CBA opposes inclusion of lawyers in immigration penalties framework
CBA urges the government to focus on the real issue rather than unfairly target lawyers who are not responsible for misconduct in immigration matters
In a nutshell
The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) is adding its voice to the concerns raised by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, objecting to the inclusion of lawyers in a new administrative penalties and consequences (APC) framework intended to address bad-faith actors in the immigration system.
The proposed regulatory regime, introduced in December 2024, would apply to immigration representatives, including lawyers, for infractions related to immigration applications.
The framework aims to increase public confidence in the regulation of licensed practitioners, reduce fraudulent applications, and prevent unauthorized individuals from engaging in immigration services. However, its methods—such as broad inspection powers and public disclosure of penalties—raise serious concerns about due process, solicitor-client privilege, and the independence of the legal profession.
CBA’s concerns with the framework
In a letter to then Immigration Minister Marc Miller and Deputy Minister Harpreet Kochhar, CBA President Lynne Vicars echoed the concerns of the Federation and firmly opposed applying the framework to lawyers since they “are inconsistent with established constitutional and common law principles of solicitor-client privilege and confidentiality, interfere with exclusive provincial jurisdiction over the regulation of lawyers and undermine the independence of the bar.”
Provincial jurisdiction and regulatory overlap
More specifically, the framework interferes with exclusive provincial jurisdiction over the regulation of lawyers. “Law societies are mandated and empowered to investigate and discipline their members for professional misconduct, including trust audits, disciplinary hearings, suspensions and fines,” the letter reads. “There is no evidence that these regimes are deficient, and the unnecessary duplication of oversight raises more issues than it purports to resolve.”
The proposed penalties framework also fails to clarify which system—law society disciplinary processes or the APC framework—would take precedence in cases of overlap. This could create a regulatory vacuum or expose lawyers to conflicting obligations.
Moreover, the penalties outlined in the framework are disproportionate when applied to lawyers, given the robust disciplinary mechanisms already in place through law societies. The risk of regulatory conflict and inefficiency is significant, as is the potential for undue interference in established legal oversight frameworks.
Vicars further explains that the role of immigration lawyers often involves advocating for clients against the government and its lawyers. “Granting that same entity the authority to discipline the very lawyers who challenge it creates a glaring conflict of interest—comparable to allowing Crown Counsel to oversee the discipline of criminal defence lawyers.”
Threats to solicitor-client privilege
Lawyers are bound by solicitor-client privilege and confidentiality obligations. The framework, the letter notes, would force them into an impossible position: either breach their professional obligations or face a $10,000 fine.
Also, the ability to search the offices of a lawyer without a warrant, and demand documents without procedural safeguard, as the framework allows, is “fundamentally at odds with established common law principles, which are essential for maintaining the integrity of the legal system and the relationships between lawyers, clients, the courts and the state.”
Attempting to solve the wrong problem
Finally, the CBA points out that the 2017 report of the House of Commons Citizenship and Immigration Committee identified unlicensed immigration representatives as the primary source of misconduct, with problematic licensed consultants as the second most significant concern. “Lawyers, by contrast, have never been cited as a major contributor to these problems,” the letter reads. “
Yet, the proposed regulations impose the harshest penalties on lawyers “while largely insulating unauthorized representatives from the penalties outlined in the regulations.”
For these reasons, the CBA requests that the framework clearly exempt lawyers.
Read the submission.
