Reasons and Decision – Murat Damas

Person who is the subject(s) of the decision: Murat Damas

Date of decision and reasons: April 5, 2024

Panel: François T. Ramsay, Chairperson’s Delegate

Reasons for decision

Introduction

[1] These reasons and the decision concern Murat Damas's professional activities before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB). Their purpose is to determine whether Murat Damas's conduct before the IRB—that is, his wrongly representing himself as being qualified to fulfill the functions of an advocate and to act in that capacity—undermines the integrity of IRB processes and, if applicable, the penalties to be imposed on him.

[2] As part of the review of Murat Damas's conduct, the panel issued a non-disclosure and non-distribution order and a publication ban regarding all of the information in the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) records in which Murat Damas acted as a representative.

Background

[3] On January 19, 2024, Murat Damas was acting as a representative in 93 cases before the RPD of the IRB. In those cases, Murat Damas represented himself as follows in the Basis of Claim Forms (BOC Forms), in the Notice of Representation without a Fee or other Consideration (NRWFOC) and in his correspondence with the IRB: avocat [advocate or lawyer], procureur [attorney], conseiller juridique [legal counsel], conseiller juridique LLL [legal counsel LL.L.], Conseiller juridique B. LLL (or B.LL)[Legal Counsel B. LL.L. (or LL.B.)], juriste [legal practitioner], juriste-conseil [legal advisor], Damas & (or et) associés [Damas & (or and) associates]and/or avocats [advocates] and/or L.L.L. [LL.L.] and/or S.E.N.C.R.L [LLP].

[4] Murat Damas is not a member in good standing of the Barreau du Québec.

[5]Between 1995 and 2007, Murat Damas was convicted of several counts of illegally practising as an advocate. In June 2023, he faced new charges of illegally practising as an advocate.

[6]In light of the above, in a letter (the Letter) dated January 19, 2024,^{Footnote 1} the IRB informed Murat Damas that it would review this matter to determine whether he should be authorized to represent a person who is the subject of a proceeding before the IRB or be prohibited from doing so. The list of his records,^{Footnote 2} confirmation from the Barreau du Québec of Murat Damas's status in that professional order,^{Footnote 3} as well as documents related to past^{Footnote 4} and current^{Footnote 5} legal cases connected to him are appended to the Letter.

[7] In the Letter, the IRB asks Murat Damas to submit his written comments regarding the above before February 9, 2024. The IRB also informed Murat Damas that, after receiving his comments, or if no response was received by February 9, 2024, it would review his professional activities with the IRB to determine whether he would be authorized to represent a person who has a proceeding before the IRB or be prohibited from doing so.

[8] No response was received from Murat Damas in the allotted time or afterward. It was in this context that the panel reviewed Murat Damas's professional activities with the IRB and rendered a decision regarding his right to represent a person who has a proceeding before the IRB.

Jurisdiction

[9] The IRB has the jurisdiction and even the duty to protect the integrity of its processes. In Rezaei,^{Footnote 6} the Federal Court reiterates the position adopted by the Honourable Justice Sopinka of the Supreme Court in Prassad:^{Footnote 7}

We are dealing here with the powers of an administrative tribunal in relation to its procedures. As a general rule, these tribunals are considered to be masters in their own house. In the absence of specific rules laid down by statute or regulation, they control their own procedures subject to the proviso that they comply with the rules of fairness and, where they exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions, the rules of natural justice. [Emphasis added] ^{Footnote 8}

[10] The Federal Court then specifically states:

Given the procedural framework of the IRB… it has the inherent jurisdiction to monitor its own procedures in order to ensure its integrity. Indeed, denial of the jurisdiction of the IRB to ensure the integrity of its processes would be a disservice to its stakeholders. These stakeholders include not only the claimants who appear before the Board and its divisions, but also the Canadian public at large…. ^{Footnote 9}

[11]To do so, without a specific statutory or regulatory procedure, the IRB, through its delegate, has the ability to take any necessary action, including suspending a representative's right to appear before it on another person's behalf or prohibiting them from doing so.

[12] In accordance with the provisions of subsection 159(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act^{Footnote 10} (IRPA), the IRB Chairperson has delegated to the undersigned the duty of reviewing Murat Damas's actions before the IRB, determining whether they undermine the integrity of its processes and, if applicable, taking any necessary action, including prohibiting him from representing a person with a proceeding before the IRB.

Issues

[13] The panel is of the view that there are two issues.

Do Murat Damas's actions before the RPD undermine the integrity of IRB processes?
If so, is a measure to suspend his right to represent a person who has a proceeding before the IRB or to prohibit him from doing so warranted? If so, which measure, for how long and under what conditions?

Decision

[14] The panel determines that Murat Damas's actions undermine the integrity of IRB processes.

[15] The panel determines that prohibiting Murat Damas from representing anyone in any matter and from appearing on anyone's behalf in relation to a proceeding before any IRB division is warranted. This prohibition is effective immediately and will remain in effect indefinitely.

Analysis

Legal history

[16] Murat Damas is not a member of the Barreau du Québec.^{Footnote 11} He never was.^{Footnote 12} He was therefore never authorized to practise as an advocate in Quebec or to present himself as such.

[17] Over the past 30 years, Murat Damas has been convicted 63 times of illegally practising as an advocate. He was also the subject of an injunction prohibiting him from presenting himself or being presented as an advocate and from exercising functions related to that profession. He violated it and was sentenced to three months of imprisonment for contempt of court. Lastly, in June 2023, new charges for similar actions were laid against him.

[18] Specifically, in 1994 and 1995, Murat Damas was charged with eight counts of illegally practising as an advocate, six under paragraph 128(1)(b) and section 133 of the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec^{Footnote 13} and two under section 188 of the Professional Code.^{Footnote 14} Murat Damas was convicted of all of the charges. He was fined a total of $6,500.^{Footnote 15}

[19] From the beginning of 2004 to the end of 2007, Murat Damas was the subject of 79 counts of illegally practising as an advocate. In 78 cases, charges were laid under section 188 of the Professional Code. He was convicted 63 times and fined a total of $306,925 over this period.^{Footnote 16}

[20] In 2006, the Superior Court of Québec issued an injunction against Murat Damas.^{Footnote 17} The injunction, which was initially temporary and then became permanent, prohibited him [translation] “in particular… from using the title of advocate or any other title, abbreviation or initial(s) that may lead to the belief that he is authorized to fulfill the functions of an advocate; to claim to be an advocate or to practise a professional activity reserved for members in good standing of the Barreau du Québec… [and] to allow himself to be styled or referred to as an advocate or to usurp the identity of an advocate regularly entered on the Roll of the Order.” ^{Footnote 18} On August 2, 2006, the Superior Court sentenced him to three months of imprisonment^{Footnote 19} after convicting him of contempt of court^{Footnote 20} for breaching the injunction orders.

[21] On June 5, 2023, Murat Damas was served with an infraction notice informing him that he was the subject of 10 new charges for illegally practising as an advocate under section 188 of the Professional Code.^{Footnote 21}

Murat Damas's conduct before the Refugee Protection Division

[22] The panel reviewed the 93 cases in which Murat Damas is currently representing claimants. The panel focused, in particular, on the BOC Forms, the NRWFOCs, as well as any correspondence in those cases that Murat Damas addressed to the IRB. The review reveals that Murat Damas continues to represent himself and to allow himself to be represented to the IRB as being authorized to fulfill the functions of an advocate.

[23] The BOC Form is a form signed by the person claiming refugee protection. When this person is represented by counsel, the counsel is responsible for reviewing the content of the BOC Form with the person before submitting it. By signing it, the person attests either that they can read the language in which the form was completed and that they understand the content, or that it was interpreted for them in its entirety and that the information that they provided in the form is complete, true and correct.

[24] In 98% of the cases under review, in response to question 9(a) on the BOC Form, the refugee protection claimant indicated that they had counsel who helped them complete their refugee protection claim.^{Footnote 22} In all of these records, in question 9(b) on the BOC Form, the counsel is identified as Murat Damas, followed by avocat [advocate or lawyer], procureur [attorney], conseiller juridique [legal counsel], conseiller juridique LLL [legal counsel LL.L.], Conseiller juridique B. LLL (or B.LL)[Legal Counsel B. LL.L. (or LL.B.)], juriste [legal practitioner], juriste-conseil [legal advisor], Damas & (or et) associés [Damas & (or and) associates]and/or avocats [advocates] and/or L.L.L. [LL.L.] and/or S.E.N.C.R.L [LLP]. In section 9(l) under Relationship, it is indicated conseiller juridique [legal advisor] procureur [attorney], juriste [legal practitioner] or juriste-conseil [legal advisor] in most of these cases,^{Footnote 23} including all of those referred after June 5, 2023,^{Footnote 24} the date on which Murat Damas was informed that charges had been laid against him for illegally practising the profession. The panel also notes that in a smaller number of these BOC Forms, in section 9(k), the Lawyer or notary box is checked, and Quebec is entered as the province.^{Footnote 25}

[25] The NRWFOC indicates the name of the individual representing the refugee protection claimant as unpaid counsel in all of the proceedings before the IRB. The form is signed by the individual identified as counsel and by the refugee protection claimant. By signing, these individuals declare that the information they provide in the form is complete, true and correct.

[26] NRWFOCs signed by counsel containing the names Damas et (or &) associés [Damas and (or &) associates]and/or avocats [advocates] and/or LLL [LL.L.] and/or S.E.N.C.R.L., Damas [Damas LLP]. in the Name of firm or organization (if applicable) boxwere found in 53 of the cases under review,^{Footnote 26} including all of the records referred after June 5, 2023.^{Footnote 27}

[27] Regarding the correspondence from Murat Damas addressed to the IRB, the panel notes that in many cases the letterhead reads as follows: Damas & (or et) associés[Damas & (or and) associates]and/or avocats [advocates] and/or LLL [LL.L.] and/or S.E.N.C.R.L. [LLP]. When this correspondence is signed by Murat Damas, he represents himself as an advocate, attorney, or legal counsel.^{Footnote 28}

[28] The panel notes that at no time before or after the above-mentioned charges were laid did Murat Damas take any steps to clarify his professional status with the IRB and to correct the contents of the documents in the cases he was responsible for.

Conclusions and decision

[29] This is in no way claiming to be a substitute for the judicial authorities. However, the fact remains that by using or allowing the repeated use of the titles advocate, legal advisor, attorney, representing himself as a member of a firm called Damas & (or et) associés[Damas & (or and) associates]and/or avocats [advocates] and/or LLL [LL.L.] and/or S.E.N.C.R.L. [LLP], and by not taking any steps to correct this situation, Murat Damas led both the IRB and the claimants that he represented to believe that he was authorized to fulfill the functions of an advocate, despite not being a member of the Barreau du Québec.

[30] The panel also notes that since June 2023, Murat Damas has been charged with 10 new counts of illegally practising the profession of advocate. The outcome of that legal file has no bearing on this review of his conduct before the IRB because the evidence, as disclosed in the Letter, demonstrates that he continued to allow himself to be identified by a title that led to the belief that he was an advocate in RPD records after June 5, 2023.^{Footnote 29} In this regard, having been convicted many times over 30 years of usurping that title, he can be described as a repeat offender.

[31] The panel is of the opinion that, in doing so, Murat Damas demonstrates a clear disregard not only for the rules of law in effect, but also for the IRB's processes. Furthermore, he endangers public safety in general and, in particular, that of the claimants he represents. He also causes serious harm to these people by endorsing their statements about him—which he knows to be false—in the documents that they sign and submit, potentially calling into question the truth of their statements when they are in a very vulnerable and precarious situation.

[32] In this regard, the following excerpts from the judgment on sentencing for contempt of court rendered against Murat Damas by the Honourable Richard Mongeau of the Superior Court of Québec^{Footnote 30} in 2006 remain relevant:

[Translation]
[42] Such behaviours must be denounced and the gravity of [Murat Damas's] deliberate and repeated actions must be impressed on him.
[43] ... In addition to endangering the public, such behaviour discredits the administration of justice and the state of law under which we all live.

[33] The panel is of the opinion that Murat Damas seriously undermines the integrity of IRB processes by acting in this way.

[34] The past and the present provide no guarantees for the future. However, in light of the above, the panel considers that Murat Damas is and has been careless with respect to his many convictions and repeat offences in terms of illegally practising as an advocate.

[35] The panel is of the opinion that this behaviour warrants a measure that is both serious and dissuasive to ensure the integrity of the IRB and its processes, but also to protect the integrity and interests of Canadian residents, certainly, and in particular, the people Murat Damas is currently representing or whom he could be asked to represent in the future.

[36] In this context, the panel prohibits Murat Damas from representing anyone in any matter and from appearing on anyone's behalf in relation to a proceeding before any IRB division. This prohibition is for an indefinite period and takes effect immediately.

Order

[37] The panel orders the registrars of all IRB divisions to inform anyone represented by Murat Damas that he is prohibited from representing anyone or appearing on anyone's behalf in relation to a proceeding before any IRB division, effective the date of this decision. The prohibition will remain in effect indefinitely.

François T. Ramsay

April 5, 2024

IRB translation
Original language: French

Encl. Confidentiality order

Footnotes

Footnote 1

Letter from the IRB to Murat Damas, dated January 19, 2024.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

Appendix A.

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

Appendix B.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

Appendices C and D.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

Appendix E.

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

Rezaei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] 3 FC 421.

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7

Prassad v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989] 1 SCR 560.

Return to footnote 7 referrer

Footnote 8

Endnote 6, para. 64.

Return to footnote 8 referrer

Footnote 9

Endnote 6, para. 70.

Return to footnote 9 referrer

Footnote 10

This provision reads as follows:

159 (2) The Chairperson may delegate any of his or her powers under this Act to a member of the Board, except that
…
(d) powers in relation to the Immigration Division or the Refugee Protection Division may only be delegated to the Deputy Chairperson, the Assistant Deputy Chairpersons or other members, including coordinating members, of that Division.

Return to footnote 10 referrer

Footnote 11

Supra, endnote 3.

Return to footnote 11 referrer

Footnote 12

Barreau du Québec c. Murat Damas, 2006 QCCS 4652, para. 20.

Return to footnote 12 referrer

Footnote 13

Act respecting the Barreau du Québec B-1. These provisions read as follows:

128. (1)°Subject to sections 128.1 and 129, the following acts, performed for others, shall be the exclusive prerogative of the practising advocate or solicitor:
…
(b) to prepare and draw up a notice, motion, proceeding or other similar document intended for use in a case before the courts;
….
133. Any person other than a member of the Bar practises the profession of advocate illegally within the meaning of section 132 and in each of the following cases, who:
(a) usurps the functions of an advocate;
(b) acts or claims to act as such;
(c) acts in such manner as to lead to the belief that he is authorized to fulfil the functions of or to act as an advocate.

Return to footnote 13 referrer

Footnote 14

Professional Code, Chapter C-26. This provision reads as follows:

188. Every person who contravenes a provision of this Code, of the Act or letters patent constituting an order or of an amalgamation or integration order is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine of not less than $2,500 nor more than $62,500 in the case of a natural person and of not less than $5,000 nor more than $125,000 in other cases.
In the case of a subsequent offence, the minimum and maximum fines are doubled.
The panel also notes the following provision of the Professional Code, which reads:
188.1. Every person is guilty of an offence and is liable, for each offence, to the fine prescribed in section 188 who knowingly
(1) without being a member of a professional order, allows himself to be announced or designated by a title, an abbreviation of that title or initials reserved for members of the order, or by a title, an abbreviation or initials that may lead to the belief that he is a member of the order;
(2) announces or designates a person who is not a member of a professional order by a title, an abbreviation of that title or initials reserved for members of the order, or by a title, an abbreviation or initials that may lead to the belief that the person is a member of the order;
(3) through authorization, advice, an order or encouragement, otherwise than by seeking or obtaining professional services from a person who is not a member of a professional order whose members practise an exclusive profession or engage in a professional activity that is reserved under section 37.1, causes a person who is not a member of the professional order:
(a) to engage in professional activities reserved for the members of the order;
(b) to use a title or an abbreviation of that title reserved for the members of the order, or a title or abbreviation that may lead to the belief that the person is a member of the order;
(c) to adopt initials reserved for the members of the order or which may lead to the belief that the person is a member of the order;
(4) through authorization, advice, an order or encouragement, otherwise than by seeking or obtaining professional services from a person who is not a member of a professional order whose members practise a reserved profession, causes a person who is not a member of the professional order
(a) to use a title or an abbreviation of that title reserved for the members of the order, or a title or abbreviation that may lead to the belief that the person is a member of the order;
(b) to adopt initials reserved for the members of the order or which may lead to the belief that the person is a member of the order.
Every person is guilty of an offence and is liable, for each offence, to the fine prescribed in section 188 who, without being an order to which this Code applies, uses the expression “professional order” or another expression containing those two words or an expression that may lead to the belief that it refers to an order governed by this Code, and in particular the expression “professional corporation”.

Return to footnote 14 referrer

Footnote 15

Appendix C, court dockets 500-61-013600-946, 500-61-004779-949 and 500-61-010336-957.

Return to footnote 15 referrer

Footnote 16

Appendix C, court dockets 500-61-176268-036; 500-61-182240-045; 500-61-182246-042; 500-61-202874-054; 500-61-206391-063; 500-61-206393-069; 500-61-206394-067; 500-61-226596-071; 500-61-225774-075; 500-61-227288-074; 500-61-227833-077.

Return to footnote 16 referrer

Footnote 17

Appendix D, Barreau du Québec c. Murat Damas, 2006 QCCS 4652.

Return to footnote 17 referrer

Footnote 18

Idem, para. 2.

Return to footnote 18 referrer

Footnote 19

Appendix D, Barreau du Québec c. Murat Damas, 2006 QCCS 4645.

Return to footnote 19 referrer

Footnote 20

Appendix D, Barreau du Québec c. Murat Damas, 2006 QCCS 4651.

Return to footnote 20 referrer

Footnote 21

Appendix E, court docket 500-61-583846-234.

Return to footnote 21 referrer

Footnote 22

MC2-15284; MC2-16045; MC2-16060; MC2-18260; MC2-18351; MC2-18905; MC2-22706; MC2-23180; MC2-23752; MC2-27590; MC2-28179; MC2-28549; MC2-28618; MC2-28678; MC2-29228; MC2-29386; MC2-29982; MC2-30286; MC2-30390; MC2-30417; MC2-30479; MC2-30596; MC2-30710; MC3-01034; MC3-01735; MC3-01938; MC3-01970; MC3-01976; MC3-02973; MC3-05086; MC3-05354; MC3-05987; MC3-06256; MC3-06437; MC3-06452; MC3-07951; MC3-08984; MC3-08996; MC3-09023; MC3-10082; MC3-10714; MC3-12240; MC3-12814; MC3-13324; MC3-13333; MC3-13694; MC3-16226; MC3-20544; MC3-20829; MC3-24031; MC3-26372; TC3-22606; MC3-30844; MC3-38107; MC3-38172; MC3-38613; MC3-39701; MC3-41157; MC3-41711; MC3-41813; MC3-42284; MC3-42744; MC3-43053; MC3-44702; MC3-45878; MC3-45937; MC3-45945; MC3-45949; MC3-45993; MC3-46024; MC3-46033; MC3-46118; MC3-46139; MC3-46141; MC3-46452; MC3-47688; MC3-48930; MC3-49080; MC3-50011; MC3-51042; MC3-51092; MC3-51201; MC3-51249; MC3-51446; MC3-54066; MC3-54919; MC3-57786; MC3-59098; MC3-59549.

Return to footnote 22 referrer

Footnote 23

MC2-16045; MC2-16060; MC2-23180; MC3-05086; MC3-05354; MC3-05987; MC3-06437; MC3-06452; MC3-07951; MC3-08984; MC3-08996; MC3-09023; MC3-10714; MC3-12240; MC3-12814; MC3-13324; MC3-13333; MC3-13694; MC3-16226; MC3-24031; MC3-30844; MC3-38107; MC3-38172; MC3-38613; MC3-39701; MC3-41157; MC3-41711; MC3-41813; MC3-42284; MC3-42744; MC3-43053; MC3-44702; MC3-45878; MC3-45937; MC3-45945; MC3-45949; MC3-45993; MC3-46024; MC3-46033; MC3-46118; MC3-46139; MC3-46141; MC3-46452; MC3-47688; MC3-48930; MC3-49080; MC3-50011; MC3-51042; MC3-51092; MC3-51201; MC3-51249; MC3-51446; MC3-54066; MC3-54919; MC3-57786; MC3-59098; MC3-59549.

Return to footnote 23 referrer

Footnote 24

MC3-30844; MC3-38107; MC3-38172; MC3-41157; MC3-41711; MC3-41813; MC3-44702; MC3-45878; MC3-45937; MC3-45945; MC3-45993; MC3-46033; MC3-46139; MC3-46141; MC3-47688; MC3-48930; MC3-50011; MC3-51092; MC3-51201; MC3-51249; MC3-51446; MC3-54066; MC3-54919; MC3-57786; MC3-59098; MC3-59549.

Return to footnote 24 referrer

Footnote 25

MC2-23180; MC3-05354; MC3-06437; MC3-07951; MC3-09023; MC3-12240; MC3-16226; MC3-24031; MC3-38107; MC3-38172; MC3-38613; MC3-39701; MC3-41813; MC3-46141; MC3-50011; MC3-59549.

Return to footnote 25 referrer

Footnote 26

MC3-01034; MC3-01735; MC3-01938; MC3-01957; MC3-01970; MC3-01976; MC3-02973; MC3-05086; MC3-05354; MC3-05987; MC3-06256; MC3-06437; MC3-06452; MC3-08984; MC3-08996; MC3-09023; MC3-10082; MC3-10714; MC3-12240; MC3-12814; MC3-13324; MC3-13333; MC3-13694; MC3-16226; MC3-20829; MC3-21471; MC3-24031; MC3-30844; MC3-38107; MC3-38172; MC3-41157; MC3-41711; MC3-41813; MC3-44702; MC3-45878; MC3-45937; MC3-45945; MC3-45993; MC3-46033; MC3-46139; MC3-46141; MC3-47688; MC3-48930; MC3-50011; MC3-51092; MC3-51201; MC3-51249; MC3-51446; MC3-54066; MC3-54919; MC3-57786; MC3-59098; MC3-59549.

Return to footnote 26 referrer

Footnote 27

Supra, endnote 24.

Return to footnote 27 referrer

Footnote 28

MC2-16045; MC2-20192; MC2-20465; MC2-23180; MC2-23752; MC2-28549; MC2-28618; MC2-29228; MC2-29982; MC2-30286; MC2-30390; MC2-30596; MC2-30710; MC3-01034; MC3-05354; MC3-06256; MC3-06437; MC3-10082; MC3-10714; MC3-12814; MC3-13324; MC3-13333; MC3-20544; MC3-20829; MC3-21471; MC3-24031; MC3-07951.

Return to footnote 28 referrer

Footnote 29

Supra, endnote 24.

Return to footnote 29 referrer

Footnote 30

Supra, endnote 19.

Return to footnote 30 referrer

Language selection

Search

Search and menus