Person who is the subject(s) of the decision: Tarlochan Singh
Date of decision and reasons: December 12, 2023
Panel: Angus Grant, Chairperson’s Delegate
Reasons for decision
Overview
[1] Over the past several years, Mr. Tarlochan Singh has represented over 90 individuals before the Immigration and Refugee Board.Footnote 1 Mr. Singh has indicated that, in each of these proceedings, he has been an unpaid representative.
[2] However, evidence before me indicates that Mr. Singh has a registered business under the name “Brillant Immigration Et Services Financiers.” His business is also advertised online as an immigration and naturalization counselling service. These facts, together with the large number of cases in which Mr. Singh has appeared before the IRB, lead me to conclude that he has received consideration in respect of his counsel work before the IRB.
[3] As a result, I find that Mr. Singh is an unauthorized, paid representative in matters before the IRB. Because Mr. Singh's work before the IRB is not authorized, he will be prohibited from representing and appearing on behalf of any person in any proceeding before all Divisions of the Board, effective immediately.
[4] In releasing this decision, I have also signed a confidentiality order, as the matters in which Mr. Singh has appeared, and that are discussed in these reasons, are private proceedings pursuant to subsection 166(c) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
Background
[5] Only members of certain regulated professions can represent clients, for a fee, before the IRB.Footnote 2 Other individuals, such as family or friends, may also represent people appearing before the IRB, but only if they receive no consideration in respect of their assistance.
[6] Mr. Tarlochan Singh is not a member of any of the regulatory bodies that permit paid representation before the IRB. Despite this, Mr. Singh has represented individuals in over 90 matters in recent years.Footnote 3 In these matters, Mr. Singh did not claim to be a member of any regulatory body. Rather, in each of these cases, Mr. Singh maintains that he was not charging a fee for his services. In most of these cases, Mr. Singh filled out a form titled “Notice of Representation Without a Fee or Other Consideration.”Footnote 4
[7] The scale of Mr. Singh's representation in IRB matters raised a concern as to whether he was, in fact, providing these services without consideration. As a result, the Board conducted a search of businesses that may be affiliated with Mr. Singh. This search revealed that Mr. Singh has a registered business in the Province of Quebec named “Brillant Immigration Et Services Financiers.”Footnote 5
[8] In terms of the activities undertaken by this business, the registration lists, as its first sector of activity: Immigration Consultant or “Conseiller pour l'immigration.” The registration also indicates that the business offers immigration services or “Services d'immigration.” Finally, the registration provides a primary business code associated with Immigration Services.Footnote 6
[9] I pause here to note that the term “Immigration Consultant” is one with a specific meaning; in Canada, only immigration consultants who are licensed through the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants can provide advice in exchange for a fee or benefit. Mr. Singh is not licensed through the College. I also note that Mr. Singh did not register his services as a not-for-profit charity, but as a business.
[10] In addition, the IRB identified that Mr. Singh had advertised his immigration services through a “Yellow Pages” advertisement. This advertisement lists the business name as “Brilliant Immigration Services” and its area of business as “Conseillers en immigration et en naturalisation” or Immigration and Naturalization Advisors.Footnote 7
[11] In view of this information, the IRB advised Mr. Singh that it would review his ability to appear before the Tribunal.Footnote 8 Enclosed with that correspondence were various documents, including information about the number of matters for which Mr. Singh was listed as counsel of record; the business registration; and the Yellow Pages advertisement.
[12] In response to the correspondence from the IRB, Mr. Singh indicated, amongst other things, that:
- He has been helping refugees since he arrived in Canada in 1986;
- He helps with interpretation, but this is not sufficient, and he provides further assistance “before and after the hearing of cases;”
- He has assisted individuals from different backgrounds;
- He has not charged fees in respect of his counselling services;
- Only his real estate services are used to generate income in respect of Brillant Immigration Et Services Financiers;
- In respect of the Yellow Pages advertisement, it was not any act of promotion on his part because he did not pay for it.
[13] In its “procedural fairness letter”, the IRB also invited Mr. Singh to provide any evidence that he intended to rely upon and to request a hearing, should he wish that one be conducted. Mr. Singh did not include any documents or evidence with his brief submission and did not request a hearing.
Analysis
A. Jurisdiction and Delegation
[14] The IRB has the jurisdiction, as well as the obligation, to ensure the integrity of its proceedings. In
Rezaei,the Court found that the IRB has the authority to monitor its own procedures to ensure their integrity and that, in the absence of specific procedures laid down by statute or regulation, the IRB has the ability (through the Chairperson's delegate) to suspend a representative from appearing before the IRB on behalf of another person.Footnote 9
[15] On the specific question of unauthorized representation before the Tribunal, the Federal Court in
Domantay recognized that the IRB has a
duty to be proactive with respect to the status of counsel. The Court stated:
… the Court shares the view that there is a duty incumbent upon the Board to verify that those individuals representing clients with whom it has dealings are authorized representatives pursuant to the Regulations, or that they are not receiving a fee for their services. This duty envisions the protection of applicants and the preservation of the integrity of Canada's immigration system.Footnote 10
[16] In cases involving concerns with potentially unauthorized representatives, the exercise of the IRB's jurisdiction is guided by its
Policy for Handling Complaints Regarding Unauthorized, Paid Representatives.Footnote 11 Pursuant to subsection 159(2) of the IRPA, and section 3.4 of the
Policy, the IRB Chairperson has delegated to me the authority to consider all applicable facts with respect to the conduct of Mr. Singh and to take any remedial action that
may be necessary, up to and including prohibiting Mr. Singh from representing and appearing on behalf of any person before any of the Divisions of the IRB.
B. The IRB has a duty to ensure that only authorized representatives appear before it
[17] As noted above, the IRPA clearly sets out who can represent clients before the IRB for a fee.Footnote 12 This includes:
- lawyers in good standing with a provincial law society;
- notaries in good standing with the Chambre des notaires du Québec;
- supervised articling students;
- other members of a law society or the Chambre des notaires, such as paralegals;
- and members of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants.Footnote 13
[18] As also noted above, in addition to these categories of authorized
paid representatives, a limited category of others can represent an individual in a volunteer, unpaid capacity—this could include family members, volunteer community groups, or members of a religious institution.Footnote 14
[19] The IRB's
Policy sets out specific procedures and considerations where an individual claims to be an unpaid representative, but where there are concerns that they are providing services for some kind of consideration.Footnote 15
[20] Section 5.5 of the
Policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of indicators which
may suggest that a purportedly unpaid representative is, in fact, receiving consideration in respect of his or her representation before the Board. These include:
- frequent appearances as an unpaid representative; and
- relevant information from sources outside the IRB.
[21] The
Policy further points out that the first indicator, above, is of greater concern where other factors are also present.
C. Findings
[22] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Singh has received some form of consideration to represent clients before the IRB.
[23] Before me are facts that clearly suggest that Mr. Singh is operating a business in respect of his immigration and refugee counselling services. As noted above, these facts include the registration of a business listed as engaging in immigration consulting, the very high volume of cases in which Mr. Singh was involved, and the online marketing of his business as providing immigration services.
[24] On the other hand, Mr. Singh has stated in his submissions that he has not charged fees for his counselling services.
[25] Despite Mr. Singh's denial that he received any consideration for his services, it is unclear to me, and Mr. Singh did not explain, why he would: 1) register a business with provincial authorities that is specifically tied to immigration services; 2) advertise that business (at least on some minimal level), solely in relation to its immigration services; 3) operate that business with a significant caseload of immigration files;Footnote 16 but 4) opt to receive no consideration for those services.
[26] I also note here that Mr. Singh's representation at the IRB does not resemble the informal, unpaid assistance often provided by friends or family of those who appear before the Tribunal. On the contrary, his representation more resembles a professional, high-volume immigration consulting practice, as is suggested in his business registration. For example:
- Mr. Singh frequently commissioned documents in support of his clients' refugee claims, applying a seal indicating that he is a Commissioner of Oaths;
- Mr. Singh filed what often amounted to voluminous disclosure in support of his client's cases before the Refugee Protection Division – he coordinated the translation of personal documents; he commissioned statements attesting to the accuracy of these translations; he adduced often large bodies of documentary evidence; and he appeared as counsel in numerous and lengthy oral hearings, several of which required multiple sittings.
- In numerous memoranda provided in support of appeals submitted to the Refugee Appeal Division, Mr. Singh would make detailed submissions; his representations frequently exceed 15 pages in length, and he would sign off on submissions as “counsel” or as “Immigration Counsel.”
[27] While I do not have before me direct evidence alleging that Mr. Singh has charged his clients in respect of his practice before the IRB, I prefer, on a balance of probabilities, the evidence suggesting that Mr. Singh has received some form of consideration in respect of those services. More specifically, I find that the most logical inference to be drawn from the evidence before me –the business registration, the advertising, and the operating of an exceptionally high-volume immigration practice – is that Tarlochan Singh has been receiving a fee or other consideration in relation to his work before the IRB.
[28] Mr. Singh states that his tax returns reveal that he has not received income from his immigration practice. However, no copies of those returns were provided. In any event, the assertion that his tax returns do not specifically reveal revenues generated from his immigration practice does not, on its own, establish that he received no consideration from that practice. Here, I note that consideration is a broad term, encompassing any “monetary or other consideration, such as goods or services,” that may be provided for representing, advising, or consulting with a person who is the subject of an IRB proceeding.Footnote 17
[29] As a result of the above, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Singh has received consideration for the services he has provided to his clients who have matters before the Board. This is in violation of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the IRB's Policy.
Remedy
[30] As noted above, the Board has a duty to ensure that those who represent individuals before it are authorized to do so. This is to both protect the public and to preserve the integrity of the immigration system.Footnote 18 The rationale behind section 91 of the IRPA is clear – it is to ensure that those who appear
professionally before the IRB are members of a regulated profession. This provides both the public at large, clients, and the IRB, with options for recourse where professional standards are not met.
31] The evidence before me is that, on a balance of probabilities, Mr. Singh has received consideration for representing individuals appearing before the IRB. Beyond being unauthorized by law, this reality leaves the many individuals whom he has represented with little to no recourse should they be concerned with the quality of services that he has provided.
[32] For these reasons, I am imposing an indefinite prohibition from any further representation or counselling of any person before any Division of the IRB, effective immediately. Should Mr. Singh become a member of any of the professional bodies listed under subsection 91(2) of the IRPA, this prohibition may be revisited.
Order
[33] Mr. Tarlochan Singh is prohibited from representing, counselling, or appearing on behalf of any person in any proceeding before any Division of the IRB, effective immediately. This prohibition will remain in effect indefinitely.
[34] I direct the Registrars who serve all four Divisions of the IRB to notify any persons currently represented by Mr. Singh of this prohibition.
Angus Grant
Assistant Deputy Chairperson
Refugee Appeal Division
December 12, 2023