Maria Ojeda is a chemical engineer from Colombia applying for Permanent Residence as Federal Skilled Worker under Express Entry. She is representing herself on the application.

Maria previously had breast cancer and disclosed this on her online forms. However, she has been in remission for four years. Her friend in a similar situation was approved last year, so she believed it would not be a problem.

She has now received a procedural fairness letter from the IRCC indicating that she may be inadmissible for health reasons under s 38(1)(c) ofIRPAas her cancer condition may cause an excessive demand on Canada's health care system.

Maria obtained the name of an immigration consultant, Juan Suarez, from a friend. She emailed Juan about the problem and requested a Zoom consultation for advice, the sooner the better. Juan recalled seeing his old mentor handle a couple of medical inadmissibility files, so he was vaguely familiar, although those were not for cancer conditions. Juan charges $300 for consultations and needs the money. His cousin Ali just retired as an RCIC and knows a lot about medical inadmissibility, so likely can help him.

Juan decides to book the consultation to get the facts from Maria. After the initial consultation, he can contact Ali and give him all the details and find out what he should advise Maria. It should work fine, and Maria will be none the wiser, plus he can learn something new. He sends Maria a WhatsApp message that he can do the consultation tomorrow and will contact her by Zoom at 3 pm her time.

Question: Assume this Zoom meeting went ahead as planned. After a few minutes, Maria realized that Juan knew very little about medical inadmissibility and could not answer any of her questions about what was likely to happen in her case. She pointedly asked him whether he had ever dealt with a cancer case before. What do you think Juan should do according to the code of professional conduct of ethics and professional responsibility in Canada?