Podcast appearances and mentions of peter edelmann

François Crépeau is a Professor at the McGill Faculty of Law and the Director of the Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism. He was the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants from 2011 to 2017. Peter Edelmann and François discuss migration issues generally, the Compact for Migration, and its implication for Canadian immigration and refugee law. This episode was recorded before Peter Edelmann was appointed to the British Columbia Supreme Court.

Molly Joeck and Erica Olmstead are lawyers with Edelmann & Co. They, along with Peter Edelmann, acted for the Canadian Council for Refugees as interveners before the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Chhina. In Chhina the issue before the Supreme Court was whether immigrant detainees have access to habeas corpus. We discuss Chhina, how immigration detention works in Canada, habeas corpus and issues going forward.

The Government of Canada, as well as several provincial governments, have introduced several measures to protect temporary foreign workers and maintain the integrity of Canada's foreign worker programs. Meera Thakrar is a Canadian immigration lawyer whose practices focus on helping companies recruit and retain foreign workers. Meera joins Peter Edelmann, Deanna Okun-Nachoff and Steven Meurrens to discuss various measures that different levels of government have introduced to protect foreign workers, challenges do governments face in this task and how employer compliance inspections work.

R v. Wong is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada had to determine whether a person could withdraw a guilty plea if they they did not know that their pleading guilty would lead to deportation. Peter Edelmann and Erica Olmstead are lawyers at Edelmann & Co. They represented the accused at the Supreme Court. Lobat Sadrehashemi represented one of the invervenors, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

R v. Wong is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada had to determine whether a person could withdraw a guilty plea if they they did not know that their pleading guilty would lead to deportation. Erica Olmstead is an Associate at Edelmann & Co. She and Peter Edelmann represented the accused at the Supreme Court. Lobat Sadrehashemi represented one of the invervenors, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

How does Canada's immigration system work? How does Canada accept refugees? What are some of the current concerns? Immigration lawyers Steven Muerrens and Peter Edelmann are part of the team behind the podcast Borderlines that discusses these questions and they joined us to discuss them. https://soundcloud.com/borderlinespodcast Find out more about the BC Humanist Association at www.bchumanist.ca

Fresh off our #Clawbies2017 award we had a New Year party and invited all of our friends!Emilie and I kick of 2018 with a call in show - with predictions, resolutions, and admissions from past Docket guests: Louise Arbour, Senator Kim Pate, Making a Murderer's Jerry Buting & Dean Strang, Naomi Sayers, Anne-Marie McElroy, Member of Parliament Nate Erskine-Smith, the crew at PolitiCoast podcast, Borderlines podcast's Peter Edelmann & Steven Meurrens, and good friend of the podcast Peter Sankoff.Oh, Emilie and I also talk about our resolutions and some plans for 2018.Thanks to everyone for listening and sharing the podcast. We had a fantastic year and can't wait dive into 2018.

Hey look we have a sponsor! Let the podcast money start rolling in! But seriously a huge thanks to Emond Publishing. And holy hell this was a good episode.We kick off the episode looking at the recent litigation in Toronto involving the best worse movie ever made - The Room. Tommy Wiseau tried to block the release of the documentary Room Full of Spoons. His performance in court was about as good as it was in his movie and the judgement is hilarious.Then we take a look at the tale of two police interviews. One was cut short because of excessive farting and one was thrown out of court for the oppressive lack of bathroom breaks. And then something more serious. Charges were dropped against a number of police officers accused of obstructing justice, planting evidence, and lying in court. It seems the officer's own police force so badly botched the disclosure of evidence to the Crown that the trial would have had to be delayed. And in an unprecedented move the Crown conceded the resulting delay would have been unconstitutional - in the absence of any defence application or court ruling. Wow.But then onto the main act. We are joined by Vancouver based immigration and criminal lawyer Peter Edelmann. He took a break from his preparation for the next day's Supreme Court hearing to chat with us. We talk about his case, immigration policy, and criminal law. Peter also is the host of the immigration podcast Boarder Lines - so you should go listen to that too.

On the 10th podcast episode, Professor Kent Roach joins Peter Edelmann, Deanna Okun-Achoff and Steven Meurrens to discuss national security law in Canada. Kent Roach is a Professor of Law and the Prichard-Wilson Chair of Law and Public Policy at the University of Toronto. He is a Member of the Order of Canada and is considered to be one of the foremost experts on national security legislation in Canada. This episode contains an overview of the history of national security law in Canada, starting with the MacDonald Commission and the October Crisis of 1970, the formation of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, the Air India bombing, the Arar Inquiry, 9/11, and Bill C-51. We also discuss the roles of CSIS, the Communication Security Establishment, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Canada Border Services Agency, in administering Canadian national security legislation. Finally, Professor Roach provides an in depth analysis of several controversial elements of the previous Conservative Government of Canada's Bill C-51, and the current Liberal Government of Canada's response under Prime Minister Trudeau.

Garth Barriere and Eric Purtzki joins Peter Edelmann and Steven Meurrens to discuss the constitutionality of laws that are retroactive or retrospective. Garth and Eric are both criminal defence attorneys in Vancouver. Both have appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada on numerous occasions. Peter and Steven also discuss the recent election of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States.

Have you ever wondered what happens when Canada wants to remove someone they think is a terrorist or a spy? How do they actually do this? Is there a formal process or do they simply book a flight, toss them on a plane and fly them back to their country of citizenship. Obviously it is not that simple! In my interview with Canadian immigration lawyer, Peter Edelmann, he shares some insight on this very complex area...the intersection of immigration, criminal and national security law in Canada. S.34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act sets out the basis upon which the government can find someone inadmissible to Canada on the grounds of security. Peter takes us through each of the various types of activities that can cause a person to be found inadmissible for national security concerns. Peter is a regular presenter at conferences on various topics related to criminal and immigration law. He regularly appears before Parliamentary committees and before the Supreme Court of Canada on issues related to criminality and national security in the immigration context. During my interview with Peter Edelmann, we covered the following topics: Peter's background. How he got into immigration law. Introduction to inadmissibility on security grounds. Historical context of s.34 inadmissibility. What constitutes: engaging in espionage; subversion by force of any government; engaging in terrorism; being a danger to the security of Canada; engaging in acts of violence that might endanger the lives of Canadians; and being a member of an organization that engages in each of the above. How a security investigation is triggered. What to expect when your client faces these serious allegations. Numerous practical examples of how s.34 has been applied in Canada. Relief Provisions How to spot potential security issues early on what to do How people can reach Peter Edelmann. Additional Resources: Peter Edelmann's Contact Information: https://edelmann.ca/ phone: 604-646-4684 e-mail: peter@edelmann.ca twitter: @p_edelmann Peter's Podcast "Borderlines": https://borderlines.ca/ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (See S.34): http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/FullText.html#h-23

Have you ever wondered what happens when Canada wants to remove someone they think is a terrorist or a spy? How do they actually do this? Is there a formal process or do they simply book a flight, toss them on a plane and fly them back to their country of citizenship. Obviously it is not that simple! In my interview with Canadian immigration lawyer, Peter Edelmann, he shares some insight on this very complex area...the intersection of immigration, criminal and national security law in Canada. S.34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act sets out the basis upon which the government can find someone inadmissible to Canada on the grounds of security. Peter takes us through each of the various types of activities that can cause a person to be found inadmissible for national security concerns. Peter is a regular presenter at conferences on various topics related to criminal and immigration law. He regularly appears before Parliamentary committees and before the Supreme Court of Canada on issues related to criminality and national security in the immigration context. During my interview with Peter Edelmann, we covered the following topics: Peter's background. How he got into immigration law. Introduction to inadmissibility on security grounds. Historical context of s.34 inadmissibility. What constitutes: engaging in espionage; subversion by force of any government; engaging in terrorism; being a danger to the security of Canada; engaging in acts of violence that might endanger the lives of Canadians; and being a member of an organization that engages in each of the above. How a security investigation is triggered. What to expect when your client faces these serious allegations. Numerous practical examples of how s.34 has been applied in Canada. Relief Provisions How to spot potential security issues early on what to do How people can reach Peter Edelmann. Additional Resources: Peter Edelmann's Contact Information: https://edelmann.ca/  phone: 604-646-4684 e-mail: peter@edelmann.ca twitter: @p_edelmann Peter's Podcast "Borderlines": https://borderlines.ca/ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (See S.34): http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/FullText.html#h-23

On the 8th podcast episode, Lobat Sadrehashemi joins Peter Edelmann, Deanna Okun-Nachoff and Steven Meurrens to discuss issues in Canada's citizenship revocation and refugee determination processes. The recent controversy around Maryam Monsef guides our discussion. Lobat Sadrehashemi is an Associate Counsel at Embarkation Law Corporation. She is also the Vice President of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers ("CARL"). There are sound quality issues at some points in this episode. We're still getting the hand of this equipment. CARL's reform proposals for Canada's inland refugee determination system and other aspects of the immigration system, which we recently submitted to the Ministers, their staff, IRCC, and the Immigration and Refugee Board can be found here. Lobat's paper on Refugee Reform and Access to Counsel in British Columbia can be found here.

Dani Willetts joins Peter Edelmann and Steven Meurrens to discuss the decision making process at Canada's immigration department, her experience transitioning from a career working for CIC to being an immigration consultant, some recent cases impacting international graduates in particular with regards to the Post-Graduate Work Permit program, a recent Parliamentary report on the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, and the discovery that Canada has started negotiating an extradition treaty with China. Dani Willetts is an immigration consultant at TDWImmigration. From 1989 - 2012 she worked in numerous capacities with Canada's immigration department, including as a Supervisor in Vancouver.

Marilyn Sanford joins Peter Edelmann and Steve Meurrens to discuss whether the Canada Border Services Agency can search people's electronic devices. In addition, we discussed the recent stay of proceedings in the Nuttall decision, a well publicised case in which two individuals were charged with attempting to blow up the BC legislature. Marilyn was counsel to Mr. Nuttall, and provided her insights on the case. Finally, Peter and Steve touched on recent developments in Canadian immigration law, including the Owner Operator Labour Market Impact Assessment recruitment exemption, a puzzling case in which the Federal Court upheld an officer's determination that people who extend their visitor status in Canada cannot complete short term courses during that extension without first leaving Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissing leave in the Torres case.

In the 3rd episode of Borderlines, Raj Sharma joined Peter Edelmann and Steven Meurrens to discuss marriage fraud. Raj Sharma is the managing partner of Stewart Sharma Harsanyi. He is a well known commentator on immigration law. In addition to his active blog and numerous presentations that he has given at immigration conferences and seminars, he has written numerous op-eds on immigration, diversity and multi-culturalism that have been published in many manjor Canadian newspapers. He has debated Martin Collacott of the Fraser Institute and Centre for Immigration Reform on whether Canada accepts too many immigrants; Deepak Obhrai (MP and Parliamentary Secretary) on additional and stricter language requirements for citizens; David Seymour of the Manning Centre on whether Canada's new immigration policy is too exclusionary; Imam Syed Soharwardy on honour crimes in Canada; and a CSIS agent on the profiling of Muslims. 2:33 - 44:20 - We discuss marriage fraud, and how the previous government introduced several measures to try and prevent it. These measures included introducing a disjunctive test in which a marriage would not facilitate immigration if the marriage was not genuine or if the marriage had been entered into primarily for the purpose of immigration. It also included the introduction of conditional permanent residency, in which immigrants who immigrate to Canada as a result of a marriage or common-law relationship would lose their permanent resident status if the relationship broke down within 2 years of immigrating. Finally, the previous Conservative Government of Canada also introduced a five year spousal sponsorship bar, in which a permanent resident who immigrated after marrying a Canadian could not sponsor a new spouse or common-law partner for five years after immigrating. Raj was a fantastic guest to have for this topic, given that he represented a Canadian citizen who sued the Canada Border Services Agency to compel them to complete an investigation into whether that person had been the victim of a marriage fraud. Raj during the podcast provided an overview of this case, Zaghbib v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2016 FCA 182. Peter then raised the difficult question of “where do you draw the line?” If a Canadian can compel CBSA to remove someone from Canada for marriage fraud, can a company compel CBSA to do the same for a competitor where the Canadian company knows that that the competitor has engaged in foreign worker fraud? What about an average citizen trying to compel the Vancouver Police Department for visiting the Amsterdam Café and smoking marijuana? 44:20 - 49:30 - Peter discusses the ongoing detention situation in Canada, where immigration detainees are often held in provincial prisons. Minister Goodale recently wrote an article in the Huffington Post in which he set out a number of goals in immigration detention, but at the same time also provided justification for the ongoing detention. Peter also showed us a recent tender that CBSA has put out in which they are seeking feedback on alternatives to detention. After providing a brief overview of why people would be detained in Canada, we discuss what possible alternatives there could be. The word “Kafkaesque” makes its first appearance in the podcast, although I’m sure not it’s last. 49:30 – 55:13 Continuing with the theme of detention, we discuss the Federal Court’s recently certified question in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Lunyamila, 2016 FC 324, in which the Federal Court asked whether it can usurp the powers of the Immigration Division to either order release or continue detention. 51:13 – 56:00 – Finally, we conclude by providing a statistic of how what percentage of people who submitted applications to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada had representatives.

In the 2nd episode of Borderlines, Jennifer Bond joined Peter Edelmann and Steven Meurrens to discuss refugee resettlement and ensuring that legislation is Charter compliant. Jennifer Bond is a professor at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law, and is also a Special Advisor to Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship. Jennifer sat on the founding national executive of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) and is founder and current co-director of the University of Ottawa’s Refugee Assistance Project (UORAP), a multi-year, national initiative aimed at mitigating and researching the access to justice implications of Canada’s new refugee legislation. She is also the Faculty Coordinator of the University of Ottawa’s Refugee Hub, supervisor of the Refugee Law Research Team (RLRT), and a member of the Public Law Group. 00:26 - 21:31- We discuss international refugee resettlement law. Specific topics include whether countries are obligated to resettle refugees, Canada's commitment to resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees, and the role private sponsorship programs in the global refugee resettlement effort. Jennifer also explained the security screening that Canada undertakes when it resettles refugees, and how this security process compares to Canada's other immigration streams. Finally, we asked Jennifer for her take on what we discussed last week, which is in the wake of the BREXIT vote, the asylum crisis in Europe, the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the United States, and now the coup in Turkey, whether Canada can continue to buck global trends and remain a nation that loudly announces its intentions to continue to welcome a record number of immigrants and refugees. 21:31 - 35:50 - We discuss Jennifer's 2014 paper titled "Failure to Report: The Manifestly Unconstitutional Nature of the Human Smugglers Act," as well as the ongoing case involving the whistleblower Edgar Schmidt, who sued the Department of Justice for allegedly failing to report to Parliament whether new laws might be so inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms they would trigger constitutional challenges. 35:50 - 39:47 - Peter and I discuss the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's current exploration of Immigration Measures for the Protection of Vulnerable Groups. I pose the question of how history will judge us if, in the interests of not being seen to favour one group of refugee claimants over others, that group faces a similar result to the Jewish people during World War 2. 39:47 - 42:50 - Peter Edelmann and I discuss the recent misrepresentation decision in Lamsen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration). There, the Federal Court affirmed that a visa application must be considered in its totality and that applications cannot be compartmentalized, particularly when making a finding of misrepresentation carries such serious consequences. 42:50 - 46:20 - The Government of Canada is currently proposing changes to NEXUS eligibility and what will lead to the cancellation of a NEXUS card. After providing an overview of the changes, we discuss how Canadians may soon be privileged travellers domestically within the United States. 46:20 - 49:30 - We wrap up by discussing the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., and what it means for the ongoing standard of review debate.

In this introductory episode the three of us discuss recent developments in Canadian immigration law, as well as some recent news items and a specific case. 00:30 – 8:39 – We discuss how immigration policy in general has changed under the Liberal government, with a specific emphasis on the Liberal’s repealing the portions of Bill C-24 which revoked the Canadian citizenship of certain individuals convicted of certain offences related to national security. 8:39 – 19:03 – The conversation shifts to Donald Trump, BREXIT, and whether Canada under the Liberal government is bucking an international trend towards increased protectionism. 19:03 – 25:06 – In discussing immigration policy under the new Liberal government, we note that unlike under the Conservatives, where Jason Kenney seemed to be directly or indirectly responsible for all government departments related to immigration law, the Liberals are providing autonomy to the Ministers of each Ministry, and what impact that this may have. 25:06 – 38:50 – Peter Edelmann leads off a discussion on Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s current consultations regarding immigration levels planning in Canada. The discussion becomes a very philosophical one about whether centralised planning is necessary, what Canada’s population should be, and how Canada attempts to meticulously control permanent resident numbers while at the same time does not have an overall plan for how many temporary residents are admitted. 38:50 – 41:25 – Steven Meurrens provides a case summary of Sendwa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 216. In this decision the Federal Court greatly broadened the ability of Canadian permanent residents and citizens to sponsor their relatives. Canadian immigration law provides that a relative of a sponsor, regardless of age, can be sponsored by a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, if that sponsor does not have a spouse, a common-law partner, a conjugal partner, a child, a mother or father, a relative who is a child of that mother or father, a relative who is a child of a child of that mother or father, a mother or father of that mother or father or a relative who is a child of the mother or father of that mother or father. Traditionally IRCC interpreted this as requiring that the Canadian sponsor not have a living spouse, child, parent, grandparent, etc. However, the Federal Court clarified that this is too stringent, and instead stated that the law only requires that the Canadian sponsor not have a sponsorable child, parent, grandparent, etc. The distinction will likely be important for Canadians who either do not meet the income requirements for the parents and grandparents program, or whose parents may be medically inadmissible. 41:25 – 53:16 – Deanna Okun-Nachoff comments on how John McCallum, Canada’s Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, recently committed to “getting rid of silly rules.” She discusses some of the rules that she finds silly, including the Temporary Resident Permits issued to victims of human trafficking, and numerous quirks of Express Entry.