Problem Solving

Assignment Ethics and

Professional Conduct
IMM104
 INSTRUCTIONS

For each of the following parts, please use the provided material(s) including the ICCRC Code of
Professional Ethics.

Part I

Ethics and Professional Misconduct – Please answer the following question

Compare and contrast professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming a regulated

immigration consultant. (4 Marks)

Both are examples of unprofessional behavior that could jeopardize the consultant's reputation and
damage public trust in all immigration experts. Failure to follow the ICCRC Bylaws, the IRPA, and its
regulations constitutes professional misconduct.

Any improper activity taken by a regulated immigration consultant while conducting business is
referred to as professional misconduct. Conduct unbecoming refers to unethical behavior that
occurs outside of the scope of licensed immigration consultants' work and has little or no impact on
the client. In summary professional misconduct is less in punishment than conduct of unbecoming a
member.

In contrast conduct of unbecoming a member is more serious in nature than professional

misconduct. This includes substantially similar to conduct to conduct that is specifically prohibited
in the ICCRC Code of Professional Ethics. This serious misconduct in the scope of Member’s
professional capacity includes but is not limited to taking advantages of client’s vulnerability due to
age, inexperience, lack of education or ill health to detriment or that person’s with/without any
benefit to the Member.

Part II

“See attached “Miller Decision”

Please read the attached Miller decision and solve the following problem(s). 26 Marks

1. As an unpaid representative, which policy(s) did Ken Miller contravene and which
section, if applicable?

Ans: Section 5.3 Policy for handling Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Complaints Regarding
Unauthorized, paid representatives.

Under the Policy, both the person who is the subject of the proceeding and their counsel must
provide the Board with a signed declaration that the counsel is an unpaid representative
(Section 5.3).

Mr. Miller has submitted Notice of Representation Without a Fee forms on which he declared
that he is not charging a fee for representing the claimant or appellant, as the case may be, as
their counsel in their proceedings before the Board.
 2. With regard to raising concerns raised by the IRB Member, which policy(s) gave the
Member the authority to proceed against Ken Miller and which section applied, if
applicable?

Ans; Section 5.6 Policy for handling Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Complaints Regarding
Unauthorized, paid representatives

3. What law or policy states that no person shall knowingly, directly or indirectly,
represent or advise a person for consideration — or offer to do so — in connection
with a proceeding or application [in an immigration matter]?

91. (1) Subject to this section, no person shall knowingly, directly or indirectly, represent or
advise a person for consideration — or offer to do so — in connection with a proceeding or
application under this Act.

4. In your own words (minimum 400, maximum 500), what did the Board determine in the
Miller case? What sections of the Code of Professional Ethics did he contravene? Explain. 20
Marks

In Miller’s case the Board determine the following:

In regards to terms of the Policy, the Board has accepted to actively monitor and ensure that
unauthorized representatives whether paid or unpaid are restricted from representing a
client; whether directly or indirectly representing advising a person for consideration in
connection with a proceeding before all its divisions. This policy was documented by the
Federal Court as a Policy that enforces significant responsibility on the Board in order to
accurately fulfil its mandate. In addition, the Court also agree that it is the duty of the Board
to verify that those individuals representing clients with whom they are dealing are
authorized representatives according to Regulations. Section 5.5 illustrates that frequent
appearances at the Board as an unpaid representative may be an indication that a
representative who claims to be unpaid may actually be charging a fee. The Policy shaded
light on frequent appearances and labeled it as of greater concern when combined with
other factors for example related data received from a current or former client of that
counsel. The board agree to recognize the allegation that Mr.
miller received payment for the providing service of guiding and representing the claimant
in RPD file number TA9-7558 in the client’s proceedings before the Board, in particular by
preparing her PIF. However, the Board noticed that Mr. Miller did not contest or provide
arguments against claimant’s sworn statement that he was paid more than $2,000.00 in
order to represent her. The Board concluded that Mr. Miller’s action of accepting a fee to
represent or advise a client who is subject of proceeding before IRB contrary to the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations in force at the time. This action constitutes
representing or advising a client for consideration in connection with proceeding contrary
to subsections 91(1) of the IRPA as it presently reads.

The Board was concern about Mr. Miller’s frequent appearances at the Board since April
2004. The concern was whether Mr. Miller’s practice constitutes a business, rather than
providing pro bono services for refugee claimants. This concern was also backed by a notice
of a newspaper article titled “Entrepreneur a jack of all trades, qualified in none,” that was
published in the Toronto Star on Sept. 17 2009. The newspaper claimed that Mr. Miller
operated various businesses this includes an immigration consulting business. However,
Mr. Miller failed to provide any information regarding the nature of his business.

The Board took on its responsibility of ensuring that requirements of the legislation in
connection to authorized representative, protection of refugee claimants safeguard the
integrity of Canada’s refugee determination system and bunded Mr. Miller from
representing or appearing on behalf of any person in proceeding before any Division of the
Board. This restriction was put at work immediately until such time Mr. Miller provides
proof that satisfies the Board that he is not accepting consideration of service regarding
proceedings before the Board. The positive aspect that provides hope in this decision of the
Board is that should Mr. Miller become a member in good standing of a bar of a province,
the Chambers des notaries du Quebec, or the ICCRC, this decision will no longer be effective.