Borderlines

Will Tao is a Canadian immigration and the founder of Heron Law Office.

In January 2024 Justice Crampton, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court released a decision where he ruled that what constitutes “espionage” in Canadian immigration law must evolve “as hostile state actors increasingly make use of non-traditional methods to obtain sensitive information in Canada or abroad, contrary to Canada’s interests.”

He held that it was reasonable for a visa officer to determine that a prospective Chinese PhD student, Mr. Li, was inadmissible to Canada for espionage because he may in the future be targeted and coerced by the Chinese government into providing information that would be detrimental to or contrary to Canada’s interests. There was nothing to suggest that Mr. Li has a present or future intention to provide such information to the Chinese government. Rather, the concern was future coercion or co-opting.

Later that month, the Government of Canada’s announcement of a New Policy on Sensitive Technology Research and Affiliations of Concern (the “Policy”). The Policy included the publishing of a list of around 100 research organizations and institutions in China, Russia and Iran that pose “the highest risk to Canada’s national security due to their direct, or indirect connections with military, national defence, and state security entities.”

In this episode we discuss these two developments, and what it means for prospective immigrants, with a focus on China. 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Douglas Judson is a lawyer in Ontario who practices in litigation. He can be found on Twitter @dwjudson

In this episode, we are taking a break from immigration and discussing defamation law, which is the law around communications about a person that tends to hurt their reputation. We are focusing on one of the defenses to defamation lawsuits, which is Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP. Many provinces, including British Columbia and Ontario (and if you have watched the Jon Oliver episodes, many jurisdictions in the United States) have anti-SLAPP laws designed to encourage public discourse about matters in the public interest.

Mr. Judson recently represented the plaintiff in Rainbow Alliance Dryden et al v. Webster, 2023 ONSC 7050, where the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had to determine if using the term "groomer" to refer to members of the 2SLGBTQI and drag community attract the protection of Ontario's anti-SLAPP laws.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Pantea Jafari is lead counsel at Jafari Law, which she opened in 2012.

In this episode, we discuss IRCC's response to the crisis in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Details of the program that is the subject of our discussion can be found on IRCC's website at canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/israel-west-bank-gaza-2023/canada-tr-measures.html.

Our discussion focuses on the temporary measures in place for Palestinians who live in Gaza, and are seeking to reunite with a Canadian citizen or permanent resident relative who lives in or intends to live in Canada. In addition, we discuss the open work permits for Israelies, comparisons between Gaza and Ukraine, consequences of Canada abiding by a possible ICJ ruling that Israel comitted genocide, antisemtism and more.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Robin Seligman is the founder of Seligman Law, an immigration law firm in Toronto.

In this episode we discuss Canada's business immigration programs, including a history of the Immigrant Investor Program and Entrepreneur Program, the current Start-Up Visa Program, and difficulties that entrepreneurs face in coming to Canada to start businesses.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Michael Greene, K.C. is an immigration lawyer in Calgary. He served as the National Chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s Citizenship & Immigration Section in 2000-2001. He is representing Jaskirat Singh Sidhu in his immigration and deportation matters.

We discuss the Federal Court decision in Sidhu v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FC 1681.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Mason v. Canada was a Supreme Court of Canada decision which assessed whether inadmissibility on security grounds for engaging in violence required a nexus to national security.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision clarified the interpretation of "inadmissibility on security grounds" under section 34(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the "IRPA"). The Court ruled that to deem someone inadmissible under this provision, there must be a direct link between the acts of violence committed and a threat to national security. This decision overturned a Federal Court of Appeal which had permitted a broader interpretation that did not require such a link to national security.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.