2013-14 Departmental Performance Report - Part III

Printable version (PDF, 1.7 MB)

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

The original version was signed by
The Honourable Chris Alexander
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2014
ISSN 2368-2752
This document is available in alternative formats upon request.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1. Foreword
  2. Institutional Head's Message
  3. Section I: Organizational Expenditure Overview
  4. Section II: Analysis of Programs
  5. Section III: Supplementary Information
  6. Section IV: Organizational Contact Information

Foreword

Departmental Performance Reports are part of the Estimates family of documents. Estimates documents support appropriation acts, which specify the amounts and broad purposes for which funds can be spent by the government. The Estimates document family has three parts.

Part I (Government Expenditure Plan) provides an overview of federal spending.

Part II (Main Estimates) lists the financial resources required by individual departments, agencies and Crown corporations for the upcoming fiscal year.

Part III (Departmental Expenditure Plans) consists of two documents. Reports on Plans and Priorities (RPPs) are expenditure plans for each appropriated department and agency (excluding Crown corporations). They describe departmental priorities, strategic outcomes, programs, expected results and associated resource requirements, covering a three-year period beginning with the year indicated in the title of the report. Departmental Performance Reports (DPRs) are individual department and agency accounts of actual performance, for the most recently completed fiscal year, against the plans, priorities and expected results set out in their respective RPPs. DPRs inform parliamentarians and Canadians of the results achieved by government organizations for Canadians.

Additionally, Supplementary Estimates documents present information on spending requirements that were either not sufficiently developed in time for inclusion in the Main Estimates or were subsequently refined to account for developments in particular programs and services.

The financial information in DPRs is drawn directly from authorities presented in the Main Estimates and the planned spending information in RPPs. The financial information in DPRs is also consistent with information in the Public Accounts of Canada. The Public Accounts of Canada include the Government of Canada Consolidated Statement of Financial Position, the Consolidated Statement of Operations and Accumulated Deficit, the Consolidated Statement of Change in Net Debt, and the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flow, as well as details of financial operations segregated by ministerial portfolio for a given fiscal year. For the DPR, two types of financial information are drawn from the Public Accounts of Canada: authorities available for use by an appropriated organization for the fiscal year, and authorities used for that same fiscal year. The latter corresponds to actual spending as presented in the DPR.

The Treasury Board Policy on Management, Resources and Results Structures further strengthens the alignment of the performance information presented in DPRs, other Estimates documents and the Public Accounts of Canada. The policy establishes the Program Alignment Architecture of appropriated organizations as the structure against which financial and non-financial performance information is provided for Estimates and parliamentary reporting. The same reporting structure applies irrespective of whether the organization is reporting in the Main Estimates, the RPP, the DPR or the Public Accounts of Canada.

A number of changes have been made to DPRs for 2013-14 to better support decisions on appropriations. Where applicable, DPRs now provide financial, human resources and performance information in Section II at the lowest level of the organization's Program Alignment Architecture.

In addition, the DPR's format and terminology have been revised to provide greater clarity, consistency and a strengthened emphasis on Estimates and Public Accounts information. As well, departmental reporting on the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy has been consolidated into a new supplementary information table posted on departmental websites. This new table brings together all of the components of the Departmental Sustainable Development Strategy formerly presented in DPRs and on departmental websites, including reporting on the Greening of Government Operations and Strategic Environmental Assessments. Section III of the report provides a link to the new table on the organization's website. Finally, definitions of terminology are now provided in an appendix.

Institutional Head's Message

Ken Sandhu, Interim ChairpersonI am pleased to present the 2013–14 Performance Report for the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB). This report is a comprehensive review of the IRB's performance and accomplishments as set against stated plans and priorities for 2013–14.

The IRB is an independent tribunal entrusted by Parliament with resolving immigration and refugee cases efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law. Through the work of its four divisions, namely the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), the Immigration Division (ID) and the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), the Board contributes directly to Canada's humanitarian traditions, the security of Canada, as well as to the fulfillment of our international obligations.

Reform implemented

The past year marked the Board's first full year after implementation of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act. All IRB personnel worked hard to give shape to the revitalized IRB. Provisions of the new acts were implemented as planned, and the Board remained adaptive and flexible to ensure it could respond to the operational day-to-day realities of the new system, not all of which were foreseeable prior to coming into force (CIF).

Our priorities for 2013–14 were to build on the successful implementation of the new legislation and to ensure that all cases were resolved quickly and fairly, while rendering high-quality decisions in each case. The reduction of the RPD backlog (legacy cases) was also a key priority during the year.

Thanks to the efforts of all IRB personnel, these priorities were met. Productivity remained strong or increased steadily throughout the year, and the Board rendered fair, high-quality decisions. Processing times at the RPD were significantly shorter than the pre-CIF timelines. The IRB was also able to dramatically reduce the size of the pending RPD inventory, from 27,900 cases on April 1, 2013, to 15,200 cases on March 31, 2014.

A complex environment

The Board has always operated in a complex environment in which it has no control over the number, type or timing of cases brought before it. This continued to be the case in 2013–14. While intake was down from projections, particularly at the RPD and the RAD, the cases became increasingly complex in nature in all divisions. At the same time, the IRB continued to implement substantial savings measures stemming from Budget 2012, totalling approximately $13 million, or 10 percent of our overall budget.

Given this environment, the Board has become adept at aligning its resources to address internal pressures and shifts in volumes of claims and appeals. Lowered intake at the RAD and the RPD allowed the Board to reallocate resources:

  • to the legacy initiative to reduce the pending RPD backlog;
  • to provide ongoing support and training for new decision-makers; and
  • to make initial reassignments to the IAD in the fourth quarter and to establish a plan for the division to be brought up to full capacity as quickly as reasonable in an attempt to slow or halt the growth of processing times.

By continually fine-tuning internal allocations and through its responsiveness to key pressures and priorities, the IRB provided the best results for Canadians and for those who appear before our four divisions. We also ensured prudent financial management in accordance with Treasury Board directives.

A look ahead

Through each of its divisions, the IRB will strive to deliver a simpler, more accessible and expeditious form of justice, with no less attentiveness to fairness and natural justice. We intend to continue to live up to—and improve upon—this reputation.

A continually shifting environment is the only certainty for the IRB's future. In response, the IRB will remain a dynamic and nimble organization, able to pivot and redirect as circumstances warrant, enabling us to manage our resources soundly on behalf of all Canadians and respond to the pressing needs of those who appear before our four divisions.



The original version was signed by
Ken Sandhu
Interim Chairperson

Section I: Organizational Expenditure Overview

Organizational Profile

Appropriate Minister: The Honourable Chris Alexander
Institutional Head: Ken Sandhu, Interim Chairperson
Ministerial Portfolio: Citizenship and Immigration
Enabling Instrument: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)
Year of Incorporation/Commencement: 1989

Organizational Context

Raison d'être and Responsibilities

Mission

The mission of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), on behalf of Canadians, is to resolve immigration and refugee cases efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law.

Mandate
Refugee Protection Division (RPD)
  • Decides claims for refugee protection
  • Decides applications for vacation of refugee protection
  • Decides applications for cessation of refugee protection
  • Decides pre-removal risk assessments (PRRAs) (not yet in force; to come into force on a day or days fixed by order of the Governor in Council [GIC])
Refugee Appeal Division (RAD)
  • Decides appeals from some decisions of the RPD allowing or rejecting claims for refugee protection
Immigration Division (ID)
  • Conducts admissibility hearings for foreign nationals or permanent residents who seek entry into Canada, or who are already in Canada and are alleged to be inadmissible
  • Conducts detention reviews for foreign nationals or permanent residents who are detained for immigration reasons
Immigration Appeal Division (IAD)
  • Decides appeals of family sponsorship applications refused by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)
  • Decides appeals from certain removal orders made against permanent residents, Convention refugees and other protected persons, and holders of permanent resident visas
  • Decides appeals by permanent residents against whom a CIC officer outside Canada has decided that they have not fulfilled their residency obligation
  • Decides appeals by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of ID decisions at admissibility hearings

Regional Operations

The IRB carries out its work in three regional offices located in Toronto (Central Region), Montréal (Eastern Region) and Vancouver (Western Region). The Central Region is responsible for Ontario, excluding Ottawa; the Eastern Region for Quebec, Ottawa and the Atlantic provinces; and the Western Region for the Western provinces and Northern territories. All four divisions hold hearings in these regions and are assisted by registry services and corporate support. The IRB also has offices in Calgary and Niagara Falls, where hearings are held. Hearings are also held in a small number of itinerant locations. Internal and support services are managed at IRB National Headquarters, located in Ottawa.

Administrative Justice

Through the work of each division, the IRB strives to deliver a simpler, more accessible and expeditious form of justice than that provided by the courts. The IRB applies the principles of administrative law, including those of natural justice, in its proceedings. Its decisions are rendered in accordance with the law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The IRB is committed to fairness in all aspects of its work. Each case is decided on its own merits by independent decision makers. The Board respects the dignity and diversity of the individuals who appear before it and their unique and sometimes extremely traumatic experiences.

Benefits for Canadians

Immigrants and refugees have always contributed significantly to Canada's growth and development. The IRB ensures continued benefits to Canadians in three important ways:

  • In the resolution of refugee protection claims and refugee protection appeals, it ensures that Canada accepts those in need of protection in accordance with international obligations and Canadian law.
  • Through admissibility hearings and detention reviews, it contributes to the integrity of our immigration system, balances the individual rights of foreign nationals and permanent residents against the safety and security of Canadians, and upholds Canada's reputation for justice and fairness.
  • As an independent tribunal responsible for resolving sponsorship, removal order and residency obligation appeals, it helps to promote family reunification, ensures Canadians' safety and security, and safeguards the integrity of Canada's immigration system.

The IRB also contributes more broadly to the quality of life of Canada's communities by strengthening our country's social fabric and by reflecting and reinforcing the core values that are important to Canadians. These include respect for human rights, peace, security and the rule of law.


Strategic Outcome and Program Alignment Architecture

Based on its legislated mandate and its approved Program Alignment Architecture (PAA) for the 2013–14 reporting period, the IRB has a single strategic outcome and four core programs that include responsibility for all tribunal decisions and resolutions. The fifth program, Internal Services, supports the first four and the strategic outcome.

1. Strategic Outcome: Resolve immigration and refugee cases before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law
1.1 Program: Refugee Protection
1.2 Program: Refugee Appeal
1.3 Program: Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews
1.4 Program: Immigration Appeal
Internal Services

Organizational Priorities

Strategic Outcome: Resolve immigration and refugee cases before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law

Priority 1
Priority 1Type
Continue the transition to the new refugee determination system resulting from the implementation of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act (BRRA) and the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act (PCISA), while continuing to reduce the inventory of refugee protection claims pending at the coming into force of the new legislationPreviously committed to
Summary of Progress
Following Royal Assent of the BRRA and the PCISA, the IRB continued the transition to the new refugee determination system resulting from the implementation of this new legislation, which came into force on December 15, 2012. As fiscal year 2013–14 was the first full reporting period in which the IRB operated under the new legislation, the Board remained adaptive and flexible to ensure new processes, systems and resources were effectively aligned in order to respond to operational needs. The average processing time for a refugee protection decision went from almost two years prior to coming into force (CIF) to approximately four months for cases at the RPD for which legislated timelines apply. The Board ensured the ongoing reduction of the remaining legacy backlog of refugee protection claims through the realignment of resources, such as by allowing GIC decision-makers who had not been assigned to another division to focus on the efficient processing of these claims, as well as by having public servant decision-makers contribute to this initiative as capacity within the division allowed. As a result, the inventory of legacy refugee protection claims went from 27,900 at the beginning of the fiscal year to 15,200 at the end of March.

Priority 2
Priority 2Type
Resolve cases in a timely manner while ensuring quality and fairnessOngoing
Summary of Progress
The new refugee determination system imposed legislated time limits for the hearing of new cases before the RPD and the RAD. To meet the intent of the new legislation, the Board continually made adjustments to its processes, procedures and workload assumptions in order to remain responsive to the demands of the new system. The majority of the RPD decision-maker complement was new at CIF, requiring ongoing professional development to steadily increase capacity and efficiency. In addition, the Board started to reallocate resources to ensure the timely resolution of immigration appeals and lay the groundwork for addressing its inventory of unresolved IAD cases and the growing processing time. The Board continued to promote the high quality of proceedings and decisions through its quality measures initiatives.

Priority 3
Priority 3Type
Promote an adaptive, integrated and flexible organization that values its peopleOngoing
Summary of Progress
The IRB continued to ensure the consistent delivery of high quality administrative justice within a changing environment. In 2013–14, the IRB's Internal Services met the support needs of all four tribunal programs, including activities in support of implementation planning for the transfer of responsibility for PRRA. The IRB also adjusted to the changes brought about by the reform of the refugee determination system and responded effectively to intake and workload across the four divisions. It implemented continuous improvements as these were critical to the continued success of the new system. As part of its ongoing commitment to valuing people, special focus was placed on human resources (HR) management practices.

Risk Analysis

Key Risks
RiskRisk Response StrategyLink to PAA
Reform to Canada's refugee determination system: The new refugee determination system came into force on December 15, 2012, and provided for significant changes to the structure, timelines and manner in which the IRB processes refugee protection claims. Fiscal year 2013–14 was the first full reporting period in which the IRB operated under the new system. Last fiscal year was characterized by ramping up the new system and by monitoring and responding to risks inherent in any transformative change. The IRB continually adjusted its processes and procedures with the goal of steadily expanding its capacity and efficiency.
  • Refugee Protection
  • Refugee Appeal
Appointment and reappointment of decision-makers: A full complement of GIC and public servant decision-makers is key to meeting program deliverables.Ongoing GIC recruitment strategies ensured that a sufficient pool of qualified candidates was available for consideration by the GIC for appointment or reappointment to the RAD and the IAD.

Strategic and timely decisions to reassign GIC decision-makers were effected to ensure a gradual increase to either the IAD or the RAD in line with the divisions' operational needs while ensuring that legacy cases were resolved.

In the RPD and the ID, ongoing staffing strategies helped to maintain a sufficient complement of public servant decision-makers.

  • Refugee Protection
  • Refugee Appeal
  • Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews
  • Immigration Appeal
Legacy cases: In previous years, a historical shortfall in the GIC decision-maker complement combined with growing intake resulted in an inventory of refugee protection claims that exceeded the IRB's funded capacity.The IRB continued its backlog reduction initiative by maintaining as many GIC decision-makers as possible in the RPD, reassigning GIC decision-makers to the RAD or the IAD as the need arose, and assigning legacy cases to the new RPD as capacity within the division allowed. These measures successfully reduced the inventory from 27,900 cases to 15,200 cases over the course of the fiscal year.
  • Refugee Protection

Reform to Canada's refugee determination system. Fiscal year 2013–14 was a transformative year during which the IRB implemented significant reforms to the structure, timelines and manner in which the IRB processes refugee protection claims. Given the sweeping nature of the reforms, the IRB faced the risk of not being able to achieve results that fulfill the intent of the reform provisions of the IRPA. Early indications confirm that the IRB has successfully implemented the new reforms, bringing together new decision-makers (80 percent of whom were new at CIF), leadership, and case management support and significantly reducing the pre-reform average case processing time to approximately four months post-reform. Continual adjustments to the system were necessary during this period of rapid build-up as pre-reform assumptions were tested with practical post-reform experience.

The IRB implemented the RAD, which has extensive powers to review RPD decisions. The number of appeals has been increasing progressively since the Division's creation. RAD decisions serve to ensure the soundness of decisions made in the refugee determination process.

Appointment and reappointment of decision-makers. To resolve the cases before it, the IRB depends on the GIC to make timely appointments and reappointments of decision-makers to the RAD and the IAD. During 2013–14, strategic and timely decisions to reassign GIC decision-makers as their mandates were renewed were effected to ensure a gradual increase to either the IAD or the RAD in line with the divisions' operational needs. The IRB also pursued staffing strategies to maintain a sufficient complement of public servant decision-makers in the RPD and the ID.

Legacy cases. Building on temporarily available decision-making capacity, the IRB realigned internal resources to reduce its backlog of legacy refugee protection cases. The pending refugee protection claim inventory stood at 27,900 at the beginning of the fiscal year, and was reduced to 15,200 claims at the end of the year.


Actual Expenditures

Budgetary Financial Resources (dollars)

Budgetary Financial Resources
2013-14
Main Estimates		2013-14
Planned Spending		2013-14
Total Authorities
Available for Use		2013-14
Actual Spending
(authorities used)		2013-14
Difference (actual minus planned)
122,919,932122,919,932131,551,302121,920,320(9,630,982)

Human Resources (Full-time Equivalents [FTEs])

Human Resources
2013-14
Planned		2013-14
Actual		2013-14
Difference(actual minus planned)
1,090997(93)

Budgetary Performance Summary for Strategic Outcome and Programs (dollars)

Budgetary Performance Summary
Strategic Outcome and ProgramsMain Estimates 2013–14Planned
Spending		Total Authorities Available for Use 2013–14Actual Spending
(authorities used)
2013–142014–152015–162013–142012–132011–12
Strategic Outcome: Resolve immigration and refugee cases before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law
Refugee Protection43,857,98443,857,98453,292,21050,147,25758,109,52755,762,47769,780,84172,439,868
Refugee Appeal21,601,29021,601,29010,756,41110,756,4117,553,8717,504,7403,818,1001,799,737
Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews10,003,52710,003,52710,008,1648,804,15913,430,41412,366,19311,078,78211,534,614
Immigration Appeal17,875,79817,875,79817,883,49717,883,49717,659,97712,516,92114,521,65116,482,553
Subtotal93,338,59993,338,59991,940,28287,591,32496,753,78988,150,33199,199,014102,256,752
Internal Services29,581,33329,581,33329,120,36728,691,94134,797,51333,769,98935,059,42938,551,872
Total122,919,932122,919,932121,060,649116,283,265131,551,302121,920,320134,258,443140,808,624

The decrease in actual spending from 2011–12 to 2013–14 is mainly attributable to a reduction in temporary funding to enable the IRB to implement the new refugee determination system.


Alignment of Spending with the Whole-of-Government Framework

Alignment of 2013–14 Actual Spending with the Whole-of-Government Framework (dollars)

Alignment of Actual Spending
Strategic Outcome and ProgramsSpending AreaGovernment of Canada Outcome2013–14 Actual Spending
Strategic Outcome: Resolve immigration and refugee cases before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law
1.1 Refugee ProtectionInternational AffairsA safe and secure world through international engagement55,762,477
1.2 Refugee AppealInternational AffairsA safe and secure world through international engagement7,504,740
1.3 Admissibility Hearings and Detention ReviewsSocial AffairsA safe and secure Canada12,366,193
1.4 Immigration AppealSocial AffairsA safe and secure Canada12,516,921

Total Spending by Spending Areas (dollars)

Spending by Areas
Spending AreasTotal Planned SpendingTotal Actual Spending
Economic Affairsn/an/a
Social Affairs27,789,32524,883,114
International Affairs65,459,27463,267,217
Government Affairsn/an/a

Organizational Spending Trend

Organizational Spending Trend 

[Alternate format]

The image illustrates a graphic containing a bar chart representing the actual and projected spending by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada from 2011–12 to 2016–17.

  • The Y axis (vertical) represents the dollars in increments of 20,000,000 ranging from 0 to 160,000,000.
  • The X axis (horizontal) represents six fiscal years from 2011–12 to 2016–17

Each fiscal year consists of two bars:

  • the first represents the number for sunset programs; and
  • the second represents the number for total spending.

For fiscal year 2011–12:

  • the amount for sunset programs was $1,022,832; and
  • the amount for total spending was $139,785,792.

For fiscal year 2012–13:

  • the amount for sunset programs was $1,196,673; and
  • the amount for total spending was $133,061,770

For fiscal year 2013–14:

  • the amount for sunset programs was $1,307,819; and
  • the amount for total spending was $120,612,501.

For fiscal year 2014–15:

  • the amount for sunset programs is planned to be $1,632,430; and
  • the amount for total spending is planned to be $121,060,649.

For fiscal year 2015–16:

  • the amount for sunset funding is planned to be $0; and
  • the amount for total spending is planned to be $116,283,265.

For fiscal year 2016–17:

  • the amount for sunset funding is planned to be $0; and
  • the amount for total spending is planned to be $116,283,265.

Total spending was higher during 2011–12 and 2012–13 mainly due to activities to implement the new refugee determination system. Sunset funding represents funding ending in 2014–15 related to cases requiring the protection of information pursuant to Division 9 of the IRPA.

Estimates by Vote

For information on the IRB's organizational votes and statutory expenditures, consult the Public Accounts of Canada 2014 on the Public Works and Government Services Canada website.

Section II: Analysis of Programs

Strategic Outcome

Resolve immigration and refugee cases before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law

Performance Measurement

Performance Measurement
Performance IndicatorTargetsActual Results
Percentage of IRB decisions overturned by the Federal CourtLess than 1%0.7%
(This quality indicator is used in addition to the indicators described in the programs.)

2013–14 Highlights

  • Strategic outcome successfully achieved
  • The organizational strategic priorities were focused on refugee reform implementation and the reduction of the RPD's legacy cases
  • Therefore, the IRB continued to ensure that processes and resources were effectively aligned and responded to its operational needs
  • As 2013–14 was the first full year under the new legislation, the IRB remained adaptive and flexible to ensure continued success as new processes and systems were fully operationalized
  • 46,800 cases resolved
  • Less than 0.7% of decisions overturned by the Federal Court

Program 1.1: Refugee Protection

Description

The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) delivers the IRB's Refugee Protection program. It renders quality decisions and otherwise resolves cases in a timely manner regarding refugee protection claims made by persons in Canada, and pre-removal risk assessments of persons subject to a removal order.

2013–14 Highlights

  • 10,700 new refugee protection claims were filed and 8,000 were resolved
  • 13,000 legacy claims were resolved and 15,200 remained unresolved at end of year
  • A total of 21,000 refugee protection claims were resolved in 2013–14

Budgetary Financial Resources (dollars)

Refugee Protection Division Budgetary Financial Resources
2013–14
Main Estimates		2013–14
Planned Spending		2013–14
Total Authorities Available for Use		2013–14
Actual Spending (authorities used)		2013–14
Difference (actual minus planned)
43,857,98443,857,98458,109,52755,762,477(2,347,050)

Human Resources (FTEs)

Refugee Protection Division Human Resources
2013–14 Planned2013–14 Actual2013–14 Difference (actual minus planned)
46551247

Performance Results

Refugee Protection Division Performance Results
Expected ResultsPerformance IndicatorsTargetsActual Results
Fair and focused proceedingsAverage score of cases measured against criteria for fair and focused proceedings on a 1-to-3 scale2.02.7
Decisions that are clear, complete and conciseAverage score of cases measured against criteria for quality decisions on a 1-to-3 scale2.02.6
Timely decisions renderedPercentage of designated country of origin (DCO) claims made inland that are decided within 25 days of the 30-day time limit for the first hearing60%33%
Percentage of DCO claims made at a port of entry (POE) that are decided within 25 days of the 45-day time limit for the first hearing70%38%
Percentage of non-DCO claims made either inland or at a POE that are decided within 25 days of the 60-day time limit for hearings80%49%

Performance Analysis and Lessons Learned

For fiscal year 2013–14, the RPD continued to make adjustments to its processes, procedures and workload assumptions in order to remain responsive to the demands of the new system. The introduction of regulated time limits for the hearing of refugee protection claims required significant changes to the way RPD decision-makers and support staff carry out their work. The landscape of the RPD continued to evolve and differed significantly from realities, trends and planning assumptions that existed before December 15, 2012. For instance, the following variables had an impact on the RPD's performance relative to timely decisions rendered:

  • more than 80 percent of the RPD's decision-maker complement was new at CIF and required ongoing professional development to steadily increase capacity and efficiency throughout the year;
  • timelines for the hearing of claims reduced some of the RPD's ability to realize efficiencies; for example, the ability to allow decision-makers to specialize by geographic region;
  • initially, delays in receiving confirmation of Front-End Security Screening (FESS) caused significant hearing delays; by the end of the reporting period, the situation had improved, but lack of FESS continued to have an impact on RPD processing times;
  • there was a slight increase in vacation applications and a large increase in cessation applications, as well as a significant increase in Minister's interventions due to the implementation of the CIC Ministerial Review and Intervention Pilot Project; and
  • in anticipation of a much lower proportion of non-DCO claims, a higher performance target was set for these cases.

Despite the magnitude of challenges, the RPD continued to focus on increasing productivity and rendering timely decisions with an average case processing time of approximately four months, compared with an average time of almost two years prior to CIF. The impartiality of adjudications, the independence of the Division's decision-makers and considerations of natural justice and fairness have always remained paramount. The RPD also spent considerable energy on planning for the PRRA transfer to the IRB.

Through its legacy initiative and reallocations of resources, the IRB was able to dramatically reduce the RPD legacy backlog from 27,900 in April 2013 to 15,200 at the end of the reporting period. GIC decision-makers who were not assigned to another division focused on the efficient processing of these claims, while RPD public servant decision-makers contributed to the legacy initiative as capacity within the Division allowed. In terms of the capacity to further reduce the legacy backlog, this has been increasingly challenging as the GIC complement who can hear only legacy cases decreases as the mandates of these decision-makers expire. Public servant decision makers also hear legacy cases, but new referrals are scheduled on a priority basis due to the regulated time frames. Moreover, a range of other case types, such as RAD returns, Federal Court returns, and vacation and cessation applications, are balanced within the scheduling priorities in order to ensure that decisions are rendered in a timely manner.

Refugee Protection Performance

Refugee Protection Performance  

[Alternate format]

The image illustrates a graphic containing a bar chart representing the actual numbers of refugee protection claims received by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) from 2010–11 to 2013–14.

  • The Y axis (vertical) represents the claims in increments of 10,000 ranging from 0 to 50,000.
  • The X axis (horizontal) represents four fiscal years from 2010–11 to 2013–14

Each fiscal year consists of three columns:

  • the first represents the number of claims referred;
  • the second represents the number of claims finalized; and
  • the third represents the number of claims pending.

Claims that were finalized fall into the following three categories:

Accepted
Withdrawn/Abandoned
Rejected

Claims waiting are broken down into the following time periods:

0-6 months
7-12 months
13-24 months
more than 2 years

The following are the numbers by fiscal year (Note: The totals may not be exactly 100% due to rounding):

For the fiscal year 2010–11, 22,700 claims were referred, 33,500 claims were finalized and 48,200 claims were waiting.

Finalized claims are broken down into the following percentages: 37% were accepted, 19% were withdrawn/abandoned and 43% were rejected.

Claims waiting are broken down into the following percentages: 26% for 0 to 6 months, 19% for 7 to 12 months, 36% for 13 to 24 months and 19% for more than 2 years.

For the fiscal year 2011–12, 24,700 claims were referred, 33,400 claims were finalized and 39,400 claims were waiting.

Finalized claims are broken down into the following percentages: 38% were accepted, 14% were withdrawn/abandoned and 48% were rejected.

Claims waiting are broken down into the following percentages: 35% for 0 to 6 months, 22% for 7 to 12 months, 25% for 13 to 24 months and 18% for more than 2 years.

For the fiscal year 2012–13, 16,900 claims were referred, 26,600 claims were finalized and 29,800 claims were waiting.

Finalized claims are broken down into the following percentages: 34% were accepted, 17% were withdrawn/abandoned and 50% were rejected.

Claims waiting are broken down into the following percentages: 26% for 0 to 6 months, 25% for 7 to 12 months, 34% for 13 to 24 months and 14% for more than 2 years.

For the fiscal year 2013–14, 11,600 claims were referred, 21,300 claims were finalized and a total of 19,800 claims were waiting, including 15,100 claims from legacy and 4,700 claims from the new system.

Finalized claims are broken down into the following percentages: 42% were accepted, 13% were withdrawn/abandoned and 46% were rejected.

Claims waiting are broken down into the following percentages: 21% for 0 to 6 months, 4% for 7 to 12 months, 47% for 13 to 24 months and 27% for more than 2 years.

Program 1.2: Refugee Appeal

Description

The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) delivers the IRB's Refugee Appeal program. It renders quality decisions and otherwise resolves cases in a timely manner regarding appeals against a decision made on a refugee protection claim of the Refugee Protection Division.

2013–14 Highlights

  • 1,700 appeals filed
  • 1,100 appeals finalized

Budgetary Financial Resources (dollars)

Refugee Appeal Division Budgetary Financial Resources
2013–14
Main Estimates		2013–14
Planned Spending		2013–14
Total Authorities Available for Use		2013–14
Actual Spending (authorities used)		2013–14
Difference (actual minus planned)
21,601,29021,601,2907,553,8717,504,740(49,131)

Human Resources (FTEs)

Refugee Appeal Division Human Resources
2013–14 Planned2013–14 Actual2013–14 Difference (actual minus planned)
17062(108)

Performance Results

Refugee Appeal Division Performance Results
Expected ResultsPerformance IndicatorsTargetsActual Results
Fair and focused proceedingsAverage score of cases measured against criteria for fair and focused proceedings on a 1-to-3 scale2.0Targets have been established for performance in this new program. Validation and reporting will begin in 2014–15.
Decisions that are clear, complete and conciseAverage score of cases measured against criteria for quality decisions on a 1-to-3 scale2.0
Timely decisions renderedPercentage of decisions made within 90 days of the filing and perfecting of an appeal when there is no oral hearing80%97%

Performance Analysis and Lessons Learned

Fiscal year 2013–14 was the RAD's first full year of operation. While the BRRA and the PCISA came into force on December 15, 2012, the first appeals were filed at the end of 2012–13 only. As a result, the year was one of continual monitoring that resulted in adjustments and improvements to maintain quality and consistency and to increase efficiency. The intake of the RAD was lower than expected and its complement of GIC decision-makers was therefore also adjusted. The RAD's adjudicative strategy continued to evolve in order to respond to the demands of the complexity of its caseload. It should be noted that, with regard to RPD decisions, the RAD has the authority to not only refer a matter back to the RPD for re-determination, but also to set aside a determination and substitute it with its own determination, a power that the RAD has exercised in the year under review.

Due to the newness and the complexity of the caseload, national professional development remained a focus. The RAD rendered quality and timely decisions and was able to achieve the organizational performance target for rendering decisions within the regulated time limits provided for under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. The percentage of decisions made within 90 days of the filing and perfecting of an appeal when there is no oral hearing was 97 percent.

The Division developed its outreach program and began making its reasons publicly available in both official languages. The year was also a learning period for counsel. The RAD took this opportunity to explain its rules and policies to stakeholders and to adapt and simplify its processes.

Refugee Appeal Performance

Refugee Appeal Performance 

[Alternate format]

The image illustrates a graphic containing a bar chart representing the actual numbers of refugee appeals received by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) from 2010–11 to 2013–14.

  • The Y axis (vertical) represents the appeals in increments of 1,000 ranging from 0 to 5,000.
  • The X axis (horizontal) represents four fiscal years from 2010–11 to 2013–14

The fiscal years 2010–11, 2011–12 and 2012–13 don't have any data. The data is replaced by a large rectangle with the following text "Activities in the Refugee Appeal Division started only in the fourth quarter of 2012–13."

The fourth fiscal year consists of three columns:

  • the first represents the number of appeals filed;
  • the second represents the number of appeals finalized; and
  • the third represents the number of appeals pending.

For the fiscal year 2013–14, 1,700 appeals were filled, 1,100 appeals were finalized and 600 appeals were waiting.

Finalized appeals are broken down into the following percentages: 17% were allowed, 79% were dismissed and 4% were withdrawn/administrative/abandoned.

Appeals waiting are broken down into the following percentages: 99% for 0 to 6 months and 1% for 7 to 12 months.


Program 1.3: Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews

Description

The Immigration Division (ID) delivers the Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews program. It renders quality decisions and otherwise resolves cases in a timely manner regarding foreign nationals or permanent residents who are alleged to be inadmissible to Canada pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and foreign nationals or permanent residents who are detained under IRPA authority.

2013–14 Highlights

  • 1,900 admissibility hearings were finalized, which is lower than the 2,700 that had been projected, as intake was lower than anticipated
  • 16,700 detention reviews were finalized, which is lower than the 17,000 that had been projected

Budgetary Financial Resources (dollars)

Immigration Division Budgetary Financial Resources
2013–14
Main Estimates		2013–14
Planned Spending		2013–14
Total Authorities Available for Use		2013–14
Actual Spending (authorities used)		2013–14
Difference (actual minus planned)
10,003,52710,003,52713,430,41412,366,193(1,064,221)

Human Resources (FTEs)

Immigration Division Human Resources
2013–14 Planned2013–14 Actual2013–14 Difference (actual minus planned)
85894

Performance Results

Immigration Division Performance Results
Expected ResultsPerformance IndicatorsTargetsActual Results
Fair and focused proceedingsAverage score of cases measured against criteria for fair and focused proceedings on a 1-to-3 scale2.02.1
Decisions that are clear, complete and conciseAverage score of cases measured against criteria for quality decisions on a 1-to-3 scale2.02.1
Timely decisions renderedPercentage of detention review cases concluded within statutory time limits96%Note 198%
Percentage of admissibility proceedings finalized within six months86%Note 291%

Notes

Note 1

Factors outside the IRB's control, such as prison lockdowns, impede the achievement of 100-percent compliance.

Return to note 1 referrer

Note 2

Detention reviews take priority over admissibility hearings due to legislative time requirements. The number of referrals from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) affects the capacity of the ID to conduct admissibility hearings.

Return to note 2 referrer

Performance Analysis and Lessons Learned

Despite the decrease in intake in 2013–14, both admissibility hearing and detention review referrals remained well above historical levels. The Division's finalizations closely matched referral numbers for both admissibility hearings and detention reviews. The environment in which the ID operates and the cases it adjudicates have become increasingly complex and required a greater coordination effort. The Division adjudicated an increased number of cases involving complex criminal organizations and novel legal issues. The ID faced many operational constraints including the number of itinerant hearings and the integration of business processes into a new computer case tracking system. The ID remained committed to maintaining a high level of productivity and rendering quality decisions in a timely manner. These results stem from a highly skilled and committed workforce and good coordination between registry services and decision-makers. The Division's focus turned toward strengthening the itinerant hearings models where attention will continue to be required.

Detention Reviews Performance

Detention Reviews Performance  

[Alternate format]

The image illustrates a graphic containing a bar chart representing the actual numbers of detention reviews received by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) from 2010–11 to 2013–14.

  • The Y axis (vertical) represents the detention reviews in increments of 5,000 ranging from 0 to 30,000.
  • The X axis (horizontal) represents four fiscal years from 2010–11 to 2013–14

For each of the last four fiscal years, it shows the following:

Released (change of conditions)
Ordered released (no terms and conditions)
Released (on terms and conditions)
Detained

The following are the numbers by fiscal year (Note: The totals may not be exactly 100% due to rounding):

For the fiscal year 2010–11, 18,500 detention reviews were finalized. They are broken down into the following percentages: 1% were released (change of conditions), 6% were ordered released (no terms and conditions), 13% were released (on terms and conditions) and 80% were detained.

For the fiscal year 2011–12, 17,800 detention reviews were finalized. They are broken down into the following percentages: 1% were released (change of conditions), 6% were ordered released (no terms and conditions), 12% were released (on terms and conditions) and 81% were detained.

For the fiscal year 2012–13, 18,300 detention reviews were finalized. They are broken down into the following percentages: 1% were released (change of conditions), 6% were ordered released (no terms and conditions), 11% were released (on terms and conditions) and 82% were detained.

For the fiscal year 2013–14, 16,700 detention reviews were finalized. They are broken down into the following percentages: 0% were released (change of conditions), 5% were ordered released (no terms and conditions), 10% were released (on terms and conditions) and 85% were detained.

Admissibility Hearings Performance

Admissibility Hearings Performance 

[Alternate format]

The image illustrates a graphic containing a bar chart representing the actual numbers of admissibility hearings received by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) from 2010–11 to 2013–14.

  • The Y axis (vertical) represents the admissibility hearings in increments of 1,000 ranging from 0 to 5,000.
  • The X axis (horizontal) represents four fiscal years from 2010–11 to 2013–14

For each of the last four fiscal years, it shows the following:

Permission to enter/remain
Withdrawn
Failed to appear
Removal order

The following are the numbers by fiscal year (Note: The totals may not be exactly 100% due to rounding):

For the fiscal year 2010–11, 2,800 admissibility hearings were finalized. They are broken down into the following percentages: 4% for permission to enter/remain, 6% for withdrawn, 15% for failed to appear and 73% for removal order.

For the fiscal year 2011–12, 2,900 admissibility hearings were finalized. They are broken down into the following percentages: 4% for permission to enter/remain, 7% for withdrawn, 16% for failed to appear and 71% for removal order.

For the fiscal year 2012–13, 2,600 admissibility hearings were finalized. They are broken down into the following percentages: 4% for permission to enter/remain, 6% for withdrawn, 15% for failed to appear and 75% for removal order.

For the fiscal year 2013–14, 1,900 admissibility hearings were finalized. They are broken down into the following percentages: 4% for permission to enter/remain, 11% for withdrawn, 7% for failed to appear and 78% for removal order.

Program 1.4: Immigration Appeal

Description

The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) delivers the Immigration Appeal program. It renders quality decisions and otherwise resolves cases in a timely manner regarding sponsorship applications refused by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada; certain removal orders made against permanent residents, refugees and other protected persons and holders of permanent resident visas; permanent residents outside of Canada who have been found not to have fulfilled their residency obligation; and appeals by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness against a decision of the Immigration Division on admissibility.

2013–14 Highlights

  • 5,800 immigration appeals filed
  • 6,100 immigration appeals finalized or stayed
  • Case inventory remained stable at 10,300

Budgetary Financial Resources (dollars)

Immigration Appeal Division Budgetary Financial Resources
2013–14
Main Estimates		2013–14
Planned Spending		2013–14
Total Authorities Available for Use		2013–14
Actual Spending (authorities used)		2013–14
Difference (actual minus planned)
17,875,79817,875,79817,659,97712,516,921(5,143,056)

Human Resources (FTEs)

Immigration Appeal Division Human Resources
2013–14 Planned2013–14 Actual2013–14 Difference (actual minus planned)
125109(16)

Performance Results

Immigration Appeal Division Performance Results
Expected ResultsPerformance IndicatorsTargetsActual Results
Fair and focused proceedingsAverage score of cases measured against criteria for fair and focused proceedings on a 1-to-3 scale2.02.7
Decisions that are clear, complete and conciseAverage score of cases measured against criteria for quality decisions on a 1-to-3 scale2.03.0
Timely decisions renderedPercentage of appeals finalized compared to appeals filed80%97%

Performance Analysis and Lessons Learned

The Immigration Appeal program is a complex adversarial program comprised of adjudicative activities, managed by GIC decision-makers, and early resolution activities conducted by public servant early resolution officers (EROs).

Early resolution activities include the streaming by EROs of all IAD appeals. The main resolution streams include oral hearing processes, paper hearing processes and early informal resolution and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) conferences. EROs identify cases that are amenable to possible early resolution and are responsible for conducting ADR conferences, where appeals are often resolved without the necessity of a hearing before a decision maker.

In 2013–14, 5,600 appeals were finalized and over 500 stays were issued for a total of 6,100 appeals completed. A total of 400 appeals were resolved in ADR, a decrease of 22 percent compared with the previous reporting period.

In 2013–14, 5,800 appeals were filed at the IAD, which was slightly less than the 6,000 appeals forecast. The number of cases pending at the end of the reporting period, originally forecast to be approximately 11,400, was 11,900. Of these, 1,600 were stayed removal order appeals, leaving an actual inventory of about 10,300.

The IAD average decision maker complement was 27 decision-makers, a decrease of 4 percent compared with the previous fiscal year. The IAD full complement is 37 decision-makers. Despite the IAD's reduced decision-maker complement, it maintained a high completion rate of appeals. An increase in the average processing time (from 13.9 to 15.4 months) was seen in 2013–14 and is attributable to both the reduced decision-maker complement and the marked reduction of appeals being resolved through ADRs. At the end of 2013–14, the IRB started reallocating resources to ensure the timely resolution of immigration appeals and to lay the groundwork for addressing its inventory of unresolved IAD cases and the growing processing times.

The IAD used early resolution strategies to manage its appeal inventory throughout the reporting period. In addition, counsel for the Minister participated by way of written submissions in select hearing processes for certain types of appeals. IAD senior managers met with external stakeholder groups to identify new opportunities and work collaboratively toward effective program implementation, such as developing initiatives aimed at the early resolution of appeals and other process-related strategies to address inventory challenges.

The IAD met with CBSA senior managers in all regions to encourage the CBSA to return to normal resourcing levels so as to meet IAD program needs. Work undertaken with the CBSA on case management strategies continues, as always, to respect the adjudicative independence of IAD decision-makers.

Immigration Appeal Performance

Immigration Appeal Performance 

[Alternate format]

The image illustrates a graphic containing a bar chart representing the actual numbers of immigration appeals received by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) from 2010–11 to 2013–14.

  • The Y axis (vertical) represents the appeals in increments of 2,000 ranging from 0 to 14,000.
  • The X axis (horizontal) represents four fiscal years from 2010–11 to 2013–14

Each fiscal year consists of three columns:

  • the first represents the number of appeals filed;
  • the second represents the number of appeals finalized; and
  • the third represents the number of appeals pending.

Appeals that were finalized fall into the following four categories:

Stayed
Allowed
Withdrawn/Abandoned
Dismissed

Appeals waiting are broken down into the following time periods:

0-6 months
7-12 months
13-24 months
more than 2 years

The following are the numbers by fiscal year (Note: The totals may not be exactly 100% due to rounding):

For the fiscal year 2010–11, 7,600 appeals were filed, 7,100 appeals were finalized, 600 appeals were stayed and 11,400 were waiting.

Finalized appeals are broken down into the following percentages: 35% were allowed, 32% were withdrawn/abandoned and 33% were dismissed.

Appeals waiting are broken down into the following percentages: 33% for 0 to 6 months, 25% for 7 to 12 months, 26% for 13 to 24 months and 16% for more than 2 years.

For the fiscal year 2011–12, 6,700 appeals were filed, 6,700 appeals were finalized, 660 appeals were stayed and 11,400 were waiting.

Finalized appeals are broken down into the following percentages: 34% were allowed, 31% were withdrawn/abandoned and 34% were dismissed.

Appeals waiting are broken down into the following percentages: 26% for 0 to 6 months, 25% for 7 to 12 months, 29% for 13 to 24 months and 20% for more than 2 years.

For the fiscal year 2012–13, 6,200 appeals were filed, 5,900 appeals were finalized, 600 appeals were stayed and 11,800 were waiting.

Finalized appeals are broken down into the following percentages: 34% were allowed, 30% were withdrawn/abandoned and 36% were dismissed.

Appeals waiting are broken down into the following percentages: 26% for 0 to 6 months, 23% for 7 to 12 months, 28% for 13 to 24 months and 23% for more than 2 years.

For the fiscal year 2013–14, 5,800 appeals were filed, 5,600 appeals were finalized, 500 appeals were stayed and 11,900 were waiting.

Finalized appeals are broken down into the following percentages: 32% were allowed, 33% were withdrawn/abandoned and 35% were dismissed.

Appeals waiting are broken down into the following percentages: 26% for 0 to 6 months, 19% for 7 to 12 months, 28% for 13 to 24 months and 27% for more than 2 years.

Internal Services

Description

Internal Services are groups of related activities and resources that are administered to support the needs of programs and other corporate obligations of an organization. These groups are: Management and Oversight Services; Communications Services; Legal Services; Human Resources Management Services; Financial Management Services; Information Management Services; Information Technology Services; Real Property Services; Materiel Services; Acquisition Services; and Other Administrative Services. Internal Services include only those activities and resources that apply across an organization and not to those provided specifically to a program.

2013–14 Highlights

  • Implementation planning for the transfer of the PRRA continued
  • Common HR business process fully implemented
  • New organizational structure implemented in financial system
  • Financial processes harmonized
  • Began planning for the Government of Canada Workplace 2.0 Fit-up Standards

Budgetary Financial Resources (dollars)

Internal Services Budgetary Financial Resources
2013–14
Main Estimates		2013–14
Planned Spending		2013–14
Total Authorities Available for Use		2013–14
Actual Spending (authorities used)		2013–14
Difference (actual minus planned)
29,581,33329,581,33334,797,51333,769,989(1,027,524)

Human Resources (FTEs)

Internal Services Human Resources
2013–14 Planned2013–14 Actual2013–14 Difference (actual minus planned)
245225(20)

Performance Analysis and Lessons Learned

Management and oversight. The Policy, Planning and Research Branch (PPRB) was created to promote synergy and efficiencies among the various IRB programs, divisions and resources. By integrating strategic planning and analysis, the PPRB was able to respond to immigration and refugee trends and emerging issues and to continuously realign its program policies, case management and research to support fair and efficient decision making. To manage IRB performance, the PPRB planned and executed targeted evaluations and system improvements that measured quantitative and qualitative results. It also worked with central agencies and portfolio organizations to develop immigration and refugee legislative and regulatory policies and processes as well as to fulfill oversight requirements in a manner that respects the IRB's institutional independence. The PPRB continued its lean transformation initiatives that have resulted in detailed value stream maps as well as ongoing improvement activities in the IRB's divisions and regional operations.

Communications. During 2013–14, the IRB engaged with key partners, national and international stakeholders and the public to raise awareness in external audiences regarding operational changes to the refugee determination system resulting from the CIF of the BRRA and the PCISA. This was achieved through its strategic communications and media relations activities and through a number of outreach and stakeholder relations initiatives within Canada and abroad, including two meetings of the Chairperson's Consultative Committee on Practices and Procedures. As well, the IRB continued to maintain a strong relationship with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees both in Canada and at its headquarters in Geneva to share information and best practices.

Legal. Legal Services provided support and guidance to all divisions, including training and support to newly appointed decision-makers and decision-makers transitioning from one division to another. Legal Services provided enhanced monitoring of IRB decisions that are reviewed by the courts to support quality decision-making. Legal Services continued to provide guidance and advice on all corporate matters, including HR, procurement, governance and issues related to the implementation of reform. In addition, Legal Services provided legal support in relation to complex cases involving classified information related to national security or criminal intelligence.

Human resources management. In 2013–14, the focus for the IRB's HR team continued to be to ensure that the IRB remained an adaptable, integrated and flexible organization. Particular attention was paid to the well-being of personnel over this period of workforce and workplace adjustments. In addition, HR ensured that appropriate support was provided to the four tribunal programs and that their learning and training needs were being met. In tandem, the ongoing demand for HR services in the new organization was monitored; service gaps were identified and HR service modernization initiatives were implemented in order to appropriately develop the service delivery model for HR services.

Financial management. During 2013–14, the IRB transitioned to a new financial system in accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) financial system standard. The new system came into effect on April 1, 2014, and the services are provided through an interorganizational service arrangement. This approach leverages existing infrastructure to realize economies of scale in back-office administration. The new system enabled the IRB to adopt TBS standardized business processes for its procurement of goods and services.

Information management. In 2013–14, the IRB continued to emphasize its alignment to the Government of Canada's new service model for the outsourcing of document storage and retrieval services. It established cost-recovered services from Library and Archives Canada for the disposition of information resources. The Board improved its information management (IM) program by completing several key and foundational projects identified in its IM Framework Action Plans. The IRB established an IM governance structure, completed a full inventory of its information repositories, identified its Information Resources of Business Value (IRBV) and established a risk profile for the protection of these IRBVs. The Board researched options for the introduction of an electronic document repository, which resulted in a GCDOCS End State Report and an implementation options report.

Information technology. The IRB worked closely with its business team, CIC and the CBSA to gather and document information technology (IT) requirements in support of the new legislation. A project management plan that included an implementation schedule was agreed upon by all parties. Maintenance release of the NOVA applications was completed to address business priorities. With CIC partners, the Board prepared for the decommissioning of the Field Operations Support System. The IRB worked closely with Shared Services Canada regarding the Email Transformation Initiative (ETI) and created a detailed project plan. The IRB was proactive in developing a communications strategy and materials in preparation for the ETI migration.

Procurement and assets management. In 2013–14, new contracting reporting requirements were implemented in accordance with TBS directives. The IRB strengthened its governance process with increased oversight by its Contract Review Committee. Procurement and contracting processes were standardized across the organization through improvements to the financial system; a procurement and contracting module was introduced, which improved segregation of duties and information retrieval.

Accommodations. In 2013–14, the IRB began the implementation of the Government of Canada Workplace 2.0 Fit-up Standards as prescribed in Budget 2012, at its head office in Ottawa. This new standard will enable the IRB to achieve 20 percent savings in head office space by the completion of the project in the spring of 2015. This will result in long-term savings in accommodation costs for the Government of Canada.

Section III: Supplementary Information

Financial Statements Highlights

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Condensed Statement of Operations and Organizational Net Financial Position
For the year ending March 31, 2014 (dollars)

Condensed Statement of Operations and Organizational Net Financial Position
2013–14
Planned Results		2013–14
Actual		2012–13
Actual		Difference
(2013–14 actual
minus
2013–14 planned)		Difference
(2013–14 actual
minus
2012–13 actual)
Total expenses151,356,000144,961,000153,858,000(6,395,000)(8,897,000)
Total revenues00000
Net cost of operations before government funding and transfers151,356,000144,961,000153,858,000(6,395,000)(8,897,000)
Organizational net financial position1,156,0005,803,0006,425,0004,647,000(622,000)

The decrease in total expenses in 2013–14 is primarily due to the end of temporary funding to implement the new refugee determination system.

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Condensed Statement of Financial Position
As at March 31, 2014 (dollars)

Condensed Statement of Financial Position
2013–142012–13Difference
(2013–14
minus
2012–13)
Total net liabilities14,453,00024,442,000(9,989,000)
Total net financial assets5,157,00011,895,000(6,738,000)
Organizational net debt 9,296,00012,547,000(3,251,000)
Total non-financial assets15,099,00018,972,000(3,873,000)
Organizational net financial position5,803,0006,425,000(622,000)

The decrease in total non-financial assets is due to the amortization of operational systems.

Financial Statements

The financial statements can be found on the IRB's Web site.

Supplementary Information Tables

The supplementary information tables provided in the 2013–14 Performance Report can be found on the IRB's website.

  • Organizational Sustainable Development Strategy
  • Internal Audits and Evaluation

Tax Expenditures and Evaluations

The tax system can be used to achieve public policy objectives through the application of special measures such as low tax rates, exemptions, deductions, deferrals and credits. The Department of Finance Canada publishes cost estimates and projections for these measures annually in the Tax Expenditures and Evaluations publication. The tax measures presented in the Tax Expenditures and Evaluations publication are the sole responsibility of the Minister of Finance.

Section IV: Organizational Contact Information

For more information, visit the IRB website, or contact the IRB through either the Contact Us webpage or at the address indicated below.

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Minto Place—Canada Building
344 Slater Street, 12th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K1

Appendix: Definitions

appropriation: Any authority of Parliament to pay money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

budgetary expenditures: Include operating and capital expenditures; transfer payments to other levels of government, organizations or individuals; and payments to Crown corporations.

Departmental Performance Report: Reports on an appropriated organization's actual accomplishments against the plans, priorities and expected results set out in the corresponding Reports on Plans and Priorities. These reports are tabled in Parliament in the fall.

full-time equivalent: Is a measure of the extent to which an employee represents a full person-year charge against a departmental budget. Full-time equivalents are calculated as a ratio of assigned hours of work to scheduled hours of work. Scheduled hours of work are set out in collective agreements.

Government of Canada outcomes: A set of 16 high-level objectives defined for the government as a whole, grouped in four spending areas: economic affairs, social affairs, international affairs and government affairs.

Management, Resources and Results Structure: A comprehensive framework that consists of an organization's inventory of programs, resources, results, performance indicators and governance information. Programs and results are depicted in their hierarchical relationship to each other and to the Strategic Outcome(s) to which they contribute. The Management, Resources and Results Structure is developed from the Program Alignment Architecture.

non-budgetary expenditures: Include net outlays and receipts related to loans, investments and advances, which change the composition of the financial assets of the Government of Canada.

performance: What an organization did with its resources to achieve its results, how well those results compare to what the organization intended to achieve and how well lessons learned have been identified.

performance indicator: A qualitative or quantitative means of measuring an output or outcome, with the intention of gauging the performance of an organization, program, policy or initiative respecting expected results.

performance reporting: The process of communicating evidence-based performance information. Performance reporting supports decision making, accountability and transparency.

planned spending: For Reports on Plans and Priorities (RPPs) and Departmental Performance Reports (DPRs), planned spending refers to those amounts that receive Treasury Board approval by February 1. Therefore, planned spending may include amounts incremental to planned expenditures presented in the Main Estimates.
A department is expected to be aware of the authorities that it has sought and received. The determination of planned spending is a departmental responsibility, and departments must be able to defend the expenditure and accrual numbers presented in their RPPs and DPRs.

plans: The articulation of strategic choices, which provides information on how an organization intends to achieve its priorities and associated results. Generally a plan will explain the logic behind the strategies chosen and tend to focus on actions that lead up to the expected result.

priorities: Plans or projects that an organization has chosen to focus and report on during the planning period. Priorities represent the things that are most important or what must be done first to support the achievement of the desired Strategic Outcome(s).

program: A group of related resource inputs and activities that are managed to meet specific needs and to achieve intended results and that are treated as a budgetary unit.

results: An external consequence attributed, in part, to an organization, policy, program or initiative. Results are not within the control of a single organization, policy, program or initiative; instead they are within the area of the organization's influence.

Program Alignment Architecture: A structured inventory of an organization's programs depicting the hierarchical relationship between programs and the Strategic Outcome(s) to which they contribute.

Report on Plans and Priorities: Provides information on the plans and expected performance of appropriated organizations over a three-year period. These reports are tabled in Parliament each spring.

Strategic Outcome: A long-term and enduring benefit to Canadians that is linked to the organization's mandate, vision and core functions.

sunset program: A time-limited program that does not have an ongoing funding and policy authority. When the program is set to expire, a decision must be made whether to continue the program. In the case of a renewal, the decision specifies the scope, funding level and duration.

target: A measurable performance or success level that an organization, program or initiative plans to achieve within a specified time period. Targets can be either quantitative or qualitative.

whole-of-government framework: Maps the financial contributions of federal organizations receiving appropriations by aligning their Programs to a set of 16 government-wide, high-level outcome areas, grouped under four spending areas.