The Retainer That Grew a Second Client
A RCIC has a signed retainer with Wei, a work permit applicant, covering a Labour Market Impact Assessment-supported permit and a spousal open work permit for Wei's wife, Lin. Mid-file, Lin's employer offers to sponsor Lin directly for a closed work permit. Lin emails the RCIC asking for advice on the offer and whether she can keep working while the new permit is processed. The RCIC's retainer names only Wei as client and states that family members' applications are 'incidental.' Wei has already paid a flat fee of $4,500 covering both permits. The RCIC replies to Lin with a 40-minute phone call giving detailed advice on the new offer, then invoices Wei an extra $600 for 'spousal consultation.' Wei disputes the charge, saying he never agreed to it and that Lin was told she was a client too.
1. Identify the professional conduct issues raised by the RCIC's handling of Lin's request and the extra invoice.
Read the worked answer
Two distinct issues arise: client identification and fee consent.
Who is the client? The written retainer names only Wei. But the RCIC's own conduct muddied this: advising Lin directly on her own immigration options, and (per Wei) telling Lin she was a client, creates a reasonable expectation of a retainer. Under the CICC Code of Professional Conduct, a licensee must have a clear, written agreement identifying the client before providing services. Advice given to a non-client family member on her own application is regulated advice; if Lin is a client, she needs her own retainer, conflict disclosure (her interests can diverge from Wei's, e.g., if she leaves the spousal permit stream), and consent. If she is not a client, the RCIC should have declined to advise her and referred her to independent counsel, and should have confirmed in writing that she was not a client.
Fees. The $600 was charged without prior written agreement from the person liable to pay. Fees must be agreed in writing in advance, be reasonable, and be disclosed. Billing Wei for advice given to Lin, whom the retainer excludes, compounds the problem.
Remedy-oriented reasoning. The RCIC should stop, put the client identification in writing, refund or credit the disputed $600 absent consent, and document the correction. The exam wants the analysis of the tension, not just 'get a retainer.'
2. Lin asks whether she can keep working while the new permit is processed. Explain what the RCIC may and may not say, and how the answer depends on facts the RCIC must confirm.
Read the worked answer
The RCIC must first resolve the retainer question before answering at all, because the answer is regulated advice specific to Lin's status. Assuming a proper retainer is put in place:
The answer is fact-dependent, not a slogan. Key facts to confirm:
- Current status and expiry. What permit does Lin hold now, and when does it expire? A spousal open work permit tied to Wei's permit has its own expiry date.
- Whether a new application was filed before expiry. If a work permit application is submitted while she still holds valid status, she may benefit from maintained (implied) status and continued work authorization under the applicable regulation, provided she remains in Canada and does not leave and re-enter in a way that breaks it.
- The employer-specific vs. open distinction. A closed permit tied to a new employer is not effective until issued; she cannot simply start at the new employer on the strength of a pending application unless the conditions permit it.
- Conditions on her current permit. Any restrictions (employer, location, occupation) still bind her until a new permit issues.
What the RCIC may not do: guarantee an outcome, state a categorical 'yes you can work,' or advise her to start at the new employer before confirming the regulatory basis. The model answer should show the RCIC walking through status, timing of filing, and conditions, then giving conditional written advice and flagging the risk of unauthorized work, which carries serious consequences for future applications.