of practice have on the ability to become competent quickly?

Case Study#3:

Maria Ojeda is a chemical engineer from Colombia applying for Permanent Residence as Federal Skilled Worker under Express Entry. She is representing herself on the application.

Maria previously had breast cancer and disclosed this on her online forms. However, she has been in remission for four years. Her friend in a similar situation was approved last year, so she believed it would not be a problem.

She has now received a procedural fairness letter from the IRCC indicating that she may be inadmissible for health reasons under s 38(1)(c) of IRPA as her cancer condition may cause an excessive demand on Canada's health care system.

Maria obtained the name of an immigration consultant, Juan Suarez, from a friend. She emailed Juan about the problem and requested a Zoom consultation for advice, the sooner the better. Juan recalled seeing his old mentor handle a couple of medical inadmissibility files, so he was vaguely familiar, although those were not for cancer conditions. Juan charges $300 for consultations and needs the money. His cousin Ali just retired as an RCIC and knows a lot about medical inadmissibility, so likely can help him.

Juan decides to book the consultation to get the facts from Maria, then tell her he needs to do research and will get back to her to continue. After the initial consultation, he can contact Ali and give him all the details and find out what he should advise Maria. It should work fine, and Maria will be none the wiser, plus he can learn something new. He sends Maria a What's App message that he can do the consultation tomorrow and will contact her by Zoom at 3 pm her time

Discussion Questions

Under the Competence sections of the Code (sections 19-22), do you believe Juan's plan violates any provisions? Explain