Podcasts about Osgoode Hall

An Education Consultant for over a decade, Monika Ferenczy helps students and parents make decisions regarding learning and education. Her practice focuses on finding the best solution to meet the needs of students, young or mature, to help them reach their full potential, providing relevant and timely information for sound decision-making. Considered an expert in the education sector, with certificates in Education Law and Human Rights for Education Professionals from Osgoode Hall, York University, principal's qualifications, a Masters in Educational Leadership from the University of Ottawa and over 25 years of educator experience in elementary and secondary special education positions, Monika effectively supports families with special needs children and youth.  She served as an elected member of the governing Council of the Ontario College of Teachers (the regulatory body of the teaching profession in Ontario) as Vice-Chair of the Discipline Committee, and the Editorial Board for the publication Professionally Speaking. She has also served on panels of the Fitness to Practice and Teacher Program Accreditation Committees. Monika offers education expertise in separation and divorce proceedings, presents workshops for parents and advocates for improved educational practices, policies and legislation. Through an analysis of systemic gaps in the students' best interest and recommendations to government, her contributions to advocacy and social justice initiatives are growing. Monika is often invited to comment in print, radio and television media about education related trends and issues in Ontario and across Canada, and she was commissioned to write a comprehensive report on rural education in 2021. As an author, she has published four books: • How to Advocate for your Child in Public Education (May, 2024) • The Guide to Hosting International Students in Canada (2020) • 12 Tips for International Students Living and Studying in Canada (2019) • Lillian and Noah's Great Moving Adventure (2018)  Learn more about Monika Ferenczy and her work at https://horizoned.ca/    TOPICS OF CONVERSATION: About "How to Advocate for Your Child in Public Education" and the inspiration for writing the book. What everyday advocacy might look like for a parent within the school system Barriers often encounted by parents and ways to work through them Debunking myths in Education Fostering a collaborative relationship amont students, parents and educators. Services offered What's next for Monika Ferenczy   HOW TO ADVOCATE FOR YOUR CHILD IN PUBLIC EDUCATION What you need to know as a parent. Master the art and science of advocating for your child or youth, and model and teach advocacy to them as a lifelong skill. Learn about positive phrasing and neutral language, why you should not say "please" but always say "thank you," and why you should never address emails and letters "to whom it may concern." Reading this guide will enlighten and empower parents to know what to ask, and who to ask to ensure concerns are addressed quickly and resolved.

In 2022, just when Anastasiia Zhemchugova landed her dream job in an international law firm in Kyiv, Ukraine, war disrupted her career and life. Her firm had an office in Prague so she worked there for a while but without the local language skills it was complicated. Then, a perfectly timed opportunity emerged – from Canada. Years earlier, pre-pandemic, Anastasiia had applied for a law internship with the Canadian Parliament. Their offer came just in time. She accepted and arrived in May, 2022. Then, Anastasiia got into a career boosting bridging program for internationally educated women lawyers. Run by the University of Toronto, School of Continuing Studies, the Brief Law program and the School's Blueprint Career Services, led by Ann Park, helped Anastasiia get ready for life and law in Canada where she's now doing a law degree at York U's Osgoode Hall. Join Mark Franklin to hear and learn from both Anastasiia and Ann's insightful career stories.

In 2022, just when Anastasiia Zhemchugova landed her dream job in an international law firm in Kyiv, Ukraine, war disrupted her career and life. Her firm had an office in Prague so she worked there for a while but without the local language skills it was complicated. Then, a perfectly timed opportunity emerged – from Canada. Years earlier, pre-pandemic, Anastasiia had applied for a law internship with the Canadian Parliament. Their offer came just in time. She accepted and arrived in May, 2022. Then, Anastasiia got into a career boosting bridging program for internationally educated women lawyers. Run by the University of Toronto, School of Continuing Studies, the Brief Law program and the School's Blueprint Career Services, led by Ann Park, helped Anastasiia get ready for life and law in Canada where she's now doing a law degree at York U's Osgoode Hall. Join Mark Franklin to hear and learn from both Anastasiia and Ann's insightful career stories.

Welcome to episode #895 of Six Pixels of Separation - The ThinkersOne Podcast. Here it is: Six Pixels of Separation - The ThinkersOne Podcast - Episode #895. When it comes to the digital economy, the law and the media, everyone should be following Dr. Michael Geist. Now, more than ever, his voice may be the only "truth" we are seeing in the media as Canada deals with the massive fallout that is Bill C-18 (Canada's Online News Act). My primer on this ridiculous law is here: Big Tech, Big Media, Big Trouble And Big Lies. With that, the issues (and opportunity) bleed well beyond the borders of Canada and should strike fear into anyone interested in our global digital economy. For a long while, Michael has been reshaping the landscape of Internet and E-commerce Law from his academic pulpit at the University of Ottawa. With credentials that read like an academic's dream — degrees from Osgoode Hall, Cambridge, and Columbia — he's not just dissecting law... he's writing it, in real-time, for a digital age. You've likely stumbled upon his incisive columns, where he distills complex technology law issues into digestible wisdom. But wait, there's more. Michael is the maestro behind a slew of copyright books that are nothing short of revolutionary. Titles like, The Copyright Pentalogy, and, In the Public Interest, are shaking the foundations of Canadian copyright law, carving out a new roadmap for the digital era. He's not just penning books... he's also editing monthly technology law publications and running a blog that's become a go-to resource on Internet and intellectual property issues. Michael's reach isn't confined to academia or print... he's a boardroom staple too. Whether it's Ingenium, Internet Archive Canada, or the Electronic Frontier Foundation, his advisory skills are in high demand. He's even steering the digital strategy for Waterfront Toronto, leading it into uncharted technological waters. His influence is such that he was named among the 50 most impactful people on intellectual property globally and among the 25 most influential lawyers in Canada, multiple years running. Why does Michael matter? Because in a world wrestling with the ethics and laws of a digital frontier, he's the sage we didn't know we needed, but can't afford to ignore. We dig deep into the media landscape, the mis-step of the government, why Meta proactively decided to no longer allow users to post links out to news websites, and why everyone (no matter where you live) should be paying attention to what Meta, Google and others technology companies are doing. Enjoy the conversation... Running time: 1:13:16. Hello from beautiful Montreal. Subscribe over at Apple Podcasts. Please visit and leave comments on the blog - Six Pixels of Separation. Feel free to connect to me directly on Facebook here: Mitch Joel on Facebook. Check out ThinkersOne. or you can connect on LinkedIn. ...or on Twitter. Here is my conversation with Dr. Michael Geist. Michael's Blog (which is filled with Bill C-18 brilliance). Michael's Podcast: Law Bytes. Michael on Substack. The Copyright Pentalogy. In the Public Interest. Follow Michael on LinkedIn. Follow Michael on Twitter/X. This week's music: David Usher 'St. Lawrence River'.

In this episode, we are joined by Gina Alexandris. Gina is the Founder and Chief Enthusiasm Officer of her own Coaching and Consulting Company. She is an ever-evolving career champion of current and emerging professionals, and creator of innovative and inspiring programs, especially for those who are underserved. Gina is a life-long learner and in addition to her law degree from Osgoode Hall, she also holds a Masters of Education degree in Adult Education from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto, and a Certificate of Completion for the Art and Practice of Leadership Development Program at the Harvard Kennedy School. Gina is also a Certified Professional Co-Active Coach, having completed the Coaching program from the Co-Active Training Institute and holds an Associate Certified Coach credential from the International Coaching Federation.  Throughout her career, Gina has consistently built programs from the ground up. She talks us through how many of these programs came to be and have evolved, including Toronto Metropolitan University's Law Practice Program. Further, Gina shares an important perspective about why she consciously does not use the word “alternative” to describe different career paths in the legal profession and beyond. Gina also tells us about her most recent project, the Career Conversations Book Club, and what drove her to create this free resource for leadership development.  Work with Gina through her coaching practice Learn from Gina on LinkedIn Follow Gina on Instagram Register for the Career Conversations Book Club  Follow us on Instagram @offthetrackspodcast, check out our website offthetrackspodcast.com, or connect with us by emailing podcast.offthetracks@gmail.com. Thanks for taking some time to step off the tracks with us! – Erin & Piper –  Did you know there are free and confidential mental health supports available to law students, paralegals, and lawyers in every province and territory? Click here to learn more and access services.

Jane Brown is filling in for Libby Znaimer today. She is joined by Peter Muggeridge, Senior Editor of Zoomer Magazine, David Cravit, Chief Membership Officer of CARP, and Bill VanGorder, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Policy Officer of CARP. Today: We begin by doing a recap of the Zoomers who won BIG during last night's Grammy Awards including Willie Nelson who won best country album. Meanwhile, here at home, the province is looking into increasing fines for long-term care homes that do not have AC in all residents' rooms. The max. fine would be $25,000 if they choose to increase it. And, this Tuesday, Ottawa is set to meet with the country's premiers to discuss a healthcare funding deal. What will come out of that?  Our panel has the latest. ---- WHAT IS UP WITH THAT CHINESE SURVEILLANCE BALLOON Jane Brown is now joined by Charles Burton, Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and expert on Canada-China relations as well as  Cheuk Kwan of the Toronto Association for Democracy in China. The latest reason for Canada and the U.S.'s escalating tensions with China? A Chinese surveillance balloon. So, first of all, what exactly do we know about this balloon so far? And, how did it cross into both Canadian and American air space? finally, what implications does it have on our already strained relationship with China? The Americans eventually shot down the balloon over the Atlantic Ocean. And there was apparently a second balloon spotted over Latin America. Our experts weigh in on the latest. ---- THE FUTURE OF THE OSGOODE HALL TREES Jane Brown is now joined by Steve Munro, a Toronto transit advocate. Metrolinx's planned removal of the trees at Osgoode Hall in downtown Toronto is being stalled until at least February 10. Advocates have been visibly showing their concern over the future of this greenspace and Steve explains how it's all being handled in the courts. Listen live, weekdays from noon to 1, on Zoomer Radio!

Guest: Lex Harvey, transportation reporter Public transit is something that is always difficult to get built in the Toronto area. Case in point: several transit lines are to be built in the next decade, and already skirmishes are happening. There have been complaints about the state of the years-delayed and overbudget Eglinton Crosstown, concern about the fate of mature trees at Osgoode Hall and questions from parents and kids at an east end school where transit work is underway. Metrolinx, the agency responsible, is taking a heavy hand of community complaints. Is it all par for the course or are there bigger questions to be asked? This episode was produced by Alexis Green, Paulo Marques and Raju Mudhar. Audio source: Breakfast Television and CityNews

In this episode we discuss the difficulty and the emotional toll on the family and those suffering with mental illness and other issues.  My guest, Cindy watson, is an amazing powerhouse, committed to social justice for all. She walks her walk and believes that justice starts with family.  Cindy Watson is a highly sought after international speaker, and TEDx Ocala speaker, known for her passion, commitment, deep caring and ability to inspire. Cindy has been called the female Tony Robbins of this generation. Cindy Watson is the founder of Women On Purpose, and also the founder and managing partner of Watson Labour Lawyers. A graduate of the prestigious Osgoode Hall, Cindy is an experienced and respected attorney, and for the past 30 years has specialized in social justice.  Energized and driven by personal and professional experience; and, most importantly backed by years of education, knowledge and experience, Cindy consistently gives 110%. Cindy has published numerous short stories as well as two books, Unloved and Endangered Animals, and Out of Darkness - The Jeff Healey Story, for which she won the Golden Oak Forest of Reading award. Her latest book The Art of  Feminine Negotiation - How to Get what you Want from the Boardroom to the Bedroom, is available now on Amazon. Social links YouTube  Women on Purpose YT Facebook Community Instagram  Twitter

In this episode we discuss the difficulty and the emotional toll on the family and those suffering with mental illness and other issues.  My guest, Cindy watson, is an amazing powerhouse, committed to social justice for all. She walks her walk and believes that justice starts with family.  Cindy Watson is a highly sought after international speaker, and TEDx Ocala speaker, known for her passion, commitment, deep caring and ability to inspire. Cindy has been called the female Tony Robbins of this generation. Cindy Watson is the founder of Women On Purpose, and also the founder and managing partner of Watson Labour Lawyers. A graduate of the prestigious Osgoode Hall, Cindy is an experienced and respected attorney, and for the past 30 years has specialized in social justice.  Energized and driven by personal and professional experience; and, most importantly backed by years of education, knowledge and experience, Cindy consistently gives 110%. Cindy has published numerous short stories as well as two books, Unloved and Endangered Animals, and Out of Darkness - The Jeff Healey Story, for which she won the Golden Oak Forest of Reading award. Her latest book The Art of  Feminine Negotiation - How to Get what you Want from the Boardroom to the Bedroom, is available now on Amazon. Social links YouTube  Women on Purpose YT Facebook Community Instagram  Twitter

After a lot of pushback from the public, Metrolinx has said they will hold off on chopping down some 200 year old trees outside of Osgoode Hall in place of a metro station. Alex is joined by Eric Davies, Ecologist and PhD Candidate with the faculty of forestry at the University of Toronto. Eric breaks down the decision and also says that it might've been a good idea to chop these trees anyways. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Libby Znaimer is joined by John Gradek, a faculty lecturer at McGill University in Montreal and a former executive with Air Canada, Dr. Gabor Lukacs, President and Founder of Air Passenger Rights, and Martin Firestone, President of Travel Secure Inc. Canada's transportation minister Omar Alghabra will be holding a summit to address the upcoming holiday travel season. The minister says he is working to improve the situation of delays at the airports and improve efficiency with the airlines and says that his ministry is working to ensure more staff for the airports and airlines. But with the holiday season just a month away, does he have the time and resources to get this done successfully? The summit will include stakeholders from the airlines and airports. And, the minister had this to say about why it is happening: “We cannot go back to what we saw last summer." And, Marty is on site at Pearson International Airport awaiting to board a flight. He gives us first-hand observations of what is going on there. CANADA SOCCER AT THE WORLD CUP IN QATAR Libby Znaimer is joined by Bob Richardson, a member of the board of directors for Canada Soccer. Today, Canada faces off against Belgium in the world cup in host country Qatar. But, what is more remarkable than that is the fact that Canada is making its first appearance in the event in 36 years. So, how did we get here? And, what does this all mean for Canada on the world stage? Bob was also just recently featured in the Toronto Life list of most influential Torontonians for bringing the future world cup to our City in 2026 (which will be joint hosted by the US and Mexico as well). METROLINX'S PLANS TO UPROOT HISTORIC TREES AT OSGOODE HALL Libby Znaimer is joined by Steve Munro, a Toronto transit advocate followed by Mike Schreiner, leader of the Green Party of Ontario. Metrolinx has plans to cut down five trees in the historic grove at Osgoode Hall as part of its Ontario Line project and has notified the Law Society of Ontario that it will begin doing so on Dec. 5th or earlier. Our guests today explain why this is a bad idea and the damage it will do to the historic urban forest land that has been preserved for more than 200 years according to the law society.

Metrolinx is under fire for planning to remove 5 trees from Toronto's Osgoode Hall before receiving a report in early 2023 and many are accusing Metrolinx of being unfair. 

This episode was originally broadcast on September 21, 2021. Mariela Gutierrez was born in Mexico but moved to the USA at a very young age. Later in her life, she decided to move to Toronto. She talks about the struggles of the immigrant journey as she saw it from her parents, moving to the United States from Mexico. The challenge of starting a new life in a different country to provide a better life for her family. Subscribe to the Podcast If you enjoyed listening to this episode, don't forget to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your favourite podcasts. And make sure to follow the show on Instagram and LinkedIn. Lastly, if you're an immigrant and want to share your story on the show, go to immigrantsoftoronto.com/join and fill out the form. Thanks for listening, I'm Oscar Cecena, and this is Immigrants of Toronto. Learn more about Mariela Gutierrez Mariela Gutierrez Mariela Gutierrez was born in Guadalajara, Mexico and moved to the US with her parents in 1990. She arrived in the US undocumented; she and her family settled in Los Angeles. Mariela attended LA public schools and went on to earn Bachelor's degrees in Anthropology and Chicanx Latinx Studies from California State University, Long Beach (CSULB). She also obtained a Master's degree in Social and Cultural Analysis of Education at CSULB and worked in Student Affairs for five years. In 2020, after living in the US for three decades without any permanent legal status, she immigrated to Canada and now lives in Toronto. She recently completed her first year of law school at York University's Osgoode Hall. She is active on Instagram sharing her journey in Canada and law school. Get in touch with Mariela LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/gutierrezmariela/Instagram: @dacamerican

Mariela Gutierrez was born in Mexico but moved to the USA at a very young age. Later in her life, she decided to move to Toronto. She talks about the struggles of the immigrant journey as she saw it from her parents, moving to the United States from Mexico. The challenge of starting a new life in a different country to provide a better life for her family. Subscribe to the Podcast If you enjoyed listening to this episode, don't forget to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your favourite podcasts. And make sure to follow the show on Instagram and LinkedIn. Lastly, if you're an immigrant and want to share your story on the show, go to immigrantsoftoronto.com/join and fill out the form. Thanks for listening, I'm Oscar Cecena, and this is Immigrants of Toronto. Learn more about Mariela Gutierrez Mariela Gutierrez Mariela Gutierrez was born in Guadalajara, Mexico and moved to the US with her parents in 1990. She arrived in the US undocumented; she and her family settled in Los Angeles. Mariela attended LA public schools and went on to earn Bachelor's degrees in Anthropology and Chicanx Latinx Studies from California State University, Long Beach (CSULB). She also obtained a Master's degree in Social and Cultural Analysis of Education at CSULB and worked in Student Affairs for five years. In 2020, after living in the US for three decades without any permanent legal status, she immigrated to Canada and now lives in Toronto. She recently completed her first year of law school at York University's Osgoode Hall. She is active on Instagram sharing her journey in Canada and law school. Get in touch with Mariela LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/gutierrezmariela/Instagram: @dacamerican

This week on the podcast, a fan favourite is back for round two! This week, host Shayla Oulette Stonechild is joined once again by Caitlyn Kasper. Caitlyn is an Anishinaabek woman from the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation. She holds an Honours Specialist in Political Science from the University of Toronto and a Juris Doctor from Osgoode Hall. She is currently a candidate for a Master of Laws at Osgoode Hall, with a specialization in Constitutional Law. In 2014, Caitlyn joined Aboriginal Legal Services as legal counsel in Toronto, Ontario. Her legal expertise is in appellate court law reform and test case litigation in criminal, child welfare and civil rights. Her work for Indigenous people centres on police violence, investigation of sudden death, inquest, and victim advocacy. Caitlyn has represented clients at every level of court within the country, including the Supreme Court of Canada, always advocating for recognition of the First Nations, Métis and Inuit perspective and representation on issues that most impact Indigenous people in Canadian law. In this episode, the two talk about knowing your rights as Indigenous people, how to deal with police if stopped as Indigenous people, the prison system and how the child welfare system is almost a new version of the residential school system, defunding the police and the Land Back movement from a legal perspective. ... Follow Shayla Oulette Stonechild on Instagram Visit thebrandisfemale.com.

This week on the podcast, host Shayla Stonechild is joined by Caitlyn Kasper. Caitlyn is an Anishinaabek woman from the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation. She holds an Honours Specialist in Political Science from the University of Toronto and a Juris Doctor from Osgoode Hall. She is currently a candidate for a Master of Laws at Osgoode Hall, with a specialization in Constitutional Law. In 2014, Caitlyn joined Aboriginal Legal Services as legal counsel in Toronto, Ontario. Her legal expertise is in appellate court law reform and test case litigation in criminal, child welfare and civil rights. Her work for Indigenous people centres on police violence, investigation of sudden death, inquest, and victim advocacy. Caitlyn has represented clients at every level of court within the country, including the Supreme Court of Canada, always advocating for recognition of the First Nations, Métis and Inuit perspective and representation on issues that most impact Indigenous people in Canadian law. In this episode, Caitlyn and Shayla discuss the importance of non-Indigenous people/settlers' need to hold up their end of the treaties, and how we are all "treaty people" in this country. Caitlyn also discusses why she thinks the Catholic Church refuses to apologize to Indigenous communities about Residential Schools. ... Follow Shayla Oulette Stonechild on Instagram Visit thebrandisfemale.com.

Content warning: This episode discusses suicide. If you or someone you know is thinking about suicide, the National Suicide Prevention Service available 24/7/365 by calling 1-833-456-4566. In this episode, we sit down with Anisha Nag, a law student at Osgoode Hall and a summer student at Erin's law firm, Erin O'Rourke Law. We discuss how Anisha came to attend law school on a part-time basis, the fear of disclosing mental health challenges, and how much sleep we all truly need. Follow Anisha on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/anisha_nag Follow Anisha's lead and read Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams by Matthew Walker: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34466963-why-we-sleep Follow us on Instagram @offthetrackspodcast, check out our website offthetrackspodcast.com, or connect with us by emailing podcast.offthetracks@gmail.com. Thanks for taking some time to step off the tracks with us! - Erin & Piper Did you know there are free and confidential mental health supports available to law students, paralegals, and lawyers in every province and territory? Click here to learn more and access services: https://www.cba.org/Sections/Wellness-Subcommittee/Wellness-Programs

In January, a Reddit community endeavoured to undercut Wall Street hedge funds and made international news in the process. As with many happenings on the market, understanding the particulars can be made difficult by murky terminology and slipshod history. To help contextualize these issues, host Jake Clark sits down with Professor P.M. Vasudev — a specialist in business law who earned a Ph.D. from Osgoode Hall and now teaches at the University of Ottawa — to discuss short selling, Canadian vs. American securities law, and what it means to combine the study of law and economics.

President Brad Regehr meets with Dr. Val Napoleon and Signa Daum Shanks to discuss Call to Action 28, which calls on law schools to require students to take a course in Aboriginal people and the law. Dr. Val Napoleon is an associate professor and Law Foundation Professor of Aboriginal Justice and Governance at the University of Victoria. She co-founded UVic's Indigenous Law Research Unit and the Joint Degree Program in Canadian Common Law and Indigenous Legal Orders JD/JID that launched in 2019. Signa Daum Shanks is Métis, born and raised in Saskatchewan. She became part of the full-time faculty at Osgoode Hall in 2014, as the schools inaugural Director of Indigenous Outreach. At Osgoode she teaches Torts, Law and Economics, Game Theory and the Law, and Indigenous Peoples and Canadian Law. Click here to register to The Path - Your Journey Through Indigenous CanadaTo contact us (please include in the subject line ''Podcast''): podcasts@cba.orgPlease subscribe, rate and review our podcast if you are enjoying it on Apple Podcasts.

February 19, 2021 In this episode of the Paw & Order podcast, Camille Labchuk and Peter Sankoff catch up on what’s new, including Peter planning to attend an Animal Justice virtual event at Osgoode Hall, his new podcast with his daughter Penny, called Translating Criminal Law: Rated G airing its fourth episode, and a new... Read more »

In this episode we reimagine our justice and legal system with special guest Sukhpreet Sangha, a KW native who is a lawyer, theatre-maker, writer, and barfly. After studying and English at the University of Waterloo, she studied law at Osgoode Hall. Sukhpreet has practiced as a criminal defence lawyer in private practice and as a poverty lawyer at a community legal clinic. In those roles, she appeared before all levels of court in Ontario, as well as several administrative tribunals and the Supreme Court of Canada. Currently, she works in legal education at a non-profit dedicated to youth. Sukhpreet also remains active as a theatre practitioner and, to that end, is co-Artistic Director of Informal Upright Theatre Collective. Relevant Links: Waterloo Region Community Legal Services Community Legal Education Ontario The Ontario Women's Justice Network Community Justice Initiatives Informal Upright Theatre

(01.25.21) In this episode, Laura and Vanessa have on guest Nathan Lewko; a business graduate from the University of Guelph and current student at Osgoode Hall law school at York University in the GTA. Nathan speaks on how he knew he wanted to pursue a career in law, tips for standing out on an application, and his role as a mentor with Legally Bright, a resource for students looking to get into law school. If you are interested in going to law school, or any graduate program, this is a must-listen! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Sukhpreet Sangha is a theatremaker, lawyer, poet, and barfly. After studying theatre and English at the University of Waterloo, she studied law at Osgoode Hall, and has since questioned that decision regularly. She spends her days working in legal education at a non-profit dedicated to youth and her nights, well, wouldn’t you like to know. Sukhpreet is co-Artistic Director of Informal Upright Theatre Collective. You can also read some things she writes here and see some things she tweets here. Sukhpreet invites you to find out more about “Yellow Bellies” (and perhaps even buy it!) here: http://theatreofthebeat.ca/yellow-bellies. Support Stageworthy: https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/stageworthy Send us your feedback online: https://pinecast.com/feedback/stageworthy/6c1afab6-1c57-45c8-bf5e-d297c6867db0

My guest this week is a management thinker and a leader of the new world order. He is an award-winning entrepreneur, venture capitalist, best-selling author and a 2-time Emmy nominated media visionary. He has helped raise hundreds of millions in capital for start-up companies as well as taking a company to a 6 Billion market cap IPO. Currently, he is the Co-Founder and Executive Chairman of Creative Labs, a joint venture with CAA (Creative Artists Agency in LA), the largest sports and entertainment agency in the world, often called “Hollywood’s Secret Society”. He oversees the building of new ventures for some of the most well-known celebrities and political leaders in the world. Please welcome my guest, Leonard Brody. Bio Leonard Brody was called “a controversial leader of the new world order”. He is an award winning entrepreneur, venture capitalist, best-selling author and a 2-time Emmy nominated media visionary. He has helped in raising millions of dollars for start-up companies, been through one of the largest internet IPOs in history and has been involved in the building, financing and/or sale of five companies to date. After selling his company in 2009, Leonard became the President of the Innovation and Digital Group for the Anschutz Company, one of the largest live sport and entertainment businesses in the world owning assets such as stadiums like the O2 Arena in London and Staples Center in LA; sports teams like the Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Galaxy and the Los Angeles Kings, and today, one of the premiere concert promotion businesses in the world seating hundreds of millions of people a year. He is also one of the proud owners of Coventry City Football Club in England. Leonard also acts as principal in several venture capital funds throughout the world and is behind the financing and creation of 20-30 start-up companies a year. A highly sought-after public speaker, Leonard has lectured at institutions such as Stanford, the G8 and the United Nations. His insight has been requested by companies such as The Financial Times, Warner Music, Dell, Visa and Pepsi, as well as, the governments of countries such as India, Israel, Ireland, Russia and South Africa. His work has been featured in such publications as Fortune, the Wall Street Journal, the BBC and the New York Times. He is co-author of the best selling books, “Innovation Nation: Canadian Leadership from Jurassic Park to Java” and “Everything I Needed to Know About Business…I Learned from a Canadian” both published by John Wiley and Sons. Currently, he is authoring a new book in partnership with Forbes Magazine, entitled, “The Great Re:Write” coming out in the next year. Leonard holds an Honours Bachelor of Arts from Queens University, a law degree from Osgoode Hall and is a graduate of the Private Equity Program at the Harvard Business School.  Recorded on: 16th July 2020  Links: More about Leonard Brody More about Maria Franzoni Ltd Connect with Maria on Linkedin Connect with Maria on FaceBook To book any of the speakers featured on the Speaking Business podcast, click here Listen here: Libsyn  Itunes  Stitcher Spotify

Thornton took a job as a waiter at Bencher’s Dining Room, in Osgoode Hall, home to the Law Society of Upper Canada. And while working among society’s most affluent, he saw opportunity. The well-to-do had private carriages, and that was quite an asset. There’s a reason this town was called “Muddy” York. Making matters worse, townsfolk routinely dumped their sewage into the filthy, unpaved streets. Remembering the horsedrawn carriages-for-hire back in Louisville – and noting the lack of a cab service here in Toronto – Thornton saved up his earnings. Just two years after his arrival, had commissioned a firm to design a cab that could carry passengers over the disgusting roadways.His service was called “The City” – a red and yellow, four-seater with a taxi stand outside St. James Church. It was so successful that not only did he add more vehicles to the fleet, but other cab companies – commonly owned and operated by other Black residents – started to appear.#BlackLivesMatterTHEME MUSICFull Bloom, by Emily Klassen - http://cfccreates.com/alumni/2180OTHER MUSICA Celtic Tale, by Emily Klassen - http://cfccreates.com/alumni/2180Inca Spa, by Carlos Carty - www.nativerelax.comLINKSI’ve Got a Home in Glory Land (Toronto Public Library): https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDM178251&R=178251Toronto Dreams Project: https://twitter.com/TODreamsProject/status/1274070044805390348Torontoist: https://torontoist.com/2016/02/now-and-then-thornton-and-lucie-blackburn/Global Television: https://globalnews.ca/news/6601355/thornton-lucie-blackburn-toronto/The Toronto Star: https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/02/11/escaped_slaves_helped_build_to.htmlCBC: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/taxi-history-1.3526912The Ward Museum: http://www.wardmuseum.ca/pathways/thorntonblackburn/

Each year NSRLP "graduates" law student research assistants (RAs) who have worked with us over the previous three years. These prospective lawyers have had an "immersion program" in working with members of the public who are representing themselves, an experience that we hear year after year is formative in shaping their path into legal practice. This year's graduates are Ali Tejani (social media wizard, and our "In Other News" correspondent), Megan Campbell (manager of the SRL Case Law Database), Kaila Scarrow (co-investigator and co-author of our report on access to court transcripts, along with many other pieces), and Rebecca Flynn (researcher/editor of our latest A2J Annotated Bibliography, and Case Law Database researcher). Julie's conversation with them spans their hopes for the future of legal services, their thoughts about entering an evolving profession, and how COVID is going to change everything. (Make sure to listen to the end for “in other news” with guest host Jordan Furlong!) In other news, with Jordan Furlong (legal markets analyst and recent podcast guest): the State Bar of California has agreed to move ahead with a “regulatory sandbox” to try out innovative legal services; Los Angeles County Superior Court launching free online tool to help parents negotiate child custody disputes and visitation issues without having to come to court; and finally, a Globe & Mail op-ed from a graduating Osgoode Hall law student reflects on the benefits of online legal education. For related links and more on this episode visit our website: https://representingyourselfcanada.com/comfortable-being-uncomfortable/ Jumping Off the Ivory Tower is produced and hosted by Julie Macfarlane and Dayna Cornwall; production and editing by Brauntë Petric; Other News produced and hosted by Jordan Furlong; promotion by Moya McAlister and the NSRLP team.

Roxanne Mykitiuk is an Osgoode Hall law professor and director of the Disability Law Intensive Program at York University and Trudo Lemmens is a professor at the University of Toronto. They explore the ethical issues around assessing the value of a life and share their list of precautions to help safeguard the rights of persons with disabilities during COVID-19. This is the April 28, 2020 episode.

The term ecological grief captures the profound sense of loss, dread and fear people feel when trying to cope with climate change. We talk about this new mental-health paradigm, how acute it is in endangered communities in the North, as well as its unexpected companion—hope. In late 2019, New York Times journalist Cara Buckley wrote one of the first mainstream news stories about struggling with a little-discussed form of mental-health crisis. “Have you ever known someone who cited the Anthropocene in a dating profile? Who doled out carbon offset gift certificates at the holidays? Who sees new babies and immediately flashes to the approximately 15 tons of carbon emissions the average American emits per year? Who walks around shops thinking about where all the packaging ends up? You do now.” Perplexed about how to cope, she went about “searching for a cure” for a knot of emotions—including anger, frustration, sadness and fear—brought on by thinking about the future of the planet. (That search included attending a workshop in Brooklyn called  “Cultivating Active Hope: Living With Joy Amidst the Climate Crisis.”) Like countless others, Buckley was suffering from ecological grief. It’s not technically new. For arguably hundreds of years, people with a connection to the environment and its well-being have suffered in the face of its destruction. But the term ecological grief was coined in 2018 by authors of a research publication, including Ashlee Cunsolo, director of the Labrador Institute of Memorial University. In this episode of No Little Plans, Cunsolo talks at length with host Vicky Mochama about her experience, starting with a definition: “Ecological grief is the pain that people feel in connection to the loss of something that isn’t human. It can be as a species. It can be a body of water. It can be a singular animal. It can be a beloved place.” That pain is particularly acute with those who live or work in endangered communities. Cunsolo is one of them. The Labrador Institute is a leading centre of research, education, outreach and policy, by and for the North. Cunsolo and her small team spent two years investigating one of the hardest hit areas, Northern Labrador, which included hundreds of conversations with residents and elders. There, mourning losses due to climate change was described to her as a 'grief without end.' “It’s not like when you lose a loved one. Societies have structures around that. We have rituals. We have funerals. You can take bereavement leave. People come around you…. When it was around ecological grief and loss, people almost felt alone. They felt sometimes embarrassed, sometimes ashamed to talk about it.” Preventing that isolation—by taking about eco grief as a real, scientific issue—is one of the key factors that motivates Cunsolo’s research. In fact, the field some now call “ecopsychology” is enabling a more widespread acknowledgment of the psychological and emotional connections that people have to the natural world, whether they’re bearing day-to-day witness to loss in the North or dealing with the anxiety from a distance, like Cara Buckley describes in her New York Times story. One of the most prominent voices of eco grief is also one of the most visible leaders of the climate movement. Greta Thunberg and her family have spoken often about her personal struggles. For Thunberg and for other young leaders, such as Indigenous water activist Autumn Peltier, the personal is the political. Their work starts with acknowledging the very presence of a physical and emotional environment-to-human bond. During this podcast episode, Vicky talks to Hillary McGregor, a 22-year-old coordinator at Indigenous Sport and Wellness in Ontario who helped develop a leadership program for Indigenous youth in Canada called the Standing Bear Program. Many youth, he says, have seen first-hand the effects of the climate crisis on their communities. This underscores a disconnect between their front-line experience and the more existential climate change debates among politicians and policymakers. “[The youth] are not really questioning whether or not climate change is happening. They want to know: What are the solutions going to be? How can I contribute now to make things better for my community?” That pivot from experiencing loss to being proactive is key to carving out space for hope—that unexpected but necessary companion to eco grief. Near the end of the episode, we hear from Hillary’s mother, Deborah McGregor, an associate professor and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Environmental Justice at York University’s Osgoode Hall. Professor McGregor acknowledges that eco grief is real, but not new, and that pain of this kind has been a fact of life across hundreds of years for Indigenous communities. She tracks the progression of grief to panic about the annihilation of the planet and, in turn, to a scaling up of measures by front-liners to demand change. “It's been a crisis for a long time. But Indigenous peoples have managed to survive and been resilient and adapted over that. So maybe there’s something that we can offer other people about how to survive, how to work through this and the kind of knowledge and skills that you need to be able to do that.” This includes better governance that enlists people witnessing climate-change first hand in leadership roles. It includes pressuring world leaders to move past the high-level discussions about, for instance, whether carbon tax is a good idea. As host Vicky Mochama concludes: “Maybe it’s time we took a step back and listened to the people that climate change is affecting directly and learn from them. We are past the point of figuring it out as we go. But there’s also hope and resilience: Youth have come out all over to address climate change. We’re grieving together. It’s time to act together.” CREDITS: No Little Plans is hosted by Vicky Mochama. This episode was produced by Dorsa Eslami, Ellen Payne Smith and Matthew McKinnon, with executive production by Katie Jensen. This podcast was created by Strategic Content Labs by Vocal Fry Studios for Community Foundations of Canada. Subscribe or listen to us via the outlets above, and follow us at @nolittlepodcast on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Meanwhile, like Daniel Burnham said: “Make big plans; aim high in hope and work.”

Should the City of Hamilton develop a gondola to go up and down the side of theescarpment? Earlier this week, Scott Radley had discussed this idea. Rick now wonders the same thing. ALSO: With LRT cancelled, could BRT make a comeback? Mulroney's office says that the task force could look at highway projects. Guest: John-Paul Danko, City of Hamilton Councillor for Ward 8. - Today is the start of the province's five year pilot project on e-bikes. But some are not happy with this project. Guest: Dave Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities at Alliance, visiting professor at the Osgoode Hall law school. - With 2020 upon us, how can we keep our fitness resolutions? Kathleen Trotter,personal trainer and author of “Finding your Fit” joins Rick to go into how to keep those resolutions going all year round. Guest: Kathleen Trotter, personal trainer, author of “Finding Your Fit”, columnist and blogger, fitness writer and pilates equipment specialist.

Today is the start of the province's five year pilot project on e-bikes. But some are not happy with this project. Guest: Dave Lepofsky, Chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities at Alliance & visiting professor at the Osgoode Hall law school

Darlene and Mike ‘take a stroll down a snowy memory lane’ and discuss the podcast’s hits (and misses) of 2019. BONUS EPISODE Our special live recording at Osgoode Hall can be heard here: https://bit.ly/369r7zu FEEDBACK, CREDITS & REVIEW Please give us feedback here: http://bit.ly/LLPFeedback Music credit: Nick Fowler, composition and performance (teknologyproductions.wixsite.com/teknology) Please rate, review, subscribe and comment. We would so appreciate your feedback (I mean, we're just two lawyers trying to podcast).

The Art of Feminine Negotiation - How To Get What You Want From The Boardroom To The Bedroom My next guest, Cindy Watson is the founder of Women On Purpose, The founder and managing partner of Watson Labour Law. A graduate of the prestigious Osgoode Hall, Cindy is an experienced and respected attorney, and for the past 30 years has specialized in social justice. Cindy is a sought-after trainer and speaker in the corporate arena, helping to build bridges between men and women in order to aid in productivity, communication and heal gender bias. Dedicated to breaking down barriers, securing pay equity and to ending discrimination: Cindy has a proven track record empowering, advocating, and motivating people to become the best version of themselves. Now as a Coach for Women who want to learn the art of feminine negotiation -What Cindy calls How to get what you want from the boardroom to the bedroom Cindy speaks internationally is an, award-winning author and consultant, known for her passion, commitment and ability to inspire. we talk about her ideals, her perspective and her new purpose planner… without further ado --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/bbpshow/message

Rob: Hey guys, I'm Rob Tétrault from robtetrault.com, head of the Tetrault Wealth Advisory Group here at Canaccord Genuity Wealth Management. I am pumped today. We've got a fantastic guest. Good buddy of mine, Cam Goodnough. I mean we tried to get someone else, but he's good enough for now. That's a joke. I'm really excited to have him here. We're in Winnipeg. He's in town. Not every day we get a CEO of a publicly listed company on the TSX in town chatting in our office in Winnipeg. We're thrilled to have you here Cam.   Cam: Thanks for having me.   Rob: Yeah, it's our pleasure. So, today we're talking about private debt. We're going talk about your story a bit. I want to hear how you got involved with financial services. I want to hear about Timbercreek, their role, how you see it fitting. Really, private debt has changed a lot in the last 10, 15, 20 years, even 50 years. It's a lot more available now than ever was, and we'll talk about that in a sec too. Let's talk about you and how you started in financial services industry. Where are you from originally?   Cam: A town called Smithville, Southern Ontario – small town, about 2,500 people. My parents are both from Saskatchewan and it was great. It was a kind of a Huck Finn existence until you were about 14 or 15, and then all you want to do is get out of that town. My travels took me to university. I went to the University of Windsor, got my undergrad in commerce. Ultimately, still didn't know what I wanted to do with my life as you're pretty young and you're still figuring things out. I ended up going to do my grad work at, my MBA, and my law degree at Osgoode Hall and Schulich at York University,   Rob: That's an okay university, but I went to U of T, it's a little better for my law school, but anyways…   Cam: (Chuckles) and that's where I found out about investment banking. I come from where I came from. It wasn't a topic of conversation around kitchen table and that's it. And it was at that school, at that point that I found out about investment banking, started exploring what, what that meant, what that would look like and that was my start in financial services. Out of school, I joined Merrill Lynch in their corporate finance group. And you know, back then, late ‘90's, spend a lot of time on technology and technology IPOs and that ended in the early 2000's had to reinvent myself. And at that point …   Rob: So, you were actually an investment banker late ‘90's with the tech run up in the tech wreck?   Cam: Yes.   Rob: Oh, that must've been really exciting.   Cam: It was, you're working on some fantastic deals. Some really interesting companies. You'd have story. I mean, I'm not necessarily going to dive too deep today, but there were some ludicrous things that were happening at valuation, valuations and multiples of number of engineers in terms of figuring out how you value a pre revenue company and you really opened your eyes. And that really set the foundation for me around value and what is it that I'm paying for and what am I really getting for what I'm paying for. And that that's has stuck with me. In 2001 when you had the start of the collapse of NASDAQ, I was still young at this point and mobile in terms of profession and in terms of focus area, and there was an empty seat available in the financial services area of the firm. So, I made the move from technology, pre-IPO financing stuff to financial services, spent a lot of time digging into banks and insurance companies and wealth managers and I really found an affinity for wealth managers. Particularly when you were covering somebody who was a really good investment professional who understood value. Speaking back to my lessons through the tech bubble, crash, whatever you want to call it, that was really my start in my introduction to, not just private debt, but just wealth management generally around the different asset classes. How does this strategy work? How does that strategy work? What are the pros and cons of the various strategies?   Rob: Were you advising wealth advisors, or were you a Wealth advisor at that point?   Cam: At that point I was advising the companies themselves, whether they're publicly traded like a CI or financial, or whether they were private companies, we were delivering and whatever financial services they needed funding in terms of fund launches or in terms of capital market needs, raising debt, raising equity, mergers and acquisitions, that sort of thing. And that really fueled my interest in the space. At this point, I'm now at RBC and then ultimately culminated my career at TD. At TD, I found this young company called Timbercreek. They were small and they weren't particularly well covered by the large institutions and I've got to really know the two founders there, spent a lot of time with them, raised, started raising them capital for the predecessor funds to typically financial and ultimately in 2016 advise them on the merger of a couple of their companies that created at the form Timbercreek financial. And it was out of that, Hugo and Blair talked to me about joining Timbercreek. At that point, having spent 17 or 18 years in investment banking, it was a chance to do what I'd been on the other side of the table, what I've been advising others to do.   Rob: So now you're CEO of Timbercreek financial, it's 2016.   Cam: Yes.   Rob: At that point Timbercreek financial had a focus on private debt exclusively. Correct?   Cam: Correct.   Rob: So, what's your view on it, and what are the first things you do with respect to Timbercreek?   Cam: Well, the first thing that we did was assessed the, the risk of the portfolio. That to us was – is – a fundamental tenant. We felt that where we were in the real estate cycle, was probably later than earlier in terms of, you know, what inning are we in. So, we started de-risking the portfolio. What that means for private debt, we're a commercial real estate lender. So, all we do is commercial real estate. We don't do single family residential mortgages. Our sweet spot is between $5 and $50 million. We love apartment building.   Rob: What would be the loan to value that you'd be doing on these projects?   Cam: Our average portfolios are about a billion to, would be 67%.   Rob: And is this exclusively mezzanine financing, kind of short-term stuff?   Cam: It is short term, but it's not mezzanine, it's first mortgages. So, we're providing first mortgages to real estate companies who are transitioning an asset from or executing a value-add strategy. You can call it either one. So, they're looking for a short-term bridge solution to take this property from point A to point B or rather the other way around. Take a B asset and make it an A asset, or a C asset and make it a B asset. And at that point we'd get taken out by traditional financers, whoever that is, who have lower cost of capital than we have, or a sale of the property, which we get rebates. So, our typical mortgages are two years, our average duration in the portfolio ranges. But 1.1, 1.2 years.   Rob: And this private debt has been around for a while and it serves a ridiculously important purpose because these developments don't happen otherwise. Right? Like you've got a building that needs to either expand or maybe scale up, add some stories. I'm thinking maybe in Toronto and Vancouver.   Cam: Absolutely repositioning them. I'm renovating them. I'm leasing them up if they're unreleased or are under market rents. And so, you know, historically this activity was done by the financial institutions. but there was, as the regulations have evolved the need to hold more capital against certain kinds of projects versus other kinds of projects. And you've seen a really huge number of entities created over the last 20 years, but really heavily in the last 10 years that are focused on providing private alternatives for professional investors to access debt capital while they're executing the projects. And so, our niche –I've talked about some of that stuff and our differentiators – is that we are flexible. We don't have 10,000 mortgages. We have, you know, a 125-150 mortgages. So, we're flexible in the, you were customizing mortgages each time too, to the borrower's needs. We are a real estate company first and foremost. We understand the real estate. We're a financial provider secondarily, meaning we're making an assessment on whether we like the real estate, and if a downside scenario were to occur, would we be happy owning this at our loan devaluation, which is very important, and could we complete the other part? Could we complete the project? That's being done. So, do we like the property? Do we like the sponsor, who's behind this project? And thirdly, do we like the plan, and do we believe that we need, you know, more apartments in Winnipeg? Do we believe we need more office space in Toronto? Whatever that is. If we agree with the thesis and we have faith in the sponsor, and first and foremost, have felt and touched and walked through the actual real estate and we liked the location. If those things all tick, that's a project that we can get behind at the right LTV level.   Rob: Okay, so now you've been CEO. Fast forward a few years. You're CEO, you're running Timbercreek Financial. The stock is doing well, the stock is yielding, the stock pays what kind of dividend?   Cam: On market price, just over 7%.   Rob: So, the unit holders end up buying the stock at trades on the Toronto stock exchange. They buy the stock. In theory they hold it, they collect the dividend. That's a quarterly dividend?   Cam: That is a monthly distribution.   Rob: Monthly distribution. You're getting your annual yield to call it about 7%. In theory, the stock should hopefully in your mind, would it grow over time in theory? Is that the plan?   Cam: Well, we are what I would describe as a, people shouldn't own us thinking that there's capital appreciation, right? We are a yield play, or at the end of the day we are a portfolio of mortgages. We lend a dollar and if we do our job right, we get 100 cents back; we don't get 105 cents back, we get 100 cents back. We collected interest on the way through and we flow all of that interest income out to our investors. So, it's literally holding the investors should think of it as holding a portfolio of mortgages and they're getting a yield out of it and that the share price is publicly traded. So, there is daily ups and downs, but you shouldn't be thinking there's a 10% increase or decrease. It shouldn't be that volatile.   Rob: Right. I'm glad you mentioned that because this is not, you know, owning real estate or this is not owning a company like a publicly traded equity where you're hoping to get a yield plus growth. This has a very clear niche. When you talked about access to investors. So Timber, you know, when I grew up, you couldn't access private debt like this was not possible. You couldn't out and just buy access $2 billion, you know, a $100 million or $1 billion fund managers that could actually manage private debt for you. So that's now changed and it's impressive, I'd say.   Cam: Yeah it has changed. The whole world is changing, particularly post financial crisis, you've had, investors who might've not liked that roller coaster ride and you've had this insatiable drive towards yield and stability and uncorrelated returns. That's happening at all different sophistication levels of the investors. So, at the pension funds and the large endowment funds that the Harvard's et cetera, what are they doing there? They're moving towards private assets. They're moving towards owning physical real estate, private debt, private equity, infrastructure, energy, and their public components are decreasing. And that capital has allowed, and they need to source that capital. This isn't like a stock. We can't just go out and buy a bunch of private debt. We have to have a team that goes and finds these deals and, and has relationships with the developers and the project managers and then have an underwriting team that has to go through the credit and make sure that we're satisfied that all the numbers tie, and that all the environmental reports, and the appraisals, and the engineering reports, and everything else is tied down. Because again, we're lending a dollar and getting 100 cents back. We don't have upside. We don't want to have downside either. So, we have to do all of our work and then finally we have to service that mortgage. So, we need to go out and make sure we're getting in the interest payments. We're running, it's not a bank, but it is a component of what a bank does. Banks are much more diversified.   Rob: Managing the risk for sure would be an important one.   Cam: Absolutely. Absolutely. So, you know, we lever, we've got an independent board of directors, who have experience in various facets from legal, to accounting, to real estate, to other, we leverage their expertise. We leverage the full team at Timbercreek, across the firm.   Rob: So, you know, you're preaching to the choir. Not sure if you know, but those who do follow me, either at the, at robtetrault.com or my YouTube channel, they do know that I've been preaching this exact strategy of diversifying outside of asset classes, typical stock and bond asset classes. The big thing for me is uncorrelated assets, right? If we can get an asset class that generates returns, no matter what happens in the stock market, no matter what happens in China, no matter what happens with President Trump; that to me is an uncorrelated asset class in something that should be in a portfolio. So, who do you see as kind of your ideal investors? Or is there an ideal investor?   Cam: Yeah. For us it's the investors that are – what we find is that the vast majority of our investors are moms and pops who are looking to generate a particular return on their profile, on their portfolio, who don't want excess volatility of their portfolio. They've got a number in their head. Maybe the number's five, maybe the number's seven, maybe that number is nine, whatever that number of return profile. And they're using us as a more stable income source and looking elsewhere for either a top up on a capital appreciation or elsewise. But we are a MIC, a mortgage investment corp, and as a MIC we don't have to pay corporate tax – that's the positive. The negative is that in the hands of the investors, our dividends are taxed as interesting cultures. It's as if they held the mortgages themselves directly and so it makes sense inside an …   Rob: RRSP, a Tax-Free Savings Account.   Cam: Exactly. Anything like that where you can shield that income without having to pay tax on it.   Rob: Yeah, for sure. Yeah. We'll ask you one more question about the correlation to interest rates relative to what you guys do. Is it a straight thing where interest rates go down, your yield goes down and interest rates go up and your yield goes up? Or is it more complicated than that?   Cam: If there are, it is a balloon and the moment, you squeeze on one part another part bulges, then you're squeezing on that part, and another part bulges. There's a correlation on rates in terms of overall, real estate activity. So as rates are declining, real estate activity generally is increasing. Now in 2018 we saw three rate hikes, 75 basis points over the year. And yet, 2018 was a banner year for real estate activity. So, it's not necessarily directly correlated, but overall there is interest rates or in, it looks like we're back in a declining rate environment again, and you know, that generally has a positive impact on real estate.   Rob: That's fantastic. All right guys. Blessed and lucky today to sit down with Cam Goodnough, the CEO of Timbercreek Financial. Really thrilled to have him here. Again, long line of quality guests that we have here. Happy to have you. Thank you for tuning in again. We appreciate it. Again, I'm Rob Tetrault from robtetrault.com, Head of the Tetrault Wealth Advisory group here at Canaccord Genuity Wealth Management. Give us a like, give us a share. Give us your comments. We'd love to hear from you. Thanks for tuning in.  

Ev and Sophie are joined by special guest Heidi Matthews, professor of law at Osgoode Hall and host of the Heidi Matthews on Demand podcast, to discuss the fallout of a sex worker being denied honours thesis supervision. Later in the episode they go on to discuss female active shooters (Girl Boss), Easter and the Devil’s Easter (420)   Find Heidi on Twitter @heidi__matthews, and listen to her podcast, Heidi Matthews On Demand, in all the regular podcast places. #HMODPOD 

Conversations With The President: Raising The Bar on Inclusion, Ep 3:Preston Parsons was called to the bar in 2011. He's past Chair of the Young Lawyers Section and was a co-chair of the CBA-BC Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Community, or SOGIC. Nicole Nussbaum is an Osgoode Hall graduate. She's a past-chair and current member-at-large of the CBA's SOGIC. She also has more than a decade of experience practicing as an openly trans lawyer.Visit www.cba.org/dispatches to learn more about CBA President and his goals.Nous avons également parlé avec Élisabeth Brousseau sur son expérience en tant que femme ouvertement lesbienne, dans notre balado en français Juriste branché.To contact us (please include in the subject line ''Podcast''): podcasts@cba.orgPlease subscribe, rate and review our podcast if you are enjoying it on Apple Podcast.

Sue Rice was the original Project Coordinator at the NSRLP, working with Julie on the groundbreaking National SRL Study from 2011-13, and consulting to the US study from 2014-15. Many of the SRLs who participated in the study, or who come to NSRLP after 2013 to share their experience, have met, talked or corresponded with Sue, who was the welcoming and empathetic face of first the study, and then the project. In this conversation, Sue shares her reflections on what we learned from going on the road to talk to SRLs about their experiences, as well as what it was like for her as an “outsider” (Sue is not a lawyer) to work on these issues. As we completed the podcast this week, we were struck by the many similarities between Sue’s observations about the emotional and physical toll of self-representation, and the latest report just published by the Costs of Justice project at Osgoode Hall (link on the podcast website - see below). Finally, our condolences to the family and friends of Simon Fodden, retired legal scholar, and founder of Canada's premier online legal forum, SLAW. More on this episode on our website: https://representingyourselfcanada.com/whats-in-a-name-tag/

Canadian lawyer, politician and broadcaster Judy LaMarsh is born in Chatham, Ontario. Judy Verlyn LaMarsh was born on December 20, 1924 in Chatham, Ontario and was brought up in Niagara Falls. Between 1943 and 1946 she joined the Canadian Women’s Army Corp and travelled from Halifax to Vancouver, obtaining the rank of sergeant. After the war LaMarsh earned her law degree from Osgoode Hall and joined her father’s law firm in Niagara Falls conducting criminal law. She won a seat in the House of Commons as a Liberal during a by-election in 1960 and when Lester Pearson became prime minister in 1963, LaMarsh became the second woman and the first Liberal woman to hold a federal cabinet post. As minister of National Health and Welfare, she began drafting Canada’s cherished Medicare system and the Canada Pension Plan came into being. Between 1965 and 1968 she became secretary of state during Canada’s centennial celebrations, and she established the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. In 1968, during the leadership convention to replace Pearson, LaMarsh made one of Canada’s most famous political faux pas. When it was clear her candidate Paul Hellyer would not win, she tried to stop Pierre Trudeau from getting the top job. Unbeknownst to her, with CBC cameras rolling and microphones on, all of Canada heard her say, "Paul, you've got to go to Winters. Don't let that bastard win it, Paul - he isn't even a Liberal.” Trudeau won the leadership and became prime minister, and LaMarsh retired from politics. She wrote her autobiography Memoirs of a Bird in a Gilded Cage and worked as a broadcaster. In 1980 she became an Officer of the Order of Canada. On October 27, 1980 LaMarsh died at age 55. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In Part II of Legal Personality of the Environment, we meet with Rob Clifford, a PhD student at Osgoode Hall and a member of the Tsawout First Nation, to discuss the concept of legal personality of the environment and its applicability in Canada. We notably discuss the transplantation of this doctrine in Canada, in light of its federal architecture and of the rich diversity of Indigenous legal traditions across the nation. This two-part podcast is by Raphaël Grenier-Benoit and Boris Kozulin, Executive Editor and Senior Editor for volume 63 of the McGill Law Journal. Produced by Alexis Hudon and Emma Noradounkian, Podcast Editors for volumes 62 and 63 of the McGill Law Journal.

The Empire Club of Canada Presents: The Honourable Steven Del Duca, Ontario's Minister of Transportation Ontario's Minister of Transportation, the Hon. Steven Del Duca has a proven track record of outstanding community involvement and a clear dedication to public service. First elected to the Ontario Legislature in September 2012, in less than two years he secured approval of the Highway 427 extension, delivered $49.7 million towards the Mackenzie Vaughan Hospital and $49 million for four new schools in Vaughan. Del Duca was re elected in June 2014 and appointed as Ontario's Minister of Transportation in Premier Kathleen Wynne's cabinet. Since becoming Minister, Del Duca has remained committed to the Highway 427 extension. He has also overseen the development and construction of the $1.4 billion York Viva Bus Rapid Transit, BRT, project set for completion in 2020. The York BRT will improve public transportation across the region, stimulate the economy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and help to manage congestion. A long term advocate of the Mackenzie Vaughan Hospital, Del Duca announced in October that construction has officially begun on this important local project. This incredible achievement, made possible by a provincial investment of up to $1.3 billion, will support and provide advanced health care services to more than 500,000 people in the region. Del Duca obtained a Bachelor of Laws from Osgoode Hall law school in 2007. Previously, he studied political science and Canadian history at the University of Toronto and at Carleton University. He first moved to Vaughan in 1987 when his family settled in Kleinburg. Today, he lives in Woodbridge with his wife and two daughters. Speaker: The Honourable Steven Del Duca, Ontario's Minister of Transportation *The content presented is free of charge but please note that the Empire Club of Canada retains copyright. Neither the speeches themselves nor any part of their content may be used for any purpose other than personal interest or research without the explicit permission of the Empire Club of Canada.* *Views and Opinions Expressed Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the speakers or panelists are those of the speakers or panelists and do not necessarily reflect or represent the official views and opinions, policy or position held by The Empire Club of Canada.*

CanadianImmigrationPodcast.com Mark Holthe: I'm here with my good friend and colleague, Raj Sharma. Raj, thanks for joining me. Raj Sharma: My pleasure. Mark Holthe: We're testing this out with our digital recorder here. I usually do these interviews via Skype call, but I've got high hopes that the audio is going to be great regardless. Thanks for putting up with me, Raj, and happy to have you with us. Today, Raj has agreed to come in and talk a little bit about criminal inadmissibility and some of the consequences that can flow when people get themselves into trouble here in Canada, but before we get into that I want to take a moment to share a little bit of background on Raj, and where he's come from professionally, and where he's at. Raj Sharma's a lawyer and founding partner of Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, one of Western Canada's largest dedicated immigration law firms. He received his masters of law from Osgoode Hall and is a former refugee protection officer with the Immigration and Refugee Board. Now, I'll get to the question of how you got into immigration and I'm going to go out on a limb and think that that probably influenced it a little bit. Raj Sharma: That's right. Mark Holthe: With over a hundred reported decisions, Raj has indicated to me, he frequently appears before all divisions, as well as the Federal Court, the court of appeal, and has also appeared before every level of court in Alberta. Raj regularly speaks on immigration matters in the media, and he's been a panelist and speaker at the CBA National Immigration Conference in 2014 and '15. He also writes a lot on immigration, multiculturalism, and diversity. Recently he was the recipient of the Legal Aid of Alberta's Access to Justice award and has been recognized as well as one of Calgary's Top 40 Under 40. Raj is an extremely accomplished individual and I know that he won't plug himself, so I'll do that for him, but whenever I have a difficult case with respect to enforcement, or appeal work, or anything like that I send it to him and his firm. Once again, thanks for joining, Raj. Raj Sharma: Thanks, Mark. I'm East Indian, or as I like to describe ourselves as brown, so no matter how accomplished I am, obviously given that I'm not a doctor I'm probably a disappointment to my parents. Mark Holthe: Well, we'll have to get your parents on to come back and I'm almost positive with everything that you've done, at least within our industry and how you've distinguished yourself, that there wouldn't be a parent on this planet that wouldn't be proud of you. Enough of the feel good stuff, fill us in. How did you get into immigration? Raj Sharma: I never intended to get into immigration law. I did my JD at the University of Alberta. While I was there, I didn't take any immigration courses, immigration just wasn't even on my radar. I summered at a large law firm here in Calgary, Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer. I didn't like the large law firm milieu so to speak. Then I spent some time with Dennis Edney, who's now the lawyer for Omar Khadr. Then I also clerked up the Alberta Court of Appeal and ended up doing my articles with the federal department of justice. I think I had at that point an understanding that I would be somewhat closer to a barrister or a litigator than I would be in terms a solicitor. There was one case that I handled and my mentor at that time at the federal Department of Justice was Glennys Bembridge, who is now a Federal Court justice with a different last name, but there was one case and it involved a family, they're doctors, and their son had autism. I was the articling student, so I had to put together the affidavit and supporting the officer's finding of medical inadmissibility. I found that really, really interesting, but I kept saying to my mentor at that why can't we just consent on this file, the family's really deserving, and ultimately I think that the family did get relief. After that, I'd met my wife at Winnipeg at a wedding ... Mark Holthe: I'm going to jump in. Raj Sharma: Yes. Mark Holthe: You said, "Why can't we just consent to this?" What was his response? Raj Sharma: It was a strange response. The response was just like, "Oh, we just have to ..." Mark Holthe: Carry it through. Raj Sharma: It was more like it was like, "Oh, the client instructions ..." I'm like, "What client? We're the government." I was explained that different departments are actually clients of the department of justice. I found that very odd because I don't think that's true. I think that a client/solicitor relationship doesn't encapsulate departments of government being clients of each other. I found that odd. In any way, I'd met my wife in Winnipeg at a wedding, my cousin's wedding. She was in Calgary, born and raised in Calgary, so I needed a way to get to Calgary somehow, so I was applying for jobs in Calgary and I got this called up to do this test or examination at the Immigration Refugee Board. I was offered this position to become a refugee protection officer. That's where in fact I met my partner, Bjorn Harsanyi, so we both started off as refugee protection officers, hearings officers in 2002. Mark Holthe: Obviously that makes a pretty nice background for sliding over to the other side. It gives you an opportunity at least having worked on the other side to get a better understanding of how the government operates, how the department operates, a little bit more inside to the minds of what goes through a decision maker on that side. I have to assume that that helped you as you moved over to the other side with your advocacy on behalf of clients. Raj Sharma: I think so and I think that, and again there's this tradition of this entrepreneurial tradition within my community, and of course my second and third languages also helped, there was a burgeoning South Asian community in Calgary at that time. Really, it was timing, and so Calgary's just really good to me. I'd moved to Calgary at about the right time and I went into private practice at about the right time, right before Calgary took off, so to speak. 2004 I started my practice, late 2004 I started my practice. At that time, just trying to take whatever you can get, so again, I wasn't really centered in immigration. Then there was this legal aid file, this three hour legal aid file for criminal inadmissibility. It involved a foreign national in Canada accused or there was an allegation of weapons, and gun smuggling, and weapons trafficking. At that point I thought, "Well, this is a foregone conclusion." I looked at the IRPA and I said, "Well, this is just, there's no way out here," but my partner at that time pushed me a little bit and so I looked at it, I looked at it again. I put in far more hours than the three hours allotted to me, and low and behold I was able to succeed. I think that was the first time that I was in the media, that was the first time I was on TV or the newspapers, at least when it came to my legal practice. It was after that that my practice in immigration took off because it was after that that I joined Caron & Partners and then again after I left Caron & Partners there was another Vietnamese fellow, [another] fork in the road. There was another Vietnamese client, Jackie Tran, and that file I took on in 2009. Both of these cases probably had something to do with the direction of my practice. Mark Holthe: Yeah, that makes perfect sense because I think for most of us business immigration lawyers, I guess that's how I classify myself, when there's a sticky situation I get uncomfortable pretty quick. I have a tendency to try to take the path of easiest and least resistance with my clients. If there's push back from the government, I tend to try and say, "Do we need to refile? Do we need to rethink our strategy?" Sometimes it's faster to just accept the stupid decision that you get from an officer and then just try to satisfy whatever they want, and refile, and get it approved, but there's a number of situations where people get themselves into a corner where they really don't have a nice, easy solution other than taking the government on. Raj Sharma: I think .. it depends on what you're facing. Now, in your case you have to solve a sort of business problem. Prior to 2009, before Tran, I was actually doing hundreds of LMIA's, or LMO's that they were called at the time, so I was representing major corporations, I was getting fat, I was just doing pure solicitor work, and I think again timing came to my rescue because once I got into the Tran file, which necessitated three different Federal Court applications, [emergency] stay application, IAD, ID, and right about that same time the economy in Calgary sort of collapsed, so to speak. If you're a one trick pony, that is you're only doing one aspect of immigration, you could be susceptible to that sort of change. I was very lucky in the sense of I did quite a bit of solicitor business work, but given that strong litigation year we were able to just basically switch our practices over to a litigation aspect. In business [immigration], you're tasked with making sure that the business runs smoothly. Where it's an individual facing loss of status, it's a zero sum game. In business there may be not, it's not a zero sum game, but in someone facing removal or deportation to a country that they haven't been in since they were a kid, it's a zero sum game which is you win or you lose, so at that point you start bringing out all the arrows in your quiver and you're doing whatever you can for your client because it is, for them to some degree, it's life or death in the sense of it's a death of a relationship, it's a death of your relationship to Canada, and it's a death of your status in this country. Mark Holthe: Let's shift to the topic at hand. I think a lot of our listeners, this isn't something that they're very familiar with because I think genuinely people try to avoid committing crimes in Canada and getting themselves removed. Raj Sharma: Right, and we know for a fact that immigrants or first generation Canadians have a lower crime rate than native born Canadians, so you're absolutely right. Most of your listeners and our clients, most of them, the vast majority enjoy a lower criminal rate or criminality than Canadians would. Mark Holthe: Yes, absolutely. As those that are listening in here, as I introduced when I started the podcast here, the interview with Raj Sharma, I indicated that we're going to be talking a little bit about criminal inadmissibility, so Raj, can you give us a little bit of an introduction? When we talk about criminal inadmissibility, how does that play into this world of immigration? Raj Sharma: Immigration is about, and notwithstanding whatever we hear these days from Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton, there are no such thing as truly open borders. A country will always dictate who enters and who remains, so there was a case that went to the supreme court of Canada involving a woman actually -- most of the cases I deal with actually do involve men -- but Medovarski involved a woman and Medovarski reaffirmed that concept that non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain inside of Canada. When we look at criminality, the threshold for removing non-citizens from Canada is spelled out in intricate detail in the Immigration Refugee Protection Act and there is a bifurcation, i.e., it's somewhat harder to remove permanent residents from Canada and quite a bit easier to remove foreign nationals from Canada. When we talk about foreign nationals, we're talking about students and those here on work permits or those that are visitors in Canada. When we talk about permanent residence, obviously those are individuals that have applied for permanent residency, they're not citizens yet, and so we have a paradigm, a very detailed framework that deals with non-citizens that get in trouble with the law. Mark Holthe: When we talk about getting in trouble with the law, does the Immigration Act or the government, do they view certain crimes more seriously than others? How is that distinction set up? Raj Sharma: No, and maybe they should. That would have been a proper starting point. Maybe you should have been involved in this sort of legislation of these laws, but unfortunately the distinction of the severity of a crime is based on the maximum term of imprisonment or the actual incarceral or term that's imposed. When we talk about prison or incarceral term, we're including conditional sentences or sentences to be served in the community, so the distinction is not between the type of offense, someone that's convicted of a white collar offense such as fraud could face removal just as easily or perhaps more easily than someone accused or charged with simple assault. Mark Holthe: Even if an offense, let's say it's a hybrid offense, so it could proceed summarily or via indictment, the person that is sentenced to ten years imprisonment for that offense versus someone that's sentenced to six months under the eyes of the lovely immigration authorities, it's irrelevant. Raj Sharma: That's right, and it also doesn't take into account your length of time in Canada, so you could be a permanent resident and you could be here since you were two or three, and you could be [here] thirty years, and you could have an issue. Of course, this is the fragility of the human condition, we all make mistakes, so it doesn't take into account the length of time that you're in Canada…, nor does it take into account the nature of the offense, whether it's violent or whether it's non-violent. It's a blunt instrument unfortunately, Section 36 in particularly. Mark Holthe: If you have an individual that's committed a crime in Canada it's pretty clear we know what the offense is, we know what the conviction was, there's not a lot of debate about it, but what happens if someone wants to enter Canada or comes to Canada and has a conviction that occurred over seas or in another country, how does Canada treat those? Raj Sharma: Those things get complicated really quickly because different countries have different legal systems and different countries have different standards in terms of the ... You could have a situation [if] you're from China. Now, China has a 99.9% conviction rate. Mark Holthe: Wow, maybe I won't ask too many questions as to how that justice system plays out for those people accused, but ... Raj Sharma: I mean, so when we start making equivalent, or making offenses, or acts that individuals have done outside of Canada, and we have to somehow try and make them equivalent to offenses in Canada, those things get tricky really, really quickly. That's one subset of what we do.[But] I just keep getting reminded, even this morning, had a client applied on the Alberta Immigrant Nominee Program, skilled individual, excellent English, everything's fantastic, no criminal record whatsoever, applied on the ANP, got the nomination, applied for the PR forms to [CPC] Sydney. We got the passport request two days ago, three days ago, problem. Last week after a birthday party or someone's party, one in the morning, [he's] charged with impaired driving. Those are the sort of simple, understandable criminality because I think some politicians paint criminals as this broad brush, but criminals are no different than [you or I], it's just there's one incorrect decision. I think impaired driving is like that, this is impaired driving, could result in no jail time whatsoever, probably will result in a fine if he ever gets convicted, and a driving suspension. Won't spend a day in jail, but that's a hybrid offense and that [a conviction] makes him [as a foreign national] inadmissible. That's where I feel a lot of sympathy because you're seeing literally in front of you the end of a dream and you're seeing a person that for all other purposes would be an ideal addition to Canada's multicultural fabric. It's not really the media, it's not my cases that hit the news or the front pages that really give a proper idea of my practice. It really is those guys that are within an inch of permanent residency and we wouldn't consider them to be criminals, but of course they've made a grievous and horrendous error by drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car. Mark Holthe: Let's carry that through, I think that would be interesting. An individual who is in that type of a situation, this happens to them. What can they expect? Raj Sharma: Number one, if they come to me my first response to them, and there may be some sort of false hope, or some sort of strange fever dream that they're existing under, or they may get some sort of strange advice from someone, or a friend, or a cousin, and there may be a suggestion as to just somehow let it ride out and CIC may not figure this out. My first advice to them is that if they want my assistance, that we will be disclosing the charge and the encounter with the police immediately. That's the first thing that should happen and once they agree to these sort of terms, then we can start figuring out a solution. Now, the solution of course, and I kind of outlined that earlier today in my speech here, which is now start looking into conviction options or post conviction options. These conviction options, number one, beat out the charge in trial, because the system is binary, because it's a zero sum game, we can't now ... I think criminal lawyers and immigration lawyers that dabble in criminal law, there's no options now. You actually have to go and try to beat this out, you got to find, even if your client is factually guilty, you got to find a way to make him legally not guilty because if he's not guilty, that doesn't lead to any criminal consequences. If it's an offense, a domestic violence type of situation, and a peace bond is in the offering, take a peace bond. A peace bond doesn't have any criminal consequences either. There may be possibilities for some offenses for absolute or conditional discharges, take it, take it. That bird in the hand, we can safeguard that immigration at that point. In terms of a DUI, we're really looking to these curative discharges now and that's one option as well. Mark Holthe: Maybe you can explain what that is. What is a curative discharge? Raj Sharma: Curative discharge involves a process by which there is a guilt or there is factual guilt and there's again…. A curative discharge we've used where there's indication of alcoholism [as a] medical condition. If we can establish that, then the judge may see fit to grant a curative discharge. If that happens, then there is no criminal record that could waylay an immigration application or application for permanent residence. That's not to say, by the way, that that won't lead to other issues, i.e., you may still need a waiver to get into the US, but the curative discharge is something that we explore for impaired driving, and conditional, and absolute where ever possible [for other offences]. Now, bear in mind there's a whole host of offenses that result in mandatory minimum sentences and so we can't do any number of these things for those types of offenses, but those are some of the arrows in our quiver in terms of post conviction. Where ever possible, if you are facing a charge, either you're a permanent resident or a foreign national, try to get immigration lawyer involved alongside your criminal lawyer. There may be options to get positive sentencing remarks or positive remarks that are spoken into the record. Those transcripts can come in handy. If you are convicted, if you are sentenced, it's important that the client demonstrate remorse, and rehabilitation, engage in programming, and try to turn that life around. If we can demonstrate that, there are some options, which is that that initiating document to establish criminal inadmissibility, the Section 44 report, there is a scope for the officer not to write that report. Again, when I started down this journey I didn't realize the scope of discretion that's in the act. There is significant discretion. An officer may choose not to write a report against a permanent resident or foreign national and that may be the first, and maybe the last, real line of defense for a lot of these individuals. We've seen that happen, we've seen permanent residents, I've represented permanent residents, young guys, a technical armed robbery, four years plus sentence ... Mark Holthe: A technical armed robbery. Raj Sharma: A technical armed robbery... Mark Holthe: I love this terminology, technical versus a real, is there any distinction there? Raj Sharma: Let me tell you and you tell me whether that terminology or that splitting of hairs is appropriate. A guy got fired from a job at a liquor store, was angry, young guy, and decides to rob the liquor store as some sort of payback, buys a gun that is not operational, just this old, rusted out gun. There's no bullets in it, it's inoperable. Goes into the store, people see the gun, so they flee, so he goes to the cashier, he tries to open the cash box, is unable to do so, and runs out without stealing anything. Misfortune added to his idiocy, there's an off duty police officer who immediately arrests him outside the liquor store, so this guy goes through this process and his criminal lawyer after wasting tens of thousands of dollars of his money, pleads him guilty to an offense that includes a mandatory minimum sentence. At that point, and I met the judge actually afterwards and the judge said, "Hey, I wonder why that lawyer did that because if the lawyer challenged that on a charter ground of cruel and unusual punishment, that that mandatory minimum sentence in this case offends the Charter, I would have granted it to him." This lawyer tells this guy and his family, "That's it, game over, you will be deported," but of course that's not actually the end of it. [So] I do stand by my characterization of that as a technical armed robbery because this guy, he's more of an idiot than he was a criminal. This family went through a lot, this family, his sister in fact, who lived with was married, [her] husband had some mental issues, and she was attacked actually. The police attended and in fact that man was actually brought down by the CPS, so the family went through a lot. We put all this together, put the sentencing transcripts in, the judge, they got a really compassionate judge who said a lot of things into that record. [The client] was out on bail for four years, and upgraded himself, and it really was an ill advised decision. Ultimately, we had an understanding officer. She ended up interviewing him over the telephone, I think, at the Remand institution, and [she ultimately] decided not to write the report. Mark Holthe: I guess that's the beauty of this is the discretion that's laced into the immigration process. Raj Sharma: They won't lightly do it, but if you've got the goods .. it can be done. We had another case, we had another individual originally from Hong Kong, came over as a kid, got into some gambling issues, and then got into selling drugs to pay off some of those debts. Served his time, was a model prisoner, and his entire family was here, we set out everything. In this case we asked the Report not to be written, it was written. We challenged the Report at the Federal Court, we received approval or leave on one, it went back, and ultimately a Minister's Delegate decided to issue a warning letter. That's drug trafficking [involving a “hard” drug] and that was again significant, so these things can be done for the right individual. You will have people that have turned their lives around and you can see, you can tell. There's no faking this because it's a year's long journey. If you've got it, you've got it, and thankfully our officers, what I've seen is that we have fair individuals, open minded individuals, and that's not to say that I haven't lost on something that I think I should have won, I have, but even that decision, at least that individual had an open mind. I think our [CBSA/CIC] officers by and large are open minded individuals. Again, this may be the last line of defense for a lot of these individuals because there may not be an appeal to the ID anymore because the atrociously entitled Fast Removal of Foreign Criminals Act has amended the IRPA, so permanent residents that have been sentenced to more than six months, including conditional sentences, don't have an appeal to the IAD anymore. Whatever they've got, they've got to address that Section 44 report, that procedural fairness process, maybe Federal Court, maybe a TRP, maybe an H&C, a humanitarian and compassion application, but without that IAD backup, options are limited. Mark Holthe: That's really interesting because like I said, from my perspective, someone who does not do a lot of that type of work, very little in fact, I see walls, absolute walls sometimes for people that I can't see past, whereas individuals such as yourself who have a little bit of a broader perspective, and have actually gone and looked behind the wall have realized that sometimes there's ways through. The message that I got, especially, and just to clarify for the listeners, Raj and I are just meeting at the Canadian Bar Association Office here in Calgary after Raj gave a presentation [to the CBA Immigration Subsection] on this similar topic. One of the messages that came through loud and clear is that maybe people give up too easy, especially counsel, us. I put us under the bus in many circumstances because sometimes we're just too willing to roll over. We need to take a serious look at what the possibilities, are and not be afraid to question and challenge an allegation that's being made against our clients. Even in circumstances where based on a clear reading of the law there's a certain outcome that's supposed to flow doesn't necessarily mean there isn't discretion to go around that and that there isn't some compassion laced into the system. Raj Sharma: I learned this relatively recently. I went to visit my eighty-five, ninety years old grandmother in Edmonton. I didn't learn until much later -- my grandfather died, so my grandmother came over with my youngest uncle to Canada to her children here. None of us kids actually knew that our uncle was actually her sister's son. Her sister had died, so she had taken my uncle in. I guess his dad wasn't interested in caring for him, so I learned this later that Uncle is not actually our uncle, he's actually my mom's cousin. …I knew that there was some immigration issues that he was going through early on when he came, so my grandmother explained it to me, because there was no adoption papers and because my grandmother I think is incapable of lying, she's very straight out that we have no adoption papers, but he has nowhere else to be other than with me. They battled for like three or four years to try and get my uncle to be here. Ultimately CIC indicated, "Well, he can't be here, there's no adoption papers, we have no consent from his guardian, or his biological father, or whatever the case may be." We're from this small mining town in BC and the family was helped by an immigration lawyer out of Vancouver. Ultimately my uncle got what was then called a minister's permit, which is now we call a TRP, a temporary resident permit. When I learned that I was, "Well, I guess that's what I do." So I [do] think people minimize or perhaps don't understand the scope of discretion that's available. There are roadblocks, there's hurdles, [but] there's very few problems without an absolute solution. That being said, if you are unmitigated, incorrigible criminal, no officer's going to give you the benefit of whatever doubt there may be, but there are these avenues that can be pursued and there is a sort of system. You got to work through that system, work with the criminal lawyers, put your client in the best possible light, take advantage of any little nook, cranny, any little shaft of light, and you might be able to widen that crack a little bit for your client to step through, but yes, very few things are foregone conclusions and it's our job as counsel to put the best possible foot forward for the client. Again, in my twelve years of practicing immigration law there's very few actual incorrigible [criminals]. I said this before … that hard cases make bad law and outliers shouldn't make the world a harder place for the vast majority of people that simply want to come to Canada and give their families a better life. These outliers don't reflect the vast majority of cases that we deal with. The vast majority of cases we deal with are human fragility, human error, understandable mistakes. Mark Holthe: You mentioned this concept of a TRP, a temporary resident permit, which is now the new version of a Minister's Permit. Raj Sharma: That's right. Mark Holthe: In some circumstances, individuals will have appeal rights when there is criminality involved and they're facing some harsh consequences, they have appeal rights and other times they don't. You had talked a little bit about the discretion that an officer has to write that report to refer it or not. Can you maybe clarify that just a little bit for counsel who maybe have individuals that are at the stage where the consequences could be pretty nasty? Maybe there is no appeal right and you indicated that sometimes an officer does have some discretion whether or not to write it. Raj Sharma: That's right. That Section 44 report, so let's say there's a conviction in Canada. Establishing that would be pretty straightforward, pretty easy. What counsel can do is respond to a procedural fairness letter, say, "Please don't write the Section 44 report and here's why," and these are going to be [modeled on] the typical Section 25 type of application or submission, so time in Canada, establishment in Canada, those ties here, the family ties here, hardship, or adverse conditions, or challenges upon return, children that are affected by the decision, the circumstances leading to the events, any indicia of remorse, rehabilitation, insight. All those should be placed squarely before the officer and you say to the officer, "Don't write this report, please. The guy's been here for a long time, this is a singular mistake, the criminal record is limited or none other than this lapse in judgment." If the officer writes the report, its then has to be referred under Section 44 sub 2 by a Minister's Delegate. If it's referred, for a permanent resident that means it goes to the immigration division. If it's criminality or serious criminality in Canada, that's Section 44 sub 2, that becomes a removal order for a foreign national. Again, there's less options for foreign nationals here. If it's referred to the immigration division, not much you can do if it's a conviction in Canada. The ID is not going to look beyond the certificate of conviction. If it's a conviction outside of Canada or an allegation that some offense has occurred outside of Canada, that would be equivalent to serious offenses inside of Canada. Then the immigration proceeding becomes a substantive proceeding. That's when it takes on some degree of significance. You are then going to start talking about foreign legal laws, standard of proof, burden of proof, and at that point you probably should be retaining a foreign legal expert. It gets complicated really quickly at that point. After a removal order is issued, post removal order options are limited. A TRP can overcome or allow you to remain in Canada notwithstanding a removal order. An H&C can do the same. One option might be to get a TRP pending record suspension for a conviction inside Canada, for example, if there's eligibility. Mark Holthe: If an officer chooses to write the report when you've made your submissions, can you challenge that part before it gets to the immigration division? Raj Sharma: Yes, you can challenge both the writing of a Report to the Federal Court and the referral of the report to the Federal Court. You probably won't do that if the person concerned is a permanent resident and has an appeal right to the IAD, there's no sense in that, but if you don't have that appeal, you're left with these limited options, so you're going to buy some more time. By going to the Federal Court either you buy some more time, it goes back, a different officer might come to a different conclusion, or you simply might need time for record suspension. Mark Holthe: Just buying the time, interesting. Raj Sharma: Might be one because you need strategic depth, so strategic depth is usually time, more time in Canada gives you more options. Mark Holthe: Define strategic depth for those who are not following. What are you talking about when you use that terminology? Raj Sharma: Strategic depth I was thinking more in terms of war. If you've got a country like Russia and you want to invade Russia, and Napoleon and Hitler both tried that. One of the problems is that Russia has a lot of depth, so you can invade, and invade, and keep invading, and the Russians will have time to mount a response. You can contrast that with, for example, Pakistan, which is thin wasted [country] geographically speaking, there's not a lot of strategic depth there. If we were to apply that terminology to immigration in Canada, then I would say strategic depth would be time. A lot of time, we don't have time, and so give me some time, give me enough time and I can do quite a bit. You need time to marshal resources, to file Federal Court obligations, to file TRP applications, to file H&C applications, to maybe get a rehabilitation application in, so time is our strategic depth and most of the time we don't have it. Mark Holthe: Yes, that is abundantly clear within our practice. I really appreciate that overview and the insight, it was awesome. Let's talk about some practice tips maybe. If counsel finds themselves in these types of positions dealing with an issue, a potential criminal inadmissibility, what are some of the things that go through your mind right away that you'd give in terms of advice, things that people want to make sure they do every single time, or little tips or strategies? You've already indicated here that you want to try to buy as much time as you can, that's obviously really important, but are there any specific things or pieces of advice that we haven't maybe talked about yet that you'd like to share with the listeners? Raj Sharma: I think definitely take a look at the IRCC or CIC policy manuals, Enforcement Manual 5, Enforcement Manual 6, take a look at the loose leaf publication by Mario Bellissimo and Genova, Immigration and Admissibility, they've got a handbook as well. You need to get an understanding of the facts and understand the law in a relatively quick fashion. Once you understand the context that you're in, so if the context is a permanent resident, and there's an offense, and you're looking at the loss of appeal rights, and you've got a procedural fairness letter, and the sentence has been served, what I would do immediately is probably do ATIP requests, access to information requests, and I would try to get and reconstruct the client's immigration history as much as possible. That's probably the first thing I would do is do an ATIP request. I would do FOIP requests for the correctional service documents, the institution documents, and see what's been going on over there and try to get access to those parole documents, take a look at their recidivism rankings. I would probably get the sentencing transcripts right away, I would get any pre-sentence reports that were filed or that were before the sentencing judge right away. After I looked at that I would see if I could update that pre-sentence report by a qualified forensic expert and reassess recidivism. Then I would probably put together these substantive submissions. Again, relying on maybe the IRB, IAD, Removal Order Appeals publication. Having regard to the sort of H&C factors and Ribic and Chieu factors. I would put all that together and get it into that officer probably as soon as possible. That's probably what I would do and that's probably what anyone should probably do with a PR facing removal where there's been a length of sentence greater than six months. If it was less than six months, then obviously maybe I'd just keep my powder dry to some degree, I'd still put in something, but I'd probably just keep my powder dry for the IAD. Mark Holthe: It's pretty much they're going to send it that way and choose not to make a decision at that stage. Raj Sharma: I would think as an officer, this is not in the manuals at all, but ... Mark Holthe: This is what we want, Raj, yes. Raj Sharma: As an officer, and I used to be an officer, but as an officer if I saw that a PR had a right of appeal, then really I would probably give short shrift to any sort of request for exercising my discretion at the 44 stage. I'd be like, "Look, let me just do my job, let me write this 44 report, and refer it, and let them make whatever submissions he needs to the IAD." I think the relationship to discretion and the loss of appeal rights is inverse, so if there's an appeal right, then I would narrow my own discretion. Then if there's no appeal rights, then I would probably take and expand my scope of discretion within, of course, the ambit of the law. Mark Holthe: That's awesome and it makes perfect sense. Officers, despite how some people feel, are human beings. When they feel like someone is trying to screw the system over, they're probably not going to give you a lot of help, but if they feel people are genuine and they've made a mistake, and there's a whole host of ... Raj Sharma: The system, maybe the system has been narrowed against, for example, any further request for relief. I think that they'll substantively consider. Mark Holthe: That's awesome. I really appreciate everything that you've shared here. Raj Sharma: Any time. Mark Holthe: This is fantastic. Now, as always when I have guests on, people are going to listen to this and they're going to say, "Hey, I've got a friend," or, "I know someone who's in this exact situation," and their counsel that they have right now is telling them that they might as well start singing 'Happy Trails,' and packing their bags, and they're saying to themselves, "There must be something else that I can do." They're going to listen to this and they're going to say, "Raj Sharma, how do I get a hold of this guy?" How do people track you down? What's the best way of getting in contact with you and engaging your services? Raj Sharma: For sure, Mark. Anyone can email us at info@sshlaw.ca, that's info@sshlaw.ca, number is 403-705-3398. I think we have a toll free number, but I'm not sure what it is. Mark Holthe: You can go to the website, right, too. Raj Sharma: Yes, you can definitely reach us and we'd be happy to help. It's something that we've developed for the last seven, eight years or so. Mark Holthe: Awesome, thanks a lot. I appreciate your time. Take care. Raj Sharma: Thanks a lot, Mark.

CanadianImmigrationPodcast.com Mark Holthe: I'm here with my good friend and colleague, Raj Sharma. Raj, thanks for joining me. Raj Sharma: My pleasure. Mark Holthe: We're testing this out with our digital recorder here. I usually do these interviews via Skype call, but I've got high hopes that the audio is going to be great regardless. Thanks for putting up with me, Raj, and happy to have you with us. Today, Raj has agreed to come in and talk a little bit about criminal inadmissibility and some of the consequences that can flow when people get themselves into trouble here in Canada, but before we get into that I want to take a moment to share a little bit of background on Raj, and where he's come from professionally, and where he's at. Raj Sharma's a lawyer and founding partner of Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, one of Western Canada's largest dedicated immigration law firms. He received his masters of law from Osgoode Hall and is a former refugee protection officer with the Immigration and Refugee Board. Now, I'll get to the question of how you got into immigration and I'm going to go out on a limb and think that that probably influenced it a little bit. Raj Sharma: That's right. Mark Holthe:  With over a hundred reported decisions, Raj has indicated to me, he frequently appears before all divisions, as well as the Federal Court, the court of appeal, and has also appeared before every level of court in Alberta. Raj regularly speaks on immigration matters in the media, and he's been a panelist and speaker at the CBA National Immigration Conference in 2014 and '15. He also writes a lot on immigration, multiculturalism, and diversity. Recently he was the recipient of the Legal Aid of Alberta's Access to Justice award and has been recognized as well as one of Calgary's Top 40 Under 40. Raj is an extremely accomplished individual and I know that he won't plug himself, so I'll do that for him, but whenever I have a difficult case with respect to enforcement, or appeal work, or anything like that I send it to him and his firm. Once again, thanks for joining, Raj. Raj Sharma:  Thanks, Mark. I'm East Indian, or as I like to describe ourselves as brown, so no matter how accomplished I am, obviously given that I'm not a doctor I'm probably a disappointment to my parents. Mark Holthe: Well, we'll have to get your parents on to come back and I'm almost positive with everything that you've done, at least within our industry and how you've distinguished yourself, that there wouldn't be a parent on this planet that wouldn't be proud of you. Enough of the feel good stuff, fill us in. How did you get into immigration? Raj Sharma: I never intended to get into immigration law. I did my JD at the University of Alberta. While I was there, I didn't take any immigration courses, immigration just wasn't even on my radar. I summered at a large law firm here in Calgary, Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer. I didn't like the large law firm milieu so to speak. Then I spent some time with Dennis Edney, who's now the lawyer for Omar Khadr. Then I also clerked up the Alberta Court of Appeal and ended up doing my articles with the federal department of justice. I think I had at that point an understanding that I would be somewhat closer to a barrister or a litigator than I would be in terms a solicitor. There was one case that I handled and my mentor at that time at the federal Department of Justice was Glennys Bembridge, who is now a Federal Court justice with a different last name, but there was one case and it involved a family, they're doctors, and their son had autism. I was the articling student, so I had to put together the affidavit and supporting the officer's finding of medical inadmissibility. I found that really, really interesting, but I kept saying to my mentor at that why can't we just consent on this file, the family's really deserving, and ultimately I think that the family did get relief. After that, I'd met my wife at Winnipeg at a wedding ... Mark Holthe:  I'm going to jump in. Raj Sharma:  Yes. Mark Holthe: You said, "Why can't we just consent to this?" What was his response? Raj Sharma: It was a strange response. The response was just like, "Oh, we just have to ..." Mark Holthe: Carry it through. Raj Sharma: It was more like it was like, "Oh, the client instructions ..." I'm like, "What client? We're the government." I was explained that different departments are actually clients of the department of justice. I found that very odd because I don't think that's true. I think that a client/solicitor relationship doesn't encapsulate departments of government being clients of each other. I found that odd. In any way, I'd met my wife in Winnipeg at a wedding, my cousin's wedding. She was in Calgary, born and raised in Calgary, so I needed a way to get to Calgary somehow, so I was applying for jobs in Calgary and I got this called up to do this test or examination at the Immigration Refugee Board. I was offered this position to become a refugee protection officer. That's where in fact I met my partner, Bjorn Harsanyi, so we both started off as refugee protection officers, hearings officers in 2002. Mark Holthe:  Obviously that makes a pretty nice background for sliding over to the other side. It gives you an opportunity at least having worked on the other side to get a better understanding of how the government operates, how the department operates, a little bit more inside to the minds of what goes through a decision maker on that side. I have to assume that that helped you as you moved over to the other side with your advocacy on behalf of clients. Raj Sharma:  I think so and I think that, and again there's this tradition of this entrepreneurial tradition within my community, and of course my second and third languages also helped, there was a burgeoning South Asian community in Calgary at that time. Really, it was timing, and so Calgary's just really good to me. I'd moved to Calgary at about the right time and I went into private practice at about the right time, right before Calgary took off, so to speak. 2004 I started my practice, late 2004 I started my practice. At that time, just trying to take whatever you can get, so again, I wasn't really centered in immigration. Then there was this legal aid file, this three hour legal aid file for criminal inadmissibility. It involved a foreign national in Canada accused or there was an allegation of weapons, and gun smuggling, and weapons trafficking. At that point I thought, "Well, this is a foregone conclusion." I looked at the IRPA and I said, "Well, this is just, there's no way out here," but my partner at that time pushed me a little bit and so I looked at it, I looked at it again. I put in far more hours than the three hours allotted to me, and low and behold I was able to succeed. I think that was the first time that I was in the media, that was the first time I was on TV or the newspapers, at least when it came to my legal practice. It was after that that my practice in immigration took off because it was after that that I joined Caron & Partners and then again after I left Caron & Partners there was another Vietnamese fellow, [another] fork in the road. There was another Vietnamese client, Jackie Tran, and that file I took on in 2009. Both of these cases probably had something to do with the direction of my practice. Mark Holthe:  Yeah, that makes perfect sense because I think for most of us business immigration lawyers, I guess that's how I classify myself, when there's a sticky situation I get uncomfortable pretty quick. I have a tendency to try to take the path of easiest and least resistance with my clients. If there's push back from the government, I tend to try and say, "Do we need to refile? Do we need to rethink our strategy?" Sometimes it's faster to just accept the stupid decision that you get from an officer and then just try to satisfy whatever they want, and refile, and get it approved, but there's a number of situations where people get themselves into a corner where they really don't have a nice, easy solution other than taking the government on. Raj Sharma:   I think .. it depends on what you're facing. Now, in your case you have to solve a sort of business problem. Prior to 2009, before Tran, I was actually doing hundreds of LMIA's, or LMO's that they were called at the time, so I was representing major corporations, I was getting fat, I was just doing pure solicitor work, and I think again timing came to my rescue because once I got into the Tran file, which necessitated three different Federal Court applications, [emergency] stay application, IAD, ID, and right about that same time the economy in Calgary sort of collapsed, so to speak. If you're a one trick pony, that is you're only doing one aspect of immigration, you could be susceptible to that sort of change. I was very lucky in the sense of I did quite a bit of solicitor business work, but given that strong litigation year we were able to just basically switch our practices over to a litigation aspect. In business [immigration], you're tasked with making sure that the business runs smoothly. Where it's an individual facing loss of status, it's a zero sum game. In business there may be not, it's not a zero sum game, but in someone facing removal or deportation to a country that they haven't been in since they were a kid, it's a zero sum game which is you win or you lose, so at that point you start bringing out all the arrows in your quiver and you're doing whatever you can for your client because it is, for them to some degree, it's life or death in the sense of it's a death of a relationship, it's a death of your relationship to Canada, and it's a death of your status in this country. Mark Holthe:  Let's shift to the topic at hand. I think a lot of our listeners, this isn't something that they're very familiar with because I think genuinely people try to avoid committing crimes in Canada and getting themselves removed. Raj Sharma:    Right, and we know for a fact that immigrants or first generation Canadians have a lower crime rate than native born Canadians, so you're absolutely right. Most of your listeners and our clients, most of them, the vast majority enjoy a lower criminal rate or criminality than Canadians would. Mark Holthe:  Yes, absolutely. As those that are listening in here, as I introduced when I started the podcast here, the interview with Raj Sharma, I indicated that we're going to be talking a little bit about criminal inadmissibility, so Raj, can you give us a little bit of an introduction? When we talk about criminal inadmissibility, how does that play into this world of immigration? Raj Sharma:  Immigration is about, and notwithstanding whatever we hear these days from Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton, there are no such thing as truly open borders. A country will always dictate who enters and who remains, so there was a case that went to the supreme court of Canada involving a woman actually -- most of the cases I deal with actually do involve men -- but Medovarski involved a woman and Medovarski reaffirmed that concept that non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain inside of Canada. When we look at criminality, the threshold for removing non-citizens from Canada is spelled out in intricate detail in the Immigration Refugee Protection Act and there is a bifurcation, i.e., it's somewhat harder to remove permanent residents from Canada and quite a bit easier to remove foreign nationals from Canada. When we talk about foreign nationals, we're talking about students and those here on work permits or those that are visitors in Canada. When we talk about permanent residence, obviously those are individuals that have applied for permanent residency, they're not citizens yet, and so we have a paradigm, a very detailed framework that deals with non-citizens that get in trouble with the law. Mark Holthe:  When we talk about getting in trouble with the law, does the Immigration Act or the government, do they view certain crimes more seriously than others? How is that distinction set up? Raj Sharma: No, and maybe they should. That would have been a proper starting point. Maybe you should have been involved in this sort of legislation of these laws, but unfortunately the distinction of the severity of a crime is based on the maximum term of imprisonment or the actual incarceral or term that's imposed. When we talk about prison or incarceral term, we're including conditional sentences or sentences to be served in the community, so the distinction is not between the type of offense, someone that's convicted of a white collar offense such as fraud could face removal just as easily or perhaps more easily than someone accused or charged with simple assault. Mark Holthe: Even if an offense, let's say it's a hybrid offense, so it could proceed summarily or via indictment, the person that is sentenced to ten years imprisonment for that offense versus someone that's sentenced to six months under the eyes of the lovely immigration authorities, it's irrelevant. Raj Sharma: That's right, and it also doesn't take into account your length of time in Canada, so you could be a permanent resident and you could be here since you were two or three, and you could be [here] thirty years, and you could have an issue. Of course, this is the fragility of the human condition, we all make mistakes, so it doesn't take into account the length of time that you're in Canada…, nor does it take into account the nature of the offense, whether it's violent or whether it's non-violent. It's a blunt instrument unfortunately, Section 36 in particularly. Mark Holthe: If you have an individual that's committed a crime in Canada it's pretty clear we know what the offense is, we know what the conviction was, there's not a lot of debate about it, but what happens if someone wants to enter Canada or comes to Canada and has a conviction that occurred over seas or in another country, how does Canada treat those? Raj Sharma:  Those things get complicated really quickly because different countries have different legal systems and different countries have different standards in terms of the ... You could have a situation [if] you're from China. Now, China has a 99.9% conviction rate. Mark Holthe:  Wow, maybe I won't ask too many questions as to how that justice system plays out for those people accused, but ... Raj Sharma:  I mean, so when we start making equivalent, or making offenses, or acts that individuals have done outside of Canada, and we have to somehow try and make them equivalent to offenses in Canada, those things get tricky really, really quickly. That's one subset of what we do.[But] I just keep getting reminded, even this morning, had a client applied on the Alberta Immigrant Nominee Program, skilled individual, excellent English, everything's fantastic, no criminal record whatsoever, applied on the ANP, got the nomination, applied for the PR forms to [CPC] Sydney. We got the passport request two days ago, three days ago, problem. Last week after a birthday party or someone's party, one in the morning, [he’s] charged with impaired driving. Those are the sort of simple, understandable criminality because I think some politicians paint criminals as this broad brush, but criminals are no different than [you or I], it's just there's one incorrect decision. I think impaired driving is like that, this is impaired driving, could result in no jail time whatsoever, probably will result in a fine if he ever gets convicted, and a driving suspension. Won't spend a day in jail, but that's a hybrid offense and that [a conviction] makes him [as a foreign national] inadmissible. That's where I feel a lot of sympathy because you're seeing literally in front of you the end of a dream and you're seeing a person that for all other purposes would be an ideal addition to Canada's multicultural fabric. It's not really the media, it's not my cases that hit the news or the front pages that really give a proper idea of my practice. It really is those guys that are within an inch of permanent residency and we wouldn't consider them to be criminals, but of course they've made a grievous and horrendous error by drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car. Mark Holthe:   Let's carry that through, I think that would be interesting. An individual who is in that type of a situation, this happens to them. What can they expect? Raj Sharma:  Number one, if they come to me my first response to them, and there may be some sort of false hope, or some sort of strange fever dream that they're existing under, or they may get some sort of strange advice from someone, or a friend, or a cousin, and there may be a suggestion as to just somehow let it ride out and CIC may not figure this out. My first advice to them is that if they want my assistance, that we will be disclosing the charge and the encounter with the police immediately. That's the first thing that should happen and once they agree to these sort of terms, then we can start figuring out a solution. Now, the solution of course, and I kind of outlined that earlier today in my speech here, which is now start looking into conviction options or post conviction options. These conviction options, number one, beat out the charge in trial, because the system is binary, because it's a zero sum game, we can't now ... I think criminal lawyers and immigration lawyers that dabble in criminal law, there's no options now. You actually have to go and try to beat this out, you got to find, even if your client is factually guilty, you got to find a way to make him legally not guilty because if he's not guilty, that doesn't lead to any criminal consequences. If it's an offense, a domestic violence type of situation, and a peace bond is in the offering, take a peace bond. A peace bond doesn't have any criminal consequences either. There may be possibilities for some offenses for absolute or conditional discharges, take it, take it. That bird in the hand, we can safeguard that immigration at that point. In terms of a DUI, we're really looking to these curative discharges now and that's one option as well. Mark Holthe:  Maybe you can explain what that is. What is a curative discharge? Raj Sharma: Curative discharge involves a process by which there is a guilt or there is factual guilt and there's again…. A curative discharge we've used where there's indication of alcoholism [as a] medical condition. If we can establish that, then the judge may see fit to grant a curative discharge. If that happens, then there is no criminal record that could waylay an immigration application or application for permanent residence. That's not to say, by the way, that that won't lead to other issues, i.e., you may still need a waiver to get into the US, but the curative discharge is something that we explore for impaired driving, and conditional, and absolute where ever possible [for other offences]. Now, bear in mind there's a whole host of offenses that result in mandatory minimum sentences and so we can't do any number of these things for those types of offenses, but those are some of the arrows in our quiver in terms of post conviction. Where ever possible, if you are facing a charge, either you're a permanent resident or a foreign national, try to get immigration lawyer involved alongside your criminal lawyer. There may be options to get positive sentencing remarks or positive remarks that are spoken into the record. Those transcripts can come in handy. If you are convicted, if you are sentenced, it's important that the client demonstrate remorse, and rehabilitation, engage in programming, and try to turn that life around. If we can demonstrate that, there are some options, which is that that initiating document to establish criminal inadmissibility, the Section 44 report, there is a scope for the officer not to write that report. Again, when I started down this journey I didn't realize the scope of discretion that's in the act. There is significant discretion. An officer may choose not to write a report against a permanent resident or foreign national and that may be the first, and maybe the last, real line of defense for a lot of these individuals. We've seen that happen, we've seen permanent residents, I've represented permanent residents, young guys, a technical armed robbery, four years plus sentence ... Mark Holthe: A technical armed robbery. Raj Sharma: A technical armed robbery... Mark Holthe:  I love this terminology, technical versus a real, is there any distinction there? Raj Sharma:  Let me tell you and you tell me whether that terminology or that splitting of hairs is appropriate. A guy got fired from a job at a liquor store, was angry, young guy, and decides to rob the liquor store as some sort of payback, buys a gun that is not operational, just this old, rusted out gun. There's no bullets in it, it's inoperable. Goes into the store, people see the gun, so they flee, so he goes to the cashier, he tries to open the cash box, is unable to do so, and runs out without stealing anything. Misfortune added to his idiocy, there's an off duty police officer who immediately arrests him outside the liquor store, so this guy goes through this process and his criminal lawyer after wasting tens of thousands of dollars of his money, pleads him guilty to an offense that includes a mandatory minimum sentence. At that point, and I met the judge actually afterwards and the judge said, "Hey, I wonder why that lawyer did that because if the lawyer challenged that on a charter ground of cruel and unusual punishment, that that mandatory minimum sentence in this case offends the Charter, I would have granted it to him." This lawyer tells this guy and his family, "That's it, game over, you will be deported," but of course that's not actually the end of it. [So] I do stand by my characterization of that as a technical armed robbery because this guy, he's more of an idiot than he was a criminal. This family went through a lot, this family, his sister in fact, who lived with was married, [her] husband had some mental issues, and she was attacked actually. The police attended and in fact that man was actually brought down by the CPS, so the family went through a lot. We put all this together, put the sentencing transcripts in, the judge, they got a really compassionate judge who said a lot of things into that record. [The client] was out on bail for four years, and upgraded himself, and it really was an ill advised decision. Ultimately, we had an understanding officer. She ended up interviewing him over the telephone, I think, at the Remand institution, and [she ultimately] decided not to write the report. Mark Holthe:   I guess that's the beauty of this is the discretion that's laced into the immigration process. Raj Sharma:    They won't lightly do it, but if you've got the goods .. it can be done. We had another case, we had another individual originally from Hong Kong, came over as a kid, got into some gambling issues, and then got into selling drugs to pay off some of those debts. Served his time, was a model prisoner, and his entire family was here, we set out everything. In this case we asked the Report not to be written, it was written. We challenged the Report at the Federal Court, we received approval or leave on one, it went back, and ultimately a Minister’s Delegate decided to issue a warning letter. That's drug trafficking [involving a “hard” drug] and that was again significant, so these things can be done for the right individual. You will have people that have turned their lives around and you can see, you can tell. There's no faking this because it's a year's long journey. If you've got it, you've got it, and thankfully our officers, what I've seen is that we have fair individuals, open minded individuals, and that's not to say that I haven't lost on something that I think I should have won, I have, but even that decision, at least that individual had an open mind. I think our [CBSA/CIC] officers by and large are open minded individuals. Again, this may be the last line of defense for a lot of these individuals because there may not be an appeal to the ID anymore because the atrociously entitled Fast Removal of Foreign Criminals Act has amended the IRPA, so permanent residents that have been sentenced to more than six months, including conditional sentences, don't have an appeal to the IAD anymore. Whatever they've got, they've got to address that Section 44 report, that procedural fairness process, maybe Federal Court, maybe a TRP, maybe an H&C, a humanitarian and compassion application, but without that IAD backup, options are limited. Mark Holthe:   That's really interesting because like I said, from my perspective, someone who does not do a lot of that type of work, very little in fact, I see walls, absolute walls sometimes for people that I can't see past, whereas individuals such as yourself who have a little bit of a broader perspective, and have actually gone and looked behind the wall have realized that sometimes there's ways through. The message that I got, especially, and just to clarify for the listeners, Raj and I are just meeting at the Canadian Bar Association Office here in Calgary after Raj gave a presentation [to the CBA Immigration Subsection] on this similar topic. One of the messages that came through loud and clear is that maybe people give up too easy, especially counsel, us. I put us under the bus in many circumstances because sometimes we're just too willing to roll over. We need to take a serious look at what the possibilities, are and not be afraid to question and challenge an allegation that's being made against our clients. Even in circumstances where based on a clear reading of the law there's a certain outcome that's supposed to flow doesn't necessarily mean there isn't discretion to go around that and that there isn't some compassion laced into the system. Raj Sharma:  I learned this relatively recently. I went to visit my eighty-five, ninety years old grandmother in Edmonton. I didn't learn until much later -- my grandfather died, so my grandmother came over with my youngest uncle to Canada to her children here. None of us kids actually knew that our uncle was actually her sister's son. Her sister had died, so she had taken my uncle in. I guess his dad wasn't interested in caring for him, so I learned this later that Uncle is not actually our uncle, he's actually my mom's cousin. …I knew that there was some immigration issues that he was going through early on when he came, so my grandmother explained it to me, because there was no adoption papers and because my grandmother I think is incapable of lying, she's very straight out that we have no adoption papers, but he has nowhere else to be other than with me. They battled for like three or four years to try and get my uncle to be here. Ultimately CIC indicated, "Well, he can't be here, there's no adoption papers, we have no consent from his guardian, or his biological father, or whatever the case may be." We're from this small mining town in BC and the family was helped by an immigration lawyer out of Vancouver. Ultimately my uncle got what was then called a minister's permit, which is now we call a TRP, a temporary resident permit. When I learned that I was, "Well, I guess that's what I do." So I [do] think people minimize or perhaps don't understand the scope of discretion that's available. There are roadblocks, there's hurdles, [but] there's very few problems without an absolute solution. That being said, if you are unmitigated, incorrigible criminal, no officer's going to give you the benefit of whatever doubt there may be, but there are these avenues that can be pursued and there is a sort of system. You got to work through that system, work with the criminal lawyers, put your client in the best possible light, take advantage of any little nook, cranny, any little shaft of light, and you might be able to widen that crack a little bit for your client to step through, but yes, very few things are foregone conclusions and it's our job as counsel to put the best possible foot forward for the client. Again, in my twelve years of practicing immigration law there's very few actual incorrigible [criminals]. I said this before … that hard cases make bad law and outliers shouldn't make the world a harder place for the vast majority of people that simply want to come to Canada and give their families a better life. These outliers don't reflect the vast majority of cases that we deal with. The vast majority of cases we deal with are human fragility, human error, understandable mistakes. Mark Holthe:   You mentioned this concept of a TRP, a temporary resident permit, which is now the new version of a Minister’s Permit. Raj Sharma:    That's right. Mark Holthe:    In some circumstances, individuals will have appeal rights when there is criminality involved and they're facing some harsh consequences, they have appeal rights and other times they don't. You had talked a little bit about the discretion that an officer has to write that report to refer it or not. Can you maybe clarify that just a little bit for counsel who maybe have individuals that are at the stage where the consequences could be pretty nasty? Maybe there is no appeal right and you indicated that sometimes an officer does have some discretion whether or not to write it. Raj Sharma:    That's right. That Section 44 report, so let's say there's a conviction in Canada. Establishing that would be pretty straightforward, pretty easy. What counsel can do is respond to a procedural fairness letter, say, "Please don't write the Section 44 report and here's why," and these are going to be [modeled on] the typical Section 25 type of application or submission, so time in Canada, establishment in Canada, those ties here, the family ties here, hardship, or adverse conditions, or challenges upon return, children that are affected by the decision, the circumstances leading to the events, any indicia of remorse, rehabilitation, insight. All those should be placed squarely before the officer and you say to the officer, "Don't write this report, please. The guy's been here for a long time, this is a singular mistake, the criminal record is limited or none other than this lapse in judgment." If the officer writes the report, its then has to be referred under Section 44 sub 2 by a Minister’s Delegate. If it's referred, for a permanent resident that means it goes to the immigration division. If it's criminality or serious criminality in Canada, that's Section 44 sub 2, that becomes a removal order for a foreign national. Again, there's less options for foreign nationals here. If it's referred to the immigration division, not much you can do if it's a conviction in Canada. The ID is not going to look beyond the certificate of conviction. If it's a conviction outside of Canada or an allegation that some offense has occurred outside of Canada, that would be equivalent to serious offenses inside of Canada. Then the immigration proceeding becomes a substantive proceeding. That's when it takes on some degree of significance. You are then going to start talking about foreign legal laws, standard of proof, burden of proof, and at that point you probably should be retaining a foreign legal expert. It gets complicated really quickly at that point. After a removal order is issued, post removal order options are limited. A TRP can overcome or allow you to remain in Canada notwithstanding a removal order. An H&C can do the same. One option might be to get a TRP pending record suspension for a conviction inside Canada, for example, if there's eligibility. Mark Holthe:  If an officer chooses to write the report when you've made your submissions, can you challenge that part before it gets to the immigration division? Raj Sharma:   Yes, you can challenge both the writing of a Report to the Federal Court and the referral of the report to the Federal Court. You probably won't do that if the person concerned is a permanent resident and has an appeal right to the IAD, there's no sense in that, but if you don't have that appeal, you're left with these limited options, so you're going to buy some more time. By going to the Federal Court either you buy some more time, it goes back, a different officer might come to a different conclusion, or you simply might need time for record suspension. Mark Holthe:    Just buying the time, interesting. Raj Sharma:    Might be one because you need strategic depth, so strategic depth is usually time, more time in Canada gives you more options. Mark Holthe:    Define strategic depth for those who are not following. What are you talking about when you use that terminology? Raj Sharma:  Strategic depth I was thinking more in terms of war. If you've got a country like Russia and you want to invade Russia, and Napoleon and Hitler both tried that. One of the problems is that Russia has a lot of depth, so you can invade, and invade, and keep invading, and the Russians will have time to mount a response. You can contrast that with, for example, Pakistan, which is thin wasted [country] geographically speaking, there's not a lot of strategic depth there. If we were to apply that terminology to immigration in Canada, then I would say strategic depth would be time. A lot of time, we don't have time, and so give me some time, give me enough time and I can do quite a bit. You need time to marshal resources, to file Federal Court obligations, to file TRP applications, to file H&C applications, to maybe get a rehabilitation application in, so time is our strategic depth and most of the time we don't have it. Mark Holthe:     Yes, that is abundantly clear within our practice. I really appreciate that overview and the insight, it was awesome. Let's talk about some practice tips maybe. If counsel finds themselves in these types of positions dealing with an issue, a potential criminal inadmissibility, what are some of the things that go through your mind right away that you'd give in terms of advice, things that people want to make sure they do every single time, or little tips or strategies? You've already indicated here that you want to try to buy as much time as you can, that's obviously really important, but are there any specific things or pieces of advice that we haven't maybe talked about yet that you'd like to share with the listeners? Raj Sharma:    I think definitely take a look at the IRCC or CIC policy manuals, Enforcement Manual 5, Enforcement Manual 6, take a look at the loose leaf publication by Mario Bellissimo and Genova, Immigration and Admissibility, they've got a handbook as well. You need to get an understanding of the facts and understand the law in a relatively quick fashion. Once you understand the context that you're in, so if the context is a permanent resident, and there's an offense, and you're looking at the loss of appeal rights, and you've got a procedural fairness letter, and the sentence has been served, what I would do immediately is probably do ATIP requests, access to information requests, and I would try to get and reconstruct the client's immigration history as much as possible. That's probably the first thing I would do is do an ATIP request. I would do FOIP requests for the correctional service documents, the institution documents, and see what's been going on over there and try to get access to those parole documents, take a look at their recidivism rankings. I would probably get the sentencing transcripts right away, I would get any pre-sentence reports that were filed or that were before the sentencing judge right away. After I looked at that I would see if I could update that pre-sentence report by a qualified forensic expert and reassess recidivism. Then I would probably put together these substantive submissions. Again, relying on maybe the IRB, IAD, Removal Order Appeals publication. Having regard to the sort of H&C factors and Ribic and Chieu factors. I would put all that together and get it into that officer probably as soon as possible.  That's probably what I would do and that's probably what anyone should probably do with a PR facing removal where there's been a length of sentence greater than six months. If it was less than six months, then obviously maybe I'd just keep my powder dry to some degree, I'd still put in something, but I'd probably just keep my powder dry for the IAD. Mark Holthe:  It's pretty much they're going to send it that way and choose not to make a decision at that stage. Raj Sharma:   I would think as an officer, this is not in the manuals at all, but ... Mark Holthe:  This is what we want, Raj, yes. Raj Sharma:     As an officer, and I used to be an officer, but as an officer if I saw that a PR had a right of appeal, then really I would probably give short shrift to any sort of request for exercising my discretion at the 44 stage. I'd be like, "Look, let me just do my job, let me write this 44 report, and refer it, and let them make whatever submissions he needs to the IAD." I think the relationship to discretion and the loss of appeal rights is inverse, so if there's an appeal right, then I would narrow my own discretion. Then if there's no appeal rights, then I would probably take and expand my scope of discretion within, of course, the ambit of the law. Mark Holthe: That's awesome and it makes perfect sense. Officers, despite how some people feel, are human beings. When they feel like someone is trying to screw the system over, they're probably not going to give you a lot of help, but if they feel people are genuine and they've made a mistake, and there's a whole host of ... Raj Sharma:  The system, maybe the system has been narrowed against, for example, any further request for relief. I think that they'll substantively consider. Mark Holthe:  That's awesome. I really appreciate everything that you've shared here. Raj Sharma:  Any time. Mark Holthe: This is fantastic. Now, as always when I have guests on, people are going to listen to this and they're going to say, "Hey, I've got a friend," or, "I know someone who's in this exact situation," and their counsel that they have right now is telling them that they might as well start singing 'Happy Trails,' and packing their bags, and they're saying to themselves, "There must be something else that I can do." They're going to listen to this and they're going to say, "Raj Sharma, how do I get a hold of this guy?" How do people track you down? What's the best way of getting in contact with you and engaging your services? Raj Sharma:   For sure, Mark. Anyone can email us at info@sshlaw.ca, that's info@sshlaw.ca, number is 403-705-3398. I think we have a toll free number, but I'm not sure what it is. Mark Holthe:  You can go to the website, right, too. Raj Sharma:  Yes, you can definitely reach us and we'd be happy to help. It's something that we've developed for the last seven, eight years or so. Mark Holthe:   Awesome, thanks a lot. I appreciate your time. Take care. Raj Sharma:    Thanks a lot, Mark.  

Jeff Ruby is a health innovator with an extensive entrepreneurial track record in preventive health. Prior to founding Newtopia, Jeff was Co-Founder and Chief Operating Officer of Cleveland Clinic Canada, a collaboration between the Cleveland Clinic Foundation and Canyon Ranch, and Canada's leading destination for preventive health and lifestyle management. Before that, he served as Co-Founder and Chief Operating Officer of Life Screening Centres Inc., a cancer screening and prevention company, alongside a diversified group of international health product and service companies as part of The Copeland Group of Companies. Prior to the Copeland Group, Jeff was a Co-Founder and Director of Operations of Genetic Diagnostics Inc., an early stage biotechnology company commercializing a new genetic diagnostic testing platform. Jeff has a joint Juris Doctorate and Masters of Business Administration (JD/MBA) from Osgoode Hall and the Schulich School of Business in Toronto and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Western University. Jeff is a global thought leader and expert on integrative, personalized and highly engaging strategies to deliver affordable and sustainable health results and behavior change. 00:00 Jeff talks Newtopia, and how it encourages people to lead healthier lives.01:45 How Newtopia catches users before they develop metabolic syndrome by identifying at-risk users in order to prevent the disease.03:10 How Newtopia can ultimately save users money by avoiding rising health care and medical treatment costs.05:40 Newtopia's relationship with Aetna Innovations.07:10 What Newtopia as a pilot with Aetna Innovations looks like from a provider standpoint.09:30 What Newtopia looks like for a user.10:45 Newtopia's goal to understand the patient in a well-rounded way, from a genetic and personality standpoint, as well as a willingness to change.12:20 Newtopia's ability to provide a personalized plan that can integrate with wearable technology and personalized “coaches” who can help inspire and keep users accountable.14:20 Newtopia considers itself a “genetic engagement” company.16:30 The importance of genetic engagement to lifestyle changes.18:15 Some of the results that Jeff saw in the first year of piloting Newtopia.22:00 How Newtopia adds value to employers.26:30 How Newtopia inspires its users to want to change and keep healthier lifestyles.31:00 The importance of human interaction, along with engaging through technology, and how Newtopia brings these two together to create the greatest amount of success for its users.34:30 How Newtopia creates as much access as possible, within the limitations of access to technology and its ability to work through businesses.37:30 How Newtopia fits itself to the individual, and where providers fit in.41:00 You can find out more about Newtopia at Newtopia.com, where Jeff encourages you to reach out to the Newtopia staff to find out how Newtopia can work for you and your business.42:00 What does the “New” in Newtopia standfor? Nutrition, Excercise, and Wellbeing.

How the legislation affects them and how they implement it.Don Sinclair, General Manager, Development & Legal Services, Town of East GwillimburyDon Sinclair is the General Manager, Development & Legal Services for the Town of East Gwillimbury. He was the Director, Development Law at York Region when the Oak Ridges Moraine and Greenbelt plans came into effect. He has a Degree in Urban Planning from University of Waterloo and a Law Degree from Osgoode Hall at York University. He has also worked in the planning department for the cities of Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto and Vaughan.Click here to play now

Carrie Menkel-Meadow is a member of the founding law school faculty law at UCI. She is the author of Dispute Processing and Conflict Resolution: Theory, Policy and Practice (2003), and co-author of What's Fair: Ethics for Negotiators (2004, with Michael Wheeler), Dispute Resolution: Beyond the Adversarial Model (2005, with Lela Love, Andrea Schneider and Jean Sternlight), Negotiation: Beyond the Adversarial Model (with Andrea Schneider and Lela Love, 2006); Mediation: Beyond the Adversarial Model (with Lela Love and Andrea Schneider, 2006) and editor of Mediation Theory, Policy and Practice (2000); the author of several other books and over 100 articles on subjects ranging from dispute and conflict resolution, negotiation, mediation, legal procedure, legal theory, legal ethics, feminist theory, law and popular culture and legal education. She has won the CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution First Prize for Scholarship in ADR three times, (1983, 1991, 1998) and the Rutter Prize for Excellence in Teaching at UCLA Law School (1992) and the Frank Flegal Award for Teaching at Georgetown (2006). In addition to her scholarship and teaching, Professor Menkel-Meadow has trained lawyers, judges, diplomats, government officials, and mediators on five continents and is herself an active arbitrator and mediator. She has served as a mediator or arbitrator in the Wellington Asbestos Claims Facility, the Dalkon Shield Trust, the Merrill Lynch Settlement Program, ICANN domain names disputes, United Educators education disputes and a wide variety of other public and private matters. She has taught at the law schools of Georgetown University (1992-present), Harvard University, Stanford University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of California at Los Angeles (1979-98), Temple University, the University of Toronto, Osgoode Hall, York University, the University of Fribourg (Switzerland) and Universidad Alberto Hurtado (Santiago) and Catolica Universidad (Temuco) Chile, and has lectured throughout the world. She served as a Fulbright Scholar in Chile in 2007 where she taught mediation, arbitration, deliberative democracy and civil engagement in a variety of academic and practical settings, while researching topics related to restorative justice. She currently serves as co-editor in chief of the Journal of Legal Education, the International Journal of Law in Context and Associate Editor of the Negotiation Journal, published by the Harvard Program on Negotiation. Professor Menkel-Meadow holds a B.A. magna cum laude from Barnard College, Columbia University (1971), a J.D. cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania (1974), where she also served on the Law Review and as an Arthur Littleton Legal Writing Fellow, and an LL.D. (Hon.) (1995) from Quinnipiac College of Law. She served on the Board of Directors and as Secretary of the American Bar Foundation, on the Executive Committee of the Center for Public Resources and is a member of the American Law Institute and the American College of Civil Trial Mediators. Professor Menkel-Meadow began her career as a legal services attorney at Community Legal Services in Philadelphia, was briefly an associate at Dechert, Price and Rhoads, and was a founding faculty member of the clinical program at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continues to consult for the federal courts on issues involving ADR, especially on issues of program design and ethics.