9.  The Member has breached his obligations with respect to ethical practice. The Member has also breached his obligations to serve honourably and with integrity, maintain integrity, act in good faith, not engage in misconduct or conduct unbecoming, maintain quality of service, advise clients with honesty and candour, exercise due care, and refuse to do anything the Member knows is dishonest, fraudulent or otherwise illegal.

10. The Member is alleged to have infringed the Code of Professional Ethics as in force and effect from March 2016 up to and including February 2019 (the "Code").

a) Applicable Articles of the Code:

i. Article 2 - Interpretation;

2.2.3 - Conduct Unbecoming;

2.2.9 - Professional Misconduct;

ii. Article 3 - Duty of Good Faith;

3.1 - Duty of Good Faith;

iii. Article 4 - Duty to the ICCRC and its Members;

4.3 - Duty of civility;

iv. Article 6 - Quality of Service;

6.1- Maintenance of Quality of Service;

6.2 - Delivery of Client Documents;

v. Article 7 - Advising Clients;

7.1- Honesty and Candour Required

7.2- Refusing to do anything the Member know is dishonest, fraudulent or otherwise;

vi. Article 14 - Responsibility to ICCRC and Others;

14.2.1 - Obligation to Respond promptly to the ICCRC.

b) Particulars of the allegations:

i. At all material times, Mr. Artem Djukic (the "Member") was a registered member of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (the "ICCRC").

ii. On or about November 15, 2017 M.N. (the "Complainant") retained the Member to obtain and process a Labour Market Impact Assessment ("LMIA").

iii. The Complainant paid to the Member professional fees in the amount of

$17,000.

iv. The Complainant informed the Member that he had arrived in Canada in March 2009 on a five-month tourist Visa and that he remained in Canada, without status, after his tourist Visa expired.

v. The Member advised the Complainant that he understood his situation and could arrange a work permit for him even though he had been without status in Canada for 9 years.

vi. The Member advised the Complainant that he was eligible to apply for a work permit despite being in Canada without status.

vii. After the Member received the funds from the Complainant, he advised the Complainant that he could return to Slovakia to visit his family and that upon his return to Canada, the Member would pick him up from the airport.

viii. The Member assured the Complainant that "everything would be ok" and that all the paperwork would be complete upon his return - there would be no issues.

ix. The Complainant followed the Member's advice and instruction.

x. In, or about, December 2017, the Complainant left Canada to visit his family in Slovakia.

xi. In, or about, February 2018, the Complainant returned to Canada. Upon his return, he was detained by CBSA and sent to the Immigration Detention Centre.

xii. The Complainant called the Member, who was supposed be at the airport to meet him. The Member failed to answer calls from CBSA and the Complainant while he was detained.

xiii. The Complainant was deported to Slovakia after spending 4 days in detention.

xiv. The Member failed to provide the Complainant with the services outlined in the retainer agreement. He deceived the Complainant into thinking that he could leave Canada and return without issue, and then failed to refund the $17,000 as promised.

xv. Even after the Complainant was detained and deported, the Member continued to advise that even though the events and detention were "traumatic ... legally speaking they were only minor setbacks to [the Complainant's] ability to work in and immigrate" to Canada. The Member advised the Complainant that while the issues "may have slightly extended" the time, it was "certainly not fatal" to his "chances for success".

xvi. On or about March 19, 2018, the Complainant informed the Member that the immigration officers who had detained and interviewed him for 4 days specifically told him that he had "no chance" of successfully immigrating to Canada. Yet, the Member continued with the same narrative, saying that he "still stands by his advice with regards to excellent chances [the Complainant] had of returning".

xvii. The Member provided inaccurate, misleading and incompetent advice to the Complainant who, as a result of relying on that advice, was deported from Canada.

xviii. The Member was paid $17,000 and through his advice and action, got his client deported and has failed or refused to return those funds

====== SAME CASE COUNTINUE =====

CD.2018.234

52. Mr. MN ("MN") is the complainant in CD.2018.234. He executed a Witness Evidence Form. MN is a Slovakian national who arrived in Canada in 2009 on a visitor visa to study English. As a result of familial issues in Slovakia, MN stayed in Canada, working in construction to support himself.

53. MN met with Djukic in November 2017. MN wanted to obtain legitimate immigration status in Canada and sought Djukic's professional advice.

54. During their first meeting, Djukic advised MN that he could arrange a work permit for him through a construction company called the "L Group" for a fee of $17,000.00 CAD.

55. Djukic told MN the fact that he had been in Canada for nine years without status would not be detrimental to his application for a work permit.

56. Djukic also advised MN that despite having no status, MN could visit his family in Slovakia and return to Canada without issues. According to Djukic, Canada Border Services Agency ("CBSA") would not detain MN at the borders because it was unaware that MN had been in Canada without status for nine years. Djukic assured MN that he could leave and re-enter Canada at any time.

57. Djukic advised MN that his offer to arrange a job for MN with the L Group and assist with his immigration matter for $17,000.00 CAD is open for 48 hours only, so MN had to make a decision within 48 hours.

58. MN decided to retain Djukic.

59. On November 15, 2017, MN and Djukic signed a Retainer Agreement. Pursuant to the Retainer Agreement, Djukic was to help MN prepare, file and process an application for an LMIA; obtain valid Work Permits in Canada once the LMIA was obtained; and prepare and file an application for immigration to Canada under the Canadian Experience Class. MN paid Djukic $8,000.00 CAD and was given a receipt for this payment.

60. On November 20, 2017, MN paid Djukic $7,000.00 CAD in cash and was given a receipt. 35 At Djukic's request, MN also paid him an additional $2,000.00 CAD in cash, for which MN was not issued a receipt.

61. Djukic told MN that of the $17,000.00 CAD that MN paid, $5,000.00 CAD would be given to Djukic's friend at L Group for procuring the job for MN.

62. On November 26, 2017, Djukic applied for and obtained an Electronic Travel Authorization for MN. Djukic told MN that this document would allow MN to re-enter to Canada.

63. Based on Djukic's assurances, MN left Canada for Slovakia on December 1, 2017 to visit his family.

64. Once in Slovakia, MN emailed Djukic several times about his situation and when he could return to Canada. Djukic failed to respond.

65. Djukic finally responded to MN on January 31, 2018, informing MN to return to Canada on or after February 12, 2018, and he would meet MN at the airport.

66. MN then emailed Djukic the details of his flight, and Djukic indicated that he would be at the airport to receive him.

67. Upon arriving at Toronto's Pearson Airport on February 14, 2018, MN was detained by CBSA. MN informed a CBSA officer that Djukic was MN's authorized representative and that Djukic was waiting for him. Both MN and the CBSA officer attempted to call Djukic, but Djukic failed to answer. MN was then taken to the Immigration Detention Centre near the airport.

68. After being taken to the Immigration Detention Centre, MN constantly tried to contact Djukic, but got no response from Djukic. On February 16, 2018, MN was told by a CBSA officer that MN could either voluntarily depart Canada or that he could attend court and face a deportation order. MN decided to sign a declaration of voluntary departure from Canada.

69. On February 17, 2018, Djukic finally answered MN's call. He attended the Immigration Detention Centre to meet with MN. Djukic blamed MN for his detention. Djukic counselled MN to submit a refugee claim, which MN refused as MN did not want to lie. Djukic assured MN that he could still obtain a work permit in Canada for him.

70. On February 18, 2018, MN was put on a flight to Slovakia.

71. On February 21, 2018, Djukic emailed MN assuring him that he would still be able to travel to Canada, work in Canada, and apply for immigration status. He advised MN that he could use his valid ETA to travel to Canada. Djukic also advised MN that even if CBSA learned about MN's unauthorized work in Canada, MN would only be prevented from obtaining a valid work permit for a period of six months and should have one issued in or about June 2018. Djukic advised MN that he would submit an Access to Information and Privacy ("ATIP") request to IRCC. Djukic assured MN that his detention and subsequent removal from Canada was only a "minor setback to your ability to work in Canada...While the issue may have slightly extended our time-line for getting you here, it is certainly not fatal to our chances of success".

72. Given Djukic's ill-founded advice that led to MN being effectively deported, MN did not believe Djukic's assurances anymore. On March 8, 2018, MN requested a refund from Djukic.

73. Djukic did not provide MN with a statement of account nor a refund within 10 business days, contrary to his representation.

74. Contrary to Djukic's representation, he never provided MN with a refund of fees or statement of account by April 18, 2018.

75. On October 17, 31, and November 22, 2018, MN sent further emails to Djukic reiterating a request for a refund. On December 4, 2018, Djukic responded to MN stating that if MN did not "wish to act on correcting your situation, then kindly cease and desist from contacting me with irrelevant statements about your situation".

76. Djukic never provided MN with a refund and provided incompetent and misleading advice that led to MN's deportation. Djukic retained the $17,000.00 CAD fees he was paid, despite having provided no tangible services.