Sean Rehaag is an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, the Director of the Centre for Refugee Studies and the Director of the Refugee Law Laboratory. Today we discuss his use of GPT to conduct legal research, artificial intelligence and decision making, differential results in Federal Court and Immigration and Refugee Board decisions, and how to identify if differential outcomes are actually a problem or significant. 2:00 Using GPT to conduct research. 14:00 Issues with unreported decisions or decisions lacking precedential value. Do all decisions need to have precedential value given that it results in inconsistent jurisprudence? 19:00 AI making decisions vs. AI helping to write decisions. 22:00 Bias in decision making in LGBT claims around physical appearance. 28:00 AI leading to uniformity in decision making. 38:00 The receptiveness of the Federal Court to research into judicial decision making. 42:00 Forum shopping as a result of judicial research. 46:00 Should AI play a role in helping judges write decisions. 52:00 Baker as an example of transparency in decision making. 54:00 Is it possible to tell if AI is starting to render unintended decisions? 1:05 Trauma in refugee decision making. 1:14 How do you decide if differential results are problematic? For example, asylum claims for lesbians are higher than gay which is also higher than bi. Is this a problem?

Raj Sharma is an immigration lawyer in Calgary. He can be found on Twitter at @immlawyercanada Topics: 1:30 - Addressing divergent case law 15:30 - Globe and Mail story about waiving TRV eligibility requirements to clear backlogs 23:00 - Chat GTP replacing lawyers and visa officers 31:00 - Processing delays 36:00 - Mandamus 42:00 - Open work permits for spouses of Canadians 56:00 - C-10 work permits and Express Entry 57:00 - A world in which GCMS notes are provided instead of refusal letters 1:00 - Is the practice of immigration law getting less fun?

Tamara Mosher Kuczer is the Founder & Principal Lawyer of Lighthouse Immigration Law Professional Corporation. She can be found on Twitter @ttrrmk. 5:00 How would you summarize 2022 for Canadian immigration? 13:23 Favorite development in Canadian immigration law 25:00 Least favorite development in Canadian immigration 39:15 Favorite Federal Court decision 52:00 What should people watch the most in 2023 56:00 What might happen this year that people might not be expecting? 1:04 What will happen with the Self-Employed Class and Start-Up Visa Program? 1:09 Will Express Entry take under 6 months again and will there be a draw in the Parent & Grandparent Program? 1:12 Predictions for citizenship and abolishing PR Cards.

The Secure Air Travel Act provides the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness with authority to establish a list of individuals that the Minister has reasonable grounds to suspect could be a threat to aviation or national security or intends to travel by air for the purpose of terrorism. Sadaf Kashfi, works for Edelmann & Co. She advises clients on complex issues concerning U.S. and Canadian immigration, criminal law, and during the COVID-19 pandemic developed a successful practice representing individuals accused of quarantine act violations. Her e-mail is sadaf@edelmann.ca The second, Eric Purtzi, is Associate Counsel at Fowler & Block, a criminal defense law firm. He has appeared at the Supreme Court of Canada 7 times. He is also a past guest on Borderlines, having appeared on episode 9 to discuss the constitutionality of retrospective laws. His e-mail is epurtzki@fowlerbloklaw.ca How does the Secure Air Travel Act work? Who reviews naming on the Secure Air Travel Act? What is the threshold to be added to the list for possibly committing a crime in the air? Does the government have to publish how many people are on the list? How does someone learn that they are on the SATA list? What are the participatory rights for people to get off the SATA? How does the appeal or Federal Court process work? Could someone be put on SATA for refusing to wear a mask?

Prasanna Balasundaram is the Director of Downtown Legal Services. He represented the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers as interveners in the Supreme Court of Canada case Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, which dealt with when delays can amount to an abuse of process. 2:00 Why did CARL intervene in this case? 6:00 Recalibrating abuse of process. 10:00 Possible remedies for abuse of process. 17:00 What is an abuse of process claim? 20:00 What is the Blencoe test? 25:00 Is a remedy under an abuse of process claim cash? 28:00 How can lawyers, stakeholders, and CARL collaborate on systemic issues? 31:00 Why does __ think that the Supreme Court did not address CARL’s argument about removal in the decision? 39:00 How does one choose test litigation cases?

Pantea Jafari is lead counsel at Jafari Law, which she opened in 2012. In 2022 Pantea won a successful group litigation for over 100 Iranian applicants whose applications were refused under the Self-Employed Class. Pantea successfully argued that the Canadian government unfarily changed the standards for these applicants after they had applied. We discuss the Self-Employed Class, the doctrine of legitimate expectations, breaches of procedural fairness, changing visa offices and how group litigation works.

Three former counsel at the Department of Justice discuss what practicing at the DOJ is like vs. private practice. Jennifer Dagsvik worked as Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice from 2007 – 2017, and now is a Lecturer at Immigration and Refugee Law at the Bora Laskin Faculty of Law in Thunder Bay, and also a Director at the Newcomer Legal Clinic there. Nalini Reddy worked as a Lawyer at the Department of Justice from 1999 to 2017. She is currently an Associate at Gindin Segal Law in Winnipeg. Rafeena Rashid worked as a Lawyer at the Department of Justice in the Immigration Division from 2010 to 2016. She is a Partner and Co-founder of Rashid Urosevic LLP, where she practices immigration law full-time. - Why they joined and eventually left DOJ - What they liked most about DOJ and what they liked less - The DOJ interview process - When a DOJ lawyer's personal opinion about a case is different from their client’s. - Things it would be helpful for private practice to know about DOJ. - Things it would be helpful for DOJ to understand about private practice. - The training at DOJ. - Ways private bar counsel interact with DOJ. - Challenges being a female lawyer. - Are DOJ and private practice on an equal playing field? - How hard is it to transition from DOJ to private practice? - Work life balance and families

Peter Scarrow practiced Canadian immigration law from 1981 - 1991, opening the Taiwanese representative office for a prominent Vancouver law firm. We discuss what practicing high net worth immigration from Taiwan and China was like in the 1980s and early 1990s, ghost consultant fraud, tax avoidance, and being a private banker vs. immigration lawyer (Peter did both).

David Thomas practiced immigration law from 1987 - 2014, when he was appointed Chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. During his career he developed a large investor clientele from South Korea, ran to be a Member of Parliament, and started a charity that delivered vitamins to North Korea. 3:00 - The start of Dave’s career practicing immigration law both at a large firm and then starting his own firm. 6:00 - Practicing immigration law in the 1990s. 13:00 - Do immigration lawyers travel less than they do now, reduced communication with IRCC and other changes in the practice. 18:00 - Things learned about the bureaucracy as the head of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal 32:00 - Running for federal office 36:00 - Would David recommend immigration law? Is it becoming less fun? 44:00 - Starting a charity that delivered vitamins to North Korea. 51:00 - Comparing practicing immigration to the human rights tribunal. 1:02 - What the future holds.

A discussion of misrepresentation, including its application, consequences, the innocent mistake defense, failing to disclose past visa refusals, the difference between insufficient evidence and misrepresentation, and going after low hanging fruit.