Attorney knew he was breaking the law: judge

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 27/02/2010 (5990 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A prominent immigration lawyer who pleaded guilty to breaking the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act received a conditional discharge in provincial court Friday.

David Davis has already paid “emotionally and financially” for employing a Filipina nanny in 2007 who was his client and didn’t have the necessary permit to work in Canada, his lawyer Barry Sinder said at his sentencing hearing.

The Law Society of Manitoba fined him $25,000 and suspended him from practising law for six months last year. Davis, who has an immigration consulting business, has also been publicly shamed by the media coverage his misconduct generated, Sinder said.

Davis pleaded guilty to employing Adelaida Cruspe Perena, a foreign national, in a capacity for which she was not authorized.

His lawyer was seeking an absolute discharge for Davis, whom he said has no criminal record.

But the judge said that, as an immigration lawyer, Davis knew exactly what he was doing and that it was wrong.

Judge John Guy acknowledged Davis’s remorse and “how well-respected” he is, but said the lawyer knew better.

“He has brought this on himself,” said the judge. “He should have known — this is his area of law.”

“He is not an ordinary citizen… It’s that background and knowledge that cause me the most concern.”

Immigration is important to Canada, and the laws that make sure the system is sound and fair have to be upheld, Guy said.

“This is a very important area of the law,” he said, before imposing a one-year, unsupervised conditional discharge, which means if Davis stays out of trouble for a year, the slate will be wiped clean.

More than 20 lawyers sent glowing letters of reference — including Nobel Prize nominee David Matas — recommending an absolute discharge for Davis, Sinder said. “These are officers of the court.”

Clients also wrote in support of Davis, who has volunteered with Habitat for Humanity in the Philippines, Sinder said.

The Canada Border Services Agency also charged Davis with knowingly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to the nanny’s employment. That charge was stayed, even though the Crown and provincial court Judge John Guy both said Davis knowingly broke the law.

Prosecutor Michael Foote said Davis set a bad example as an immigration lawyer by violating immigration law. He called for a $7,000 fine.

“He was disregarding the law for his own benefit to ensure he had steady child care,” Foote said.

Davis is now divorced and his ex-wife and two children are in Ontario.

A conditional discharge may hinder his status with U.S. Immigration, and his ability to use a Nexus card to cross the border for business with ease, his lawyer said.

“To give an absolute discharge would be inappropriate,” the judge ruled.

carol.sanders@freepress.mb.ca

For the record

FOR Davis, it wasn’t the first time he’s had foreign-nanny trouble or run afoul of the Law Society of Manitoba.

In a civil suit settled out of court in 2007, Filipina Leonilda Arminda Marcaida Aborde claimed Davis hired her out to third parties but never paid her and put her immigration status at risk.

At a law society hearing in 2001, Davis became the first lawyer in the province to be disciplined for sexually harassing a client. He was suspended for 45 days after pleading guilty. He attempted to kiss a client, made comments to her, visited her home and tried to present her with a gift. The Russian woman, who repeatedly rejected the advances, was a refugee who hired Davis to help her stay in the country. One of the reasons the woman fled her country was sexual harassment and sexual assault by her employer in Russia.

In 2008, Davis pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after he overdrew 33 individual client trust ledger accounts by failing to deposit or cause to be deposited into pooled trust account trust money as soon as practicable after receipt. He was fined $2,500.

In 2009, he was fined $25,000 for conflict of interest and breach of integrity concerning the nannies and suspended for six months.