Cuts to leave refugees lawyerless
Plan would stop Legal Aid from representing asylum seekers who come from ‘safe’ countries
Most refugees coming from countries Ottawa has deemed “safe” will no longer be entitled to free legal representation at their hearings, under a proposal put forward by Legal Aid Ontario.
Refugee lawyers are up in arms over the plan, saying it will jeopardize the outcome for those who need proper legal advice the most.
The plan is to stop paying lawyers to prepare and appear at asylum hearings for refugees from the 35 designated “safe” countries, who now face expedited processing and removal.
Last fall, Legal Aid Ontario implemented other cutbacks by limiting the hours it will cover for lawyers to research and prepare refugee appeals at the federal court.
Now, it has proposed to defund legal representation at refugee hearings for “most” asylum seekers from the designated countries — democratic nations deemed capable of state protection. For others, Legal Aid says it will cover the hearing “in some cases.”
It is said Legal Aid hopes to reduce the number of legal aid certificates issued to refugee cases by 40 per cent, from about 13,000 a year.
The changes are still under discussion but could come as soon as this spring, said the Refugee Lawyers Association of Ontario, which launched a public campaign Thursday calling on the province to reject the cutbacks.
“Ontario should not risk having this marginalized group being denied access to justice,” said lawyer Maureen Silcoff, chair of the association’s access to justice committee.
“At this time, when refugee laws have become more restrictive than ever, and when people have to move faster than ever to prepare their claims, Legal Aid should be stepping up to ensure that refugees have legal representation, rather than compounding their difficulties in having their claims heard.”
Last year, Legal Aid Ontario spent $21 million of its $300-million-plus annual budget on cases involving refugees and immigrants.
“LAO has been facing significant budget pressures in the last several years and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future,” the organization said in a consultation paper.
“Failure to address LAO’s budget pressures forthrightly and thoughtfully will likely result in more serious consequences for clients and client services in the future.”
One concern for the lawyers is the proposal to use paralegals — who must work under supervision of practising lawyers — to directly represent refugee claimants, an idea that irks even Legal Aid’s own legal clinics.
“It goes without saying that it would be irresponsible for a clinic to agree to take on a refugee case without the capacity to do so, as it would surely lead to inadequate representation,” the Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group said in its submission in response to the cutbacks.
“While working in collaboration with community agencies, paralegals and consultants (where appropriate) is always important, and innovation should be encouraged, these efforts cannot replace direct legal representation by a lawyer in an area like refugee law.”
The number of applications Legal Aid is receiving has actually dropped by 60 per cent since Dec. 15, according to spokesperson Kristian Justesen.
This may reflect a 70-per-cent drop in asylum claims over past years since an expedited refugee determination system took effect, which forces claimants to prepare their initial paperwork in just 15 days rather than 28, streams refugees according to country of origin, sets short timelines for claims to be heard and creates a new agency to hear appeals. A toll-free phone service offers help to eligible refugee clients in more than 200 languages, and a new refugee law section was posted in December to guide them toward legal assistance, Justesen noted. Refugee Alfonso Mejia-Arias, 51, received 16 hours of legal aid — at about $110 an hour — for his asylum case, which was based on persecution by corrupt officials. His claim was accepted by the refugee board in 2011. “Refugees flee with nothing. We have no knowledge of the refugee system. It would be impossible for us to represent ourselves at hearings,” said the former journalist and musician, who came here with his wife and son in 2007 from Mexico, a country Ottawa designated in February as a “safe” nation. “I have worked as a cook and in packaging in Canada, but I wouldn’t be able to afford a lawyer. And if you got a crook to represent you, it would lead to disastrous results.”