Canadian Lawyer - sample

44 S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 6 w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m the officer's decision before the Federal Court (judicial review). This refusal does not prevent the traveller from seeking to enter Canada at a regular port of entry in the future," she wrote. The government intends, added Croteau "to develop regulations that will outline the grounds of inadmiss- ibility under which both FNs and PRs may be refused preclearance." A similar proposal that is raising some eyebrows is s. 48(1), which pro- vides that travellers in preclearance areas or perimeters outside Canada who are seeking to enter Canada for the purposes of the Act could also be refused entry. "As such, both refugee protection claims and flag-poling will not be pos- sible at preclearance facilities and perim- eters," Vancouver immigration lawyer Steven Meurrens, a partner in Larlee Rosenberg, wrote in a recent blog about the new bill ("flag-poling" refers to the process of applying at a Canadian port of entry after a brief visit to the Unit- ed States). "Indeed, since preclearance perimeters and areas are deemed to be outside of Canada, then port of entry work permit applications will not be possible at them." "We have no idea what impact that might have on immigration to Canada," adds Greene. "If we start blocking people from going on to a port of entry, could that choke off immigration to this country?" A past national chair of the CBA's immigration section and one of a half- dozen section members who volun- teered this summer to go over Bill C-32 with a fine-tooth comb and to help draft a possible submission to govern- ment recommending changes before the act is passed, Greene says the bill's language reflects the closed-door pro- cess that led to its creation. "Lawyers weren't privy to it [and] only learned about it in detail when the bill was tabled," says Greene. "It cer- tainly appears to have some holes in it." Howard Greenberg, national prac- tice leader, immigration at the Toronto offices of KPMG Management Services LP, agrees. "From the little I've seen so far, somebody needs to take a really close look at this legislation before it passes," he says. According to Greenberg, the word- ing and provisions in Bill C-32 — and their potential impacts and fallouts — reflect the divergent objectives of offi- cials in Canada and the U.S., which has reached similar preclearance agreements with several countries and has more than 500 customs and borders agents stationed at 15 airports in Europe, the Middle East, the Caribbean and a half-dozen here in Canada. "From the Canadian side, there is a need to move people and goods faster and more efficiently with the certainty they have been properly reviewed," says Greenberg. "But the thinking from the U.S. side is that they want to know as much as possible about travellers to the U.S. before they reach U.S. soil." He notably referred to a recent article in the New York Times that illustrates the inextricable ties between preclear- ance and security for U.S. officials. "The expansion of Preclearance in L E G A L R E P O RT \ I M M I G R AT I O N This edition continues to provide everything you need for Court: • Supreme Court Civil Rules, updated to B.C. Reg. 87/2016 • Court of Appeal Rules, updated to B.C. Reg. 6/2016 • Supreme Court Family Rules, updated to B.C. Reg. 4/2016 • Small Claims Rules, updated to B.C. Reg. 5/2016 • Wealth of new annotations and expanded commentary, with cases personally selected and summarized by the authors, including: – Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green (2015 S.C.C.) – B. (E.) v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services) (2016 B.C.C.A.) – Chellappa v. Kumar (2016 B.C.C.A.) – Galati v. Harper (2016 F.C.A.) – Greater Vancouver Water District v. Bilfinger Berger AG (2015 B.C.S.C.) – Halliday v. Halliday (2015 B.C.C.A.) – Kondor v. Shea (2016 B.C.C.A.) – Loft v. Nat (No. 2) (2015 B.C.C.A.) and Loft v. Nat (No. 1) (2014 B.C.C.A.) – MacLean Law v. Miolla (2016 B.C.S.C.) – Morin v. 0865580 B.C. Ltd. (2015 B.C.C.A.) – Moses v. Lower Nicola Indian Band (2015 B.C.C.A.) – Nichol v. Nichol (2015 B.C.C.A.) – Ocean Pastures Corporation v. Old Masset Economic Development Corporation (2016 B.C.C.A.) Introductory Offer: Complimentary eBook access Experience the freedom and flexibility to work wherever and whenever you want, with or without an Internet connection. Beginning with this edition, you can choose to access the Thomson Reuters ProView™* eBook through your web browser, or download it to your desktop or laptop (Windows and Mac), iPad, or Android tablet. As an introductory offer, you will receive complimentary access to the ProView version of British Columbia Annual Practice 2017, and complimentary product training, with the purchase of this edition. New Edition British Columbia Annual Practice, 2017 Edition The Honourable Madam Justice Janice R. Dillon and Gordon Turriff, Q.C. Available risk-free for 30 days Order online: www.carswell.com Call Toll-Free: 1-800-387-5164 On Subscription Order # 804929BE-65203 $110 Hardcover + Softcover + CD-ROM + Complimentary Thomson Reuters ProView eBook access August 2016 approx. 1700 pages (Hardcover) approx. 960 pages (Softcover) Annual volumes supplied on standing order subscription e-Notes available on request on standing order subscription Multiple copy discounts available One time purchase Order # 804929BE-65203 $115 Multiple copy discounts available Shipping and handling are extra. Price(s) subject to change without notice and subject to applicable taxes. © 2016 Thomson Reuters Canada Limited 00239HU-A70487-NK Discover the complete collection of ProView eBooks at www.carswell.com/proview Find all upcoming and available training sessions at http://cpdcentre.ca/? search=proview+webinar *Not available to trade bookstores, third-party distributors and academic institutions.Windows is a trademark of Microsoft Corp. Mac and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc. Android is a trademark of Google Inc.

• Cover