SCOTUS ruling on DACA was death by fair procedure and justice served cold, writes Ron Poulton
Vavilov entrenched requirement to grapple with arguments before tribunals, writes Ronald Poulton
There was a marked dissent in high court’s revisiting of standard of review, writes Ronald Poulton
Those arriving to Canada via the U.S. should have equal rights to refugee status, says immigration lawyer Ron Poulton
Ron Poulton argues the decision puts Canada on the right side of the issue
One of the most confusing aspects of reporting conditions for a non-citizen in Canada under reporting terms is the simple fact that Canada Border Services Agency and the Immigration and Refugee Board are not the same entities.
In Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Chhina, 2019 SCC 29, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the ancient writ of habeas corpus as having direct application to non-citizens held in immigration detention — held as in held and held and held and held for lengthy, protracted periods of detention with no apparent hope of release
Canadian Courts have been systematically erasing the Harper legacy in immigration and refugee law since Harper relinquished power to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his crew in 2015 – and rightly so. Now we have a new rebuke of human rights law carrying the stain of political whims – an apt description of how Harper’s government carried on refugee law. Whims usually don’t lead to smart decision-making. Perhaps even less so when those whims are politically driven, and not based on reason, logic or any sense of compassion.
Canada had a program to bring nannies into Canada to care for children or adults who could not care for themselves. The program worked, more or less effectively, for decades. The nanny had to have a high school degree, basic English skills and either a six-month training program in a related field or one year of relevant work experience. The nanny could then come to Canada to work for the family who had sponsored them and then qualify for permanent residency if they had lived in and worked under their work permits for two years of a four-year period.
Sometimes in immigration law, the small victories go unnoticed. They slide by with no grand fanfare, press conferences or lawyers slapping themselves on the back in a self-congratulatory orgy of promotion. Sometimes, the law is simply corrected, an injustice made right and we move on.