By Anna Tamir, LL.B | Tamir Litigation Law Firm
In my practice defending regulated professionals before their colleges and regulatory bodies, I have noticed a pattern emerging among RCICs that is both completely avoidable and surprisingly common. It involves something as routine as a government portal, and two very different approaches to managing it that both end in the same place: a CICC complaint, an investigation, and a very angry client.
Here is what I am seeing.
Scenario One: The Outsourced File That Nobody Was Watching
Running an immigration consultancy is demanding. Client volume grows, administrative tasks multiply, and eventually many RCICs do what any reasonable business owner does , they delegate. Staff are hired, sometimes locally, sometimes overseas, to handle the paperwork, track deadlines, and manage client communications.
The problem begins when that delegation happens without clear accountability for portal access and government correspondence.
In this scenario, the RCIC never sets up portal access for the client at all. The application is submitted, the file is handed to support staff, and from that point on the RCIC assumes the administrative side is handled. But the staff, whether undertrained, working across a language barrier, or simply overwhelmed, miss a government update. A request for additional documents. A procedural notice. A deadline.
Here is the regulatory reality that many RCICs do not fully appreciate until it is too late. Section 38(2) of the Code of Professional Conduct for CICC Licensees, SOR/2022-128, is unambiguous:
“A licensee must supervise and assume professional responsibility for any work done by a person who assists in the provision of immigration or citizenship consulting services and ensure that the level of supervision is adequate for the type of work in question.”
Read that carefully. You must assume professional responsibility for your staff’s work. Not just train them, not just hire them carefully, assume responsibility. Whether your staff member was overseas, undertrained, or working in their second language is not a mitigating factor before CICC. It is evidence of inadequate supervision.
This means that “my staff handled it” is not a defence. It is, in many cases, the very heart of the complaint, that your supervision failed.
The client, kept in the dark throughout, has no idea any of this is happening. They paid their fees, they submitted their documents, and they trust that their licensed professional is handling it.
Then the denial letter arrives.
The client is blindsided. They are furious. They want their money back, and in most cases, no one is offering a refund. So they do what any frustrated client does when they feel ignored and deceived: they file a complaint with CICC.
The RCIC is now facing a regulatory investigation not because they are incompetent, but because their supervision system failed. And that distinction — while legally meaningful — does not make the investigation any less serious or the outcome any less damaging.
Scenario Two: The Portal Access That Created a False Sense of Security
This one is subtler, and in some ways more troubling, because the RCIC genuinely believes they have done the right thing.
Portal access is granted to the client. The RCIC hands over the credentials, considers the client informed and empowered, and moves on. But here is the assumption that causes the breakdown: the RCIC now treats the client as a kind of unpaid administrative assistant. The expectation — never communicated explicitly — is that the client will monitor the portal, flag any government updates, and keep the consultant informed.
The client, of course, has no idea this is the expectation. They are not an immigration professional. They do not know what to look for, what a government update means, or that the ball is in their court. They log in occasionally, see something they do not understand, and assume their RCIC is on top of it.
Something gets missed. A response deadline passes. And just like in scenario one, the application is affected, the client is blindsided, and a complaint gets filed.
The RCIC’s defence — “I gave them portal access, they could see everything” — does not go far before a CICC investigator. Granting access is not the same as fulfilling your professional obligations. The duty to monitor, follow up, and ensure nothing falls through the cracks rests with the licensee, not the client.
Access vs. Representation: Understanding the Difference
This distinction is critical enough that it is worth making explicit. Many RCICs conflate portal access with being responsible for what is happening with applications. But those two are the same thing.
| Portal Access | Professional Representation | |
|---|---|---|
| Who has it | RCIC’s assistant / + client | RCIC only |
| What it means | Ability to view application status | Legal and ethical duty to act |
| Who monitors updates | Anyone with login credentials | The RCIC — always |
| Who is responsible if something is missed | The RCIC — always | The RCIC — always |
Giving a client portal access without a clear written protocol around monitoring and responsibility does not transfer your obligations to them. It simply adds a login credential to a relationship where the professional duties remain entirely yours.
What Happens After the Complaint Is Filed
A CICC complaint triggers an investigation process that can feel overwhelming if you have never been through one. The College will request your file, your communications, your retainer agreement, and your records of client contact. They will look at whether your systems were adequate, whether your delegation was appropriate, and whether the client was kept reasonably informed.
The good news is that complaints do not automatically result in discipline. How you respond to the investigation, what your records show, and whether you can demonstrate that any failures were systemic rather than deliberate all matter enormously. Early legal advice before you respond to CICC is not a luxury. It is the most important step you can take.
What You Can Do Right Now: Three SOPs Worth Implementing Today
Whether you are currently facing a complaint or simply recognizing your own practice in one of the scenarios above, the most effective thing you can do is build protocols that protect you before something goes wrong , and document them.
SOP #1 — The 48-Hour Rule
Every government portal update on an active file must be acknowledged and acted upon by the RCIC personally within 48 hours, not by support staff alone. This does not mean staff cannot assist with the response, but the RCIC must review the update, determine the appropriate action, and document that review. A simple timestamped note in the file is enough. This one practice eliminates the most common supervision failure CICC investigators find: updates that were seen by someone but acted on by no one.
SOP #2 — The Portal Tour (for Scenario Two) If you choose to grant a client portal access, treat it as a formal step, not a casual handoff. Conduct a brief recorded walkthrough (a screen-share video works) showing the client what they can see, what they should not be expected to act on, and that monitoring responsibility remains yours. Follow it up with a signed one-page Portal Access and Responsibility Disclosure confirming the client understands the limits of their role. This document is not about shifting liability, it is about demonstrating, if a complaint is ever filed, that your supervision protocol was thoughtful and documented.
SOP #3 — Supervision Records for Delegated Work If you use staff, local or overseas, to handle administrative tasks on files, document your supervision. Weekly file reviews, check-in notes, and evidence that you personally reviewed key communications are all meaningful. CICC does not expect you to do everything yourself. It does expect you to demonstrate that you knew what your staff were doing and caught problems before they became denials.
And if you have already received a CICC complaint notice: do not respond without legal advice. Your first response to the College sets the tone for the entire investigation. What you say, how you frame your supervision practices, and what records you produce all matter far more than most RCICs realize going in.
We Can Help
At Tamir Litigation, we defend licensed professionals, including RCICs, facing complaints and investigations before their regulatory bodies. We understand the CICC process, we know how investigations unfold, and we know how to build a response that protects your licence and your livelihood.
If you have received a complaint notice, or if you are concerned about your current practice and want to understand your risk, contact us for a free initial consultation.
📞 416.499.1676 💬 WhatsApp: 647.531.4007 📧 info@tamirlitigation.com
We serve clients in English and Russian.
Anna Tamir is a civil litigation lawyer with over 15 years of experience defending regulated professionals before Ontario regulatory bodies, including CICC, CPSO, CNO, LSO, OCT, and others. This post is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.