AMENDED (amendments underlined)
Reasons and Decision
Person who is the subject of the decision: Gabriel Bazin
Date of decision: 27 April 2022 (amended on 5 May 2022)
Panel: L. Brittain
Counsel for the person who is the subject of the decision: N/A
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
[1] Only members of certain regulated professions can represent clients before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) for a fee. Mr. Bazin is not a member of any of these groups; he was disbarred from the Barreau du Québec in 1998. Since then, he has been convicted of multiple counts of illegal practice of the legal profession—including taking money to appear before the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) of the
IRB.Note 1 A recent decision of the Refugee Appeal Division of the IRB has also found Mr. Bazin was paid for his services.Note 2 In view of this information, the IRB advised Mr. Bazin that it would review his ability to appear before the tribunal.
[2] Having considered his response and the evidence before me, these are my reasons for prohibiting Mr. Bazin from future representation or counselling of any individual before any Division of the IRB.
Background
[3] Mr. Gabriel Bazin was disbarred from the Barreau du Québec on March 3, 1998.Note 3 He never applied to be reinstated. He is not a member in good standing of any provincial law society, of the Chambre des notaires du Québec, or of the
College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants.Note 4
[4] On February 1, 2018, he was convicted of two counts of illegal exercise of the profession of law by the Cour du Québec.Note 5 This relates to IRB file MB5-01561 (RAD). His clients, J.B. and D.B.T, had thought they hired a lawyer. Mr. Bazin took money to provide immigration services, including filing an appeal to the RAD, and he knowingly allowed himself to be addressed as “Maître,” the professional title for a lawyer. He did not correct J.B. or D.B.T. or tell them that he was not a lawyer. Mr. Bazin appealed this conviction, but it was upheld.Note 6
[5] On October 22, 2021, Mr. Bazin was again convicted by the Cour du Québec in six instances of the illegal practice of law.Note 7 The facts were very similar; Mr. Bazin took money for legal services and/or allowed himself to be addressed as a lawyer. Of the six cases in that judgment, four related to the illegal practice of law before the IRB. Two of these were instances of accepting money for representation at the IRB. In MB8-18566 (RPD),Note 8 Mr. Bazin was convicted of accepting money for representation at the
RPD. In MB8-18566 (RAD),Note 9 Mr. Bazin was convicted of accepting money for representation at the RAD.
[6] In IRB file MB8-28133 (RPD)/MC0-05266 (RAD),Note 10 Mr. Bazin was convicted of knowingly allowing himself to be referred to as “Maître.” His client, Mr. E.M., believed that he had hired a lawyer to represent him at the RPD and, when his refugee claim was refused, to file his appeal at the RAD. His appeal was never filed and, as a result, Mr. E.M. was deported. New counsel assisted Mr. E.M. in having his appeal heard after his deportation. The RAD found that Mr. Bazin was paid in this instance as well. Mr. E.M.’s refugee claim was accepted on appeal.Note 11
[7] The IRB undertook to review Mr. Bazin’s status as a representative before it. By letter dated December 10, 2021, Mr. Bazin was informed of this review and asked to comment upon his convictions and his conduct in files MB5-01561 (RAD), MB8-18566 (RPD), MB8-28133 (RPD)/MC0-05266 (RAD) and MB9-05698 (RAD).
Analysis
[8] In the following reasons, I explain my jurisdiction to review Mr. Bazin’s ability to appear before the IRB. I find that Mr. Bazin was paid for his representation in four IRB files—this was in contravention of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Based upon the facts of this case, I also explain why an indefinite prohibition is an appropriate sanction.
1. The IRB has a duty to ensure the integrity of its proceedings
[9] The IRB has the jurisdiction as well as the obligation to ensure the integrity of its proceedings by reviewing cases of unauthorized, paid representatives.
[10] There are clear rules as to who can represent clients before the IRB for a fee.Note 12 This includes only 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.Note 13
[11] A limited category of others can represent an individual in a volunteer, unpaid capacity—this could include family members, community groups, or members of a religious institution.
[12] This unpaid representation must, however, be just that: unpaid. If there are allegations or concerns that a representative, who is not a member of the specific regulated professions listed above, is being paid for their services before the IRB, this is governed by the IRB’s
Policy for Handling
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Complaints Regarding Unauthorized, Paid Representatives (the Policy).Note 14
[13] The Policy sets out procedures for dealing with counsel who are not “authorized representatives” and who may, for a fee, be representing, advising or consulting with a person who is the subject of an IRB proceeding. The Chairperson may delegate his authority to review the representative’s conduct under this policy.
[14] The facts of this matter arise from more than one Division and in more than one region. Therefore, the Chairperson has appointed me as his delegate to review this conduct and take any appropriate remedial action that I find is necessary to protect the integrity of proceedings before the IRB.
[15] My jurisdiction in such matters has been recognized by the Federal Court. 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.Note 15
[16] In
Domantay,Note 16 the Federal Court recognized that beyond jurisdiction, the IRB has a duty to be proactive with respect to the status of counsel. This is to protect the public and to preserve the integrity of Canada’s immigration system.
2. Mr. Bazin is an unauthorized, paid representative
[17] Based upon the facts before me, there are four instances where Mr. Bazin has accepted money to represent clients before the IRB. This is in direct contravention of the IRPA.
a. IRB File IRB File MB5-01561 (RAD)
[18] As evidence before me, I have a judgement of the Cour Supérieure du Québec that upholds Mr. Bazin’s conviction for accepting money for legal services to file an appeal to the RAD and for allowing himself to be referred to as a lawyer with respect to MB5-01561 (RAD).Note 17 The trial judge heard evidence from the clients in question, J.B. and D.B.T., as well as their new lawyer. The Court heard a recording of a conversation between Mr. Bazin and his clients where they discussed the money that was paid to Mr. Bazin and where Mr. Bazin referred to himself as a lawyer.
[19] In his submissions before me, though they are somewhat non-specific, Mr. Bazin repeats what his defence was before the Court: that the money in question was not for him, but for a lawyer that he retained for J.B. and D.B.T. The Court found this was not credible, because Mr. Bazin was clear in the recorded conversation that he had not charged his clients any money for the lawyer’s services.
[20] The Court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bazin had received payment in this matter. Mr. Bazin’s representations before me are contradicted by his own recorded conversation with his clients where the money paid is discussed. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Bazin took money to file an appeal to the RAD in MB5-01561 (RAD).
b. IRB File MB8-18566 (RPD)
[21] More recently, Mr. Bazin was convicted by the Cour du Québec of representing himself as a lawyer and taking money to represent Ms. A.N.Y.A. at the RPD.Note 18
[22] Though he did not appear at the RPD hearing in this case, the Court found that Mr. Bazin took money to assist Ms. A.N.Y.A. to complete her claim forms and to prepare her for her hearing. Mr. Bazin testified that he did this only as an interpreter for another lawyer. The Court did not find this to be credible since the other lawyer was rarely present when Mr. Bazin met with Ms. A.N.Y.A. Mr. Bazin had been introduced as a lawyer who specialized in immigration. The Court found that his actions in completing her forms and in giving advice regarding her appearance before the RPD were more those of a lawyer than an interpreter. The Court found Ms. A.N.Y.A. credible: “[f]or her, the defendant is a lawyer, he was presented to her as such, and acted accordingly for a fee.” [my translation]Note 19
[23] Mr. Bazin simply asserts before me that he never represented Ms. A.N.Y.A. I do not find this persuasive. The Court’s judgement makes clear that Mr. Bazin admitted it was his handwriting on her claim forms; he also did not disagree that he prepared her to testify at her hearing. I find the Court’s reasoning to be persuasive—these are not the actions of an interpreter. Mr. Bazin has not provided any submissions in this regard.
[24] Mr. Bazin has presented no evidence that outweighs the Court’s reasons and his conviction in this matter beyond a reasonable doubt. I find that Mr. Bazin was paid to provide representation in preparation for the hearing in MB8-18566 (RPD) on a balance of probabilities.
c. IRB File MB8-28133 (RPD)/MC0-05266 (RAD)
[25] The Cour du Québec also convicted Mr. Bazin of the illegal practice of law in this matter (allowing himself to be called “Maître”), but made no comment on whether he was paid.Note 20 Since then, however, the RAD heard this appeal and found that not only had Mr. E.M. believed that Mr. Bazin was a lawyer but also that he had paid Mr. Bazin to represent him at the RPD.Note 21
[26] Mr. E.M. met Mr. Bazin through his sister, who believed Mr. Bazin to be a lawyer. Mr. E.M. paid Mr. Bazin to represent him at the RPD. The RPD rejected Mr. E.M.’s claim, and Mr. E.M. retained Mr. Bazin to file an appeal to the RAD. This was never done. Mr. E.M. was deported because he did not have an appeal in progress. Mr. E.M.’s evidence is that he was detained and mistreated upon his return to Cameroon, where he feared persecution by the government.
[27] Before the Cour du Québec, Mr. Bazin’s submission was that Mr. E.M. and his family had committed immigration fraud and that therefore he ceased to represent them. He argues that Mr. E.M. knew he was not a lawyer.
[28] The Court did not find this assertion credible. Mr. E.M. met Mr. Bazin through his sister, with whom he worked at a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. There, Mr. Bazin gave legal advice and took care of legal matters. He was addressed as “Maître” and did not always correct people.Note 22 The Court found that it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. E.M. and his family believed Mr. Bazin to be a lawyer.
[29] After Mr. E.M. was deported, his new counsel filed an application for an extension of time to file an appeal. New counsel argued that Mr. Bazin was incompetent, had received payment to represent Mr. E.M. at the RPD, and had represented himself as a lawyer. The RAD subsequently allowed the application and considered Mr. E.M.’s appeal.Note 23 The RAD gave Mr. Bazin an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him, in the spirit of the IRB’s policies where allegations are made against former counsel.
[30] In response to the procedural fairness letter sent to Mr. Bazin in this proceeding, he provided me with a copy of the arguments he had already filed in Mr. E.M.’s appeal. For that reason, I have considered the RAD’s decision in this matter; the RAD member who decided Mr. E.M.’s appeal had all of the evidence before her and was better placed than I to assess Mr. Bazin’s arguments in the appeal.
[31] Interestingly, in his submissions to the RAD in Mr. E.M.’s appeal, Mr. Bazin makes no argument as to whether he was paid. I note that my colleague at the RAD had sworn evidence before her that Mr. Bazin received $1000 to represent Mr. E.M. at the RPD.Note 24 After hearing the appeal, the RAD found that Mr. Bazin had received this payment for his services. In the absence of any evidence or argument to the contrary, I find no reason not to give weight to the RAD’s decision and to accept that the payment in MB8-21833 (RPD) is established on a balance of probabilities.
[32] I also agree with the RAD’s finding that Mr. Bazin’s purported concern for the integrity of the immigration system is not credible, coming as it has only after criminal proceedings have been decided against him.
d. IRB File MB9-05698 (RAD)
[33] Mr. Bazin was convicted of representing himself as a lawyer and taking money to represent Ms. J. at the RAD.Note 25
[34] Ms. J. believed that she was retaining a lawyer to make an appeal to the RAD. She exchanged text messages with Mr. Bazin where she clearly addressed him as a lawyer and requested a refund of the $1000 US that she had paid him. The Court did not find Mr. Bazin’s evidence that he had never been paid but that a friend gave Ms. J. $1000 US just to “keep the peace” credible.
[35] There were text messages demonstrating that Ms. J. thought Mr. Bazin was a lawyer and asked him for a refund. It is not credible that a friend would reimburse her a substantial sum of money that had never been paid—she would have no recourse to force the issue and therefore there was no need to keep the peace. The Cour du Québec found beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bazin had received payment in this matter.
[36] In the proceeding before me, Mr. Bazin has made no comments specific to this file. I have not found his more general comments persuasive, as I discuss below.
[37] In the absence of any argument from Mr. Bazin, I have no reason not to give weight to the Court’s conclusion. I find that Mr. Bazin took money to file an appeal to the RAD in MB9-05698 (RAD) on a balance of probabilities.
e. Conclusion on paid representation
[38] I have addressed Mr. Bazin’s arguments as they relate to specific files above. Mr. Bazin has also made several more general observations.
[39] First, Mr. Bazin suggests that his former clients mentioned have committed “illegal acts” or “frauds.” These acts are not clearly specified nor are they relevant to this decision. For example, a mention of working illegally has no bearing on the decision before me. I have set aside these submissions.
[40] Second, Mr. Bazin states that a lawyer “[he] will not name” is deceiving the IRB “in his appeals.” I do not find this persuasive. I cannot weigh this allegation without further detail or evidence. Mr. Bazin’s own explanations of these matters have repeatedly been found not credible, including when contradicted by his own previously recorded statements. The decisions I have considered resulted from a weighing of the evidence presented and not of allegations of any particular lawyer. I do not find this unsubstantiated allegation to outweigh the other evidence before me.
[41] Third, Mr. Bazin argues that his former clients signed declarations saying that he was non-remunerated and are now being counselled to make false statements to the contrary.
[42] Two judges of the Cour du Québec, a judge of the Cour Supérieure du Québec, and a member of the RAD have considered the testimony of Mr. Bazin’s clients and found them credible. By contrast, they have also found Mr. Bazin’s evidence on these matters not to be credible. I note that in criminal proceedings, facts are determined on a very high standard: beyond a reasonable doubt.
[43] Mr. Bazin has not presented any evidence that these diverse clients are now being counselled to make false statements. He has not advanced any evidence nor persuasive argument that the judgements against him were made in error.
[44] Indeed, Mr. Bazin’s suggestion that he was wrongfully convicted is not persuasive. His first conviction was appealed and upheld. Beyond vague allegations against unnamed parties and previously rejected explanations, Mr. Bazin presents no evidence or argument that leads me to believe the court decisionsNote 26 or the RAD decision before me were made in error.Note 27
[45] To be clear, I do not sit in appeal of these decisions. However, having weighed the decisions and the evidence that underpins them against Mr. Bazin’s arguments, I prefer the facts as found in these decisions for the reasons above.
[46] Therefore, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Bazin accepted money to represent clients before the IRB on the four occasions mentioned.
3. An indefinite bar is appropriate in these circumstances
[47] The evidence before me is that Mr. Bazin has engaged in repeated, unauthorized paid representation before the IRB. His first criminal conviction in 2018, which was upheld on appeal to the Cour supérieure du Québec, did nothing to dissuade him.Note 28 Mr. Bazin was paid to provide immigration services, including filing an appeal to the RAD.
[48] Indeed, Mr. Bazin’s 2021 convictions involved six separate instances of the illegal practice of law at the IRB and in other matters. Four of the convictions related to the illegal practice of law before the IRB, and two of these were for instances of accepting money for representation at the IRB.Note 29
[49] Most recently, the RAD found that Mr. Bazin was paid for representation at the RPD.Note 30
[50] I also note that Mr. Bazin’s actions have caused great prejudice. As one example, Mr. E.M. was deported as a direct result of Mr. Bazin’s failure to file an appeal.
[51] 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. I am satisfied this is an appropriate sanction given the gravity of the circumstances. Mr. Bazin has no right to earn his livelihood in appearing before the IRB, since he is not an authorized representative. He will therefore suffer no economic hardship. This prohibition is in keeping with Mr. Bazin’s disbarment and his criminal convictions, and as a response to his attempts to circumvent those decisions.
Order
[52] Mr. Gabriel Bazin 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.
[53] I direct the Registrars of all four Divisions of the IRB to notify any persons currently represented by Mr. Bazin of this prohibition.
(signed)
L. Brittain
Assistant Deputy Chairperson
Refugee Appeal Division
Ottawa
Date of amended decision: 5 May 2022
Date of original decision: 27 April 2022
Notes
Bazin c.
Barreau de Montréal, 2019 QCCS 2277 : Decision by the Cour supérieure du Québec which upheld the decision of the Cour du Québec, chambre criminelle et pénale.
Barreau de Montréal c. Gabriel Bazin, 500-61-515976-208; 500-61-515896 -208; 500-61-515974-203; 500-61-515895-200; 500-61-515975-200; 500-61-519155-205.
Return to note 1 referrer
RAD Decision, MC0-05266, 23 February 2022.
Return to note 2 referrer
Barreau de Montréal c. Gabriel Bazin, 500-61-515976-208; 500-61-515896 -208; 500-61-515974-203; 500-61-515895-200; 500-61-515975-200; 500-61-519155-205.
Return to note 3 referrer
Previously the
Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council.
Return to note 4 referrer
Bazin
c. Barreau de Montréal, 2019 QCCS 2277.
Return to note 5 referrer
Bazin
c. Barreau de Montréal, 2019 QCCS 2277.
Return to note 6 referrer
Barreau de Montréal c. Gabriel Bazin, 500-61-515976-208; 500-61-515896 -208; 500-61-515974-203; 500-61-515895-200; 500-61-515975-200; 500-61-519155-205.
Return to note 7 referrer
IRB file number MB8-18566 corresponds to file number 500-61-515976-208 in the decision from the Cour du Québec.
Return to note 8 referrer
IRB file number MB9-05698 corresponds to file number 500-61-515975-200 in the decision from the Cour du Québec.
Return to note 9 referrer
IRB file number MB8-28133 (RPD)/MC0-05266 (RAD) corresponds to file number 500-61-515974-203 in the decision from the Cour du Québec.
Return to note 10 referrer
RAD Decision, MC0-05266, 23 February 2022.
Return to note 11 referrer
A fee can include money or other consideration, such as goods and services, as defined in the
Policy for Handling
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Complaints Regarding Unauthorized, Paid Representatives, Immigration and Refugee Board, 29 September 2011.
Return to note 12 referrer
Section 91(2) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, ch. 27.
Return to note 13 referrer
Policy for Handling
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Complaints Regarding Unauthorized, Paid Representatives, Immigration and Refugee Board, 29 September 2011.
Return to note 14 referrer
Rezaei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] 3 FC 421 (TD).
Return to note 15 referrer
Domantay v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 755.
Return to note 16 referrer
Bazin
c. Barreau de Montréal, 2019 QCCS 2277.
Return to note 17 referrer
Barreau de Montréal c. Gabriel Bazin, 500-61-515976-208; 500-61-515896 -208; 500-61-515974-203; 500-61-515895-200; 500-61-515975-200; 500-61-519155-205 at paras. 8–23.
Return to note 18 referrer
Barreau de Montréal c. Gabriel Bazin, 500-61-515976-208; 500-61-515896 -208; 500-61-515974-203; 500-61-515895-200; 500-61-515975-200; 500-61-519155-205 at para. 22.
Return to note 19 referrer
Barreau de Montréal c. Gabriel Bazin, 500-61-515976-208; 500-61-515896 -208; 500-61-515974-203; 500-61-515895-200; 500-61-515975-200; 500-61-519155-205 at paras. 32–47.
Return to note 20 referrer
RAD Decision, MC0-05266, 23 February 2022.
Return to note 21 referrer
Barreau de Montréal c. Gabriel Bazin, 500-61-515976-208; 500-61-515896 -208; 500-61-515974-203; 500-61-515895-200; 500-61-515975-200; 500-61-519155-205 at paras. 33, 43–46.
Return to note 22 referrer
RAD Decision, MC0-05266, 23 February 2022
Return to note 23 referrer
RAD Decision, MC0-05266, 23 February 2022.
Return to note 24 referrer
Barreau de Montréal c. Gabriel Bazin, 500-61-515976-208; 500-61-515896 -208; 500-61-515974-203; 500-61-515895-200; 500-61-515975-200; 500-61-519155-205 at paras. 68-88.
Return to note 25 referrer
Bazin
c. Barreau de Montréal, 2019 QCCS 2277 : Decision by the Cour supérieure du Québec which upheld the decision of the Cour du Québec, chambre criminelle et pénale.
Barreau de Montréal c. Gabriel Bazin, 500-61-515976-208; 500-61-515896 -208; 500-61-515974-203; 500-61-515895-200; 500-61-515975-200; 500-61-519155-205.
Return to note 26 referrer
RAD Decision, MC0-05266, 23 February 2022.
Return to note 27 referrer
Bazin
c. Barreau de Montréal, 2019 QCCS 2277 : Decision by the Cour supérieure du Québec which upheld the decision of the Cour du Québec, chambre criminelle et pénale.
Return to note 28 referrer
Barreau de Montréal c. Gabriel Bazin, 500-61-515976-208; 500-61-515896 -208; 500-61-515974-203; 500-61-515895-200; 500-61-515975-200; 500-61-519155-205.
Return to note 29 referrer
RAD Decision, MC0-05266, 23 February 2022, discussing payment in related RPD file MB8-28133.
Return to note 30 referrer