Meghan Wilson joined Jackman & Associates in 2009 and practices exclusively in the area of immigration and refugee law. She graduated from Osgoode Hall Law School and became a member of the Ontario Bar in 2011. Prior to joining Jackman & Associates, Meghan worked with international human rights advocacy organizations. In Johannesburg, South Africa, she assisted with human rights litigation, particularly related to the provision of basic services, and defense against police brutality and illegal evictions. In Kampala, Uganda, Meghan assisted victims of torture and condemned prisoners.
In Canada, Meghan regularly appears before the Federal Court and all four divisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board in matters including judicial reviews, motions to stay removals, refugee hearings, refugee appeals, detention reviews, removal order appeals, sponsorship appeals, and residency obligation appeals. She also assists in a wide range of immigration applications, including applications for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds, family sponsorships, temporary residence (visitor, worker, and student), pre-removal risk assessments (PRRA), and criminal rehabilitation.
Meghan is known as determined, detail-oriented, and committed to advancing the unique needs of her clients. She has been awarded the Ian Scott Public Interest Fellowship and Cassels, Brock & Blackwell prize for her contributions to public interest work.
Mayilvahanam v. Canada (MCI), 2013 FC 136 –The Federal Court agreed the refugee board had acted unfairly in its determination that the applicant had abandoned his refugee claim. The case was returned to Board for a full hearing, at which the applicant was granted refugee protection. His family has now joined him in Canada.
Giron v. Canada (MCI), 2013 FC 114 – The Federal Court overturned an immigration officer’s refusal of a H&C application because the officer unfairly ignored evidence submitted with his parallel PRRA application. The case was sent back to be reconsidered by another officer and applicant is now a permanent resident.
Vilvaratnam v. Canada (MCI), 2013 FC 154 – The Federal Court agreed the officer who refused the PRRA applicant wrongly dismissed evidence of ethnic persecution because it was not sufficiently individualized. The case was returned to be decided by a different officer.
Sitnikova v. Canada (MCI), 2016 FC 464 – The Federal Court overturned the decisions on both the H&C and PRRA applications because the officer improperly assessed the evidence and unreasonably required the applicant to hide her sexual orientation in order to avoid risk. Both applications were sent back to be decided by a different officer and the applicant’s H&C application was subsequently accepted.
Alagaratnam v. Canada (MCI), 2017 FC 381 – The Federal Court overturned a refusal of an H&C application because the officer did not sufficiently consider the best interests of the applicant’s children living abroad. The case was reconsidered and the applicant is now a permanent resident.
Kandiah v. Canada (MCI), 2018 FC 1096 – The Federal Court overturned a refusal on an over-seas refugee sponsorship decision and confirmed the applicant’s procedural right to an interview. The case was sent back to the visa office for a new decision.