Law Times - Newsmakers

top stories Feds bombard Canadians with immigration changes C By YAMRI TADDESE anada's immigration system received a major facelift this year after the federal government introduced a plethora of changes some say are equivalent to a teardown of the existing framework. The changes include selecting immigrants based on their fitness for Canada's economy, deporting foreign criminals faster, toughening up on immigration fraud, and doing away with procedures that create backlogs in the system. The government removed nearly 280,000 skilled-worker applications in order to reroute them to a new framework that requires applicants to have a job offer in Canada or experience in one of the in-demand occupations listed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Those who don't qualify to apply under the new rules may still have a chance to work in Canada through a pilot project that allows provinces to pick up to 1,500 applicants from the pool. Future plans include new requirements that would have applicants write a third-party English or French proficiency test or show proof of education in those languages. The changes ensure immigrants are "fine-tuned to meet Canada's economic needs," immigration lawyer Julie Taub told Law Times earlier this year. "Immigration should benefit Canada instead of Canada benefiting immigration," she said. Others say the moves undermine the various assets immigrants bring with them. "The changes seem to turn immigrants into economic commodities and don't appear to take into consideration the family and social values immigrants who may be excluded under the changes could bring to Canada," said immigration lawyer 14 December 2012 Mario Bellissimo. The rules favour international students who graduate from Canadian schools and temporary workers with Canadian experience. A shorter timeline for processing refugee cases and removing failed claimants is also on Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's agenda. Bill C-31, which will come into effect in December, will require claimants to submit the basis of their claim within 15 days following a referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board. Kenney is also anxious to get rid of foreign criminals in the country. As a part of his no-safe-haven rule, he proposed in June giving convicted criminals limited access to the Immigration and Refugee Board's appeal division. Kenney's new alternative to sponsoring parents and grandparents has had some success. After its implementation near the end of last year, the socalled super visa granting a 10-year, multiple-entry temporary resident permit allowed thousands of applicants to reunite with their families. If Canadians want to sponsor their spouses, a new rule that took effect in October requires them to live with that person for two years before the foreign spouse can apply for permanent residence. The aim is to deter fake marriages, according to Kenney, but critics argue the policy will force people to stay in abusive relationships for the sake of immigration status. Other developments include a review of the existing program for economic class immigrants. A consultation is underway with industry professionals on the idea of creating a startup visa for entrepreneurs. In July, the government also put a temporary pause on new applications for immigrant investor visas in order to finish processing those already in the system and assess the program's effectiveness. Nortel privilege ruling a hot topic for legal profession T By GLENN KAUTH he legal profession breathed a sigh of relief this year when the Superior Court delivered its highly anticipated ruling on litigation privilege. But was it merely a Pyrrhic victory? "The fact remains that the lawyers will have to come and testify against their clients," said Glen Jennings of Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP. The comments followed Ontario Superior Court Justice Frank Marrocco's ruling this May that lawyers for Nortel Networks Corp. executives wouldn't have to hand over the notes they took during their clients' interviews with company investigators several years back. At the time, former Nortel chief executive officer Frank Dunn, former chief financial officer Douglas Beatty, and former controller Michael Gollogly were under investigation for accounting irregularities. Each has denied the charges against him. "Had a recording of the interview been made, as is commonly done nowadays, the issue of the lawyers testifying would not have arisen," said Jennings. "Ordering the lawyers to go read the notes to see if they refresh their present memory and then come tell the court and the Crown what they remember is pretty small comfort indeed." Marrocco found that the notes had the protection of litigation privilege because they were made in contemplation of litigation. The fact remained, however, that Crown attorneys involved in the trial had successfully argued that Dunn's counsel, Tom Heintzman and Junior Sirivar of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, and the lawyers for Beatty, James Douglas and Kara Beitel of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, were eligible to testify about what happened and what was said during the internal investigative meeting in March 2004. In his earlier ruling, Marrocco reasoned that traditional solicitor-client privilege didn't apply because third parties were present during that meeting. When it came to Marrocco's ruling on the notes, Jennings pointed out the meeting had taken place almost a decade ago. "I suspect the lawyers won't remember a whole lot, with or without the notes, so as far as I'm concerned the ruling protecting the notes is much ado about nothing in this case," he said. Given the stakes, Marrocco's ruling on privilege was a hot topic for the legal profession this year. As for the three men accused of fraud, Marrocco has reserved his decision on their fate following closing submissions. He's to deliver his ruling on Jan. 14.

• Cover