Transition Binder for the IRB Chairperson – July 2023

Table of contents

1. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
1. IRB Overview
2. IRB Regions, Office Locations
3. Tribunal Independence
4. The IRB and Canada’s Immigration and Asylum System
2. Organizational Structure and Biographies
1. Senior Leader Biographies
2. IRB Organizational Structure
3. IRB Executive Governance
4. Key External Meetings
3. Financial and Human Resources
1. Funding Profile 2017-18 to 2025-26
2. HR Growth Strategy
4. Operating Context and IRB’s Growth and Transformation Agenda
1. Growth and Transformation Placemat
2. Quality Agenda and the Quality Assurance Framework for Decision-Making
3. IRB Budget and Impact on Refugee Claim Inventory and Wait Times
4. Refugee Continuum Over the Years Placemat
5. Operational Plans and Storyboards by Division
1. Refugee Protection Division (RPD)
1. 2022-23 Year-end Storyboard
2. 2023-24 Operational Plans
2. Refugee Appeal Division (RAD)
1. 2022-23 Year-end Storyboard
2. 2023-24 Operational Plans
3. Immigration Division (ID)
1. 2022-23 Year-end Storyboard
2. 2023-24 Operational Plans
4. Immigration Appeal Division (IAD)
1. 2022-23 Year-end Storyboard
2. 2023-24 Operational Plans
6. Inventory Analysis as of March 31, 2023
1. Refugee Protection Division (RPD)
2. Refugee Appeal Division (RAD)
3. Immigration Division (ID)
4. Immigration Appeal Division (IAD)
7. Stakeholders
1. IRB Consultative Committee Overview
2. Summary of May 2023 IRBCC Meeting
8. Key Issues Requiring Early Engagement
1. Budget 2024 – Impact on IRB Funding
2. Appointment and Reappointment of GIC Members
3. Financial Stability Review
4. Central Region Office Move (25 St. Clair)
9. Notes
   

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)

IRB Overview

Key Messages

• The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) is Canada’s largest administrative tribunal.
• The IRB reports to Parliament through the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.
• The IRB’s mission is to resolve immigration and refugee cases efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law.
• The IRB has four divisions: the Refugee Protection Division, the Refugee Appeal Division, the Immigration Division, and the Immigration Appeal Division.
• Decision-makers at the Refugee Protection Division and the Immigration Division are appointed to their position according to the Public Service Employment Act, while decision-makers at the Refugee Appeal Division and the Immigration Appeal Division are Governor-in-Council (GIC) appointees.
• The IRB also has employees reporting to its Executive Director who deliver a range of strategic, corporate and operational services to the IRB’s senior leadership and decision-makers.

Overview

• Created by an Act of Parliament in 1989, the IRB is Canada’s largest administrative tribunal. Like every administrative tribunal, the IRB must exercise its decision-making authority independently, in a manner that is fair, transparent, efficient, and in accordance with the rules of natural justice. The primary statutory framework governing the IRB and defining the basic features of its organizational structure is the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which became law in 2002 and was substantively reformed in 2012.
• The IRB’s mission, on behalf of Canadians, is to resolve immigration and refugee cases efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law. The IRB reports to Parliament through the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and contributes directly to Canada’s humanitarian traditions, the security of Canada and the quality of life of Canadians, as well as to the fulfillment of international obligations. It consists of four tribunals, known as “divisions”:
• Refugee Protection Division (RPD) makes determinations of whether a claimant meets the definition of a refugee under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention (i.e. due to a fear of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion) or a person in need of protection (i.e. because they face torture, a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment) under the IRPA. The RPD also hears applications for cessation or vacation of refugee protection. A person may cease to hold their refugee status if they are found to have re-availed themselves of the protection of their country of nationality or have obtained protection from another country. A person can have their refugee status vacated if they obtained their status by means of misrepresentation or withholding material facts. In either of these situations, the Minister^{Note 1} can make an application which, if allowed by the RPD, will result in the protected person losing their refugee protection.
• Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) considers appeals against decisions of the RPD to allow or reject claims for refugee protection. In most cases, there will be no hearing as the RAD will base its decision on the documents provided by the parties involved and the RPD record. The RAD decides whether to confirm or to substitute its own decision in place of the RPD’s decision. It may also decide to send the case back to the RPD to hear it again, giving directions to the RPD that it considers appropriate. In addition, the RAD has an important role in clarifying matters of refugee law and shaping refugee decision-making at both the RPD and RAD by advancing its adjudicative role and the strategic development of coherent and consistent jurisprudence.
• Immigration Division (ID) conducts hearings on immigration-related matters. These include:
• Admissibility hearings: Where the Minister believes that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible to or removable from Canada, the matter may be referred to the ID for an admissibility hearing. Grounds for inadmissibility include for example security; human rights or international violations; criminality; and misrepresentation. Where a finding of inadmissibility is made, the ID will issue a removal order against the person concerned.
• Detention reviews: The Division conducts detention reviews of foreign nationals or permanent residents detained by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) under the IRPA. The CBSA has the authority to detain foreign nationals and permanent residents for a number of reasons, including in situations where the Agency believes the individual is inadmissible to Canada; is a danger to the public; is unlikely to appear for immigration processes; or in cases where a foreign national is unable to establish their identity. Detention review hearings are required by law to be held at regular intervals beginning at 48 hours of detention or as soon as possible afterwards, with subsequent reviews being held after 7 days and then after every 30 days for as long as the person remains detained. The law requires the ID to order the release of a detainee unless one of the prescribed grounds for detention is met. Grounds for detention include danger to the public; unlikely to appear for an examination, a hearing or removal; inadmissibility for security reasons; serious criminality, criminality, organized criminality or violating human or international rights; or non-establishment of identity. At a detention review, the onus is always on the Minister’s counsel to demonstrate that there are reasons which warrant detention in consideration of all circumstances of the case.
• Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) hears appeals on immigration-related matters. These include:
• Sponsorship appeals: If Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has refused the application of a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident to sponsor the immigration of a close family member to Canada, the sponsor may appeal to the IAD. Sponsorship appeals represent the majority of the Division’s workload.
• Removal order appeals: A removal order issued by the ID or by the CBSA against a permanent resident of Canada, protected person or holder of a permanent resident visa may be appealed to the IAD. For example, if a permanent resident was found to have committed a serious crime or for having committed misrepresentation, the person concerned may, with certain exceptions, file an appeal to be allowed to stay in Canada and maintain their permanent residence status.
• Ministerial appeals: The Minister may file an appeal to the IAD to challenge an ID decision at an admissibility hearing in favour of the person concerned.
• Residency obligation appeals: The law requires permanent residents to be physically present in Canada for at least 730 days out of every five years. If a permanent resident is outside Canada and a visa officer with IRCC finds that they have not met this residency obligation, the person may lose permanent resident status. The permanent resident may appeal the decision to the IAD.
• In addition to its four Divisions, the IRB also has employees reporting to its Executive Director who deliver a range of strategic, corporate and operational services to the Board’s senior leadership and decision-makers. These support functions include:
• Adjudicative Support which consists primarily of professional support to decision-making (e.g., management of correspondence, scheduling of cases, triage, file preparation, research, case management, management of interpretation services and of designated representatives, and analytics around operational performance). It also consists of professional advice and support in relation to the development of the Board’s adjudicative and operational policies.
• Corporate Support which consists of functions required to support the management of the Board through corporate, strategic, and administrative activities and services (e.g., planning and reporting, evaluation, finance, policy development, information technology, accommodations, security, human resources, access to information and privacy, partner and stakeholder engagement, and communications).
• Geographically, IRB operations are managed across three regions: Western, Central and Eastern. The IRB has offices in five cities: Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, with itinerant sites in Edmonton and Winnipeg. The IRB’s National Headquarters are in Ottawa.
• Though the IRB has offices in each region, the Refugee Appeal Division uses a national model for assigning and processing files. The Refugee Protection Division also manages some of its inventory and scheduling of files on a national level rather than regionally, and will continue to expand on this practice to a full national model. Adjudicative support services and registry operations are also moving towards a national model.
• Please refer to the attached Tab 1.B showing IRB office locations and the employee complement in each office.

IRB Regions, Office Locations

Text version

Total Budget 2022-23

$300M*

Total full-time employees (FTEs):

2,505*
Full-time equivalent employee totals are based on permanent and temporary funding currently in place or planned.

Total adjudicative decision-makers (“members”)

580*
Current complement of adjudicative decision-makers

Ottawa
Headquarters

344 Slater St
427 Laurier Ave

• 580 FTEs*
• 45 members*

Regions†

Western	Central	Eastern
Areas of coverage: Yukon Northwest Territories British Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba	Areas of coverage: Ontario (except Ottawa and Kingston)	Areas of coverage: Nunavut Quebec Newfoundland New Brunswick Nova Scotia Prince Edward Island Kingston (Ontario) Ottawa (Ontario)
Vancouver Library Square 310 FTEs* 80 members* Calgary Harry Hays Building 40 FTEs* 25 members*	Toronto Refugee Protection Division, Refugee Appeal Division and Immigration Appeal Division 74 Victoria St Immigration Division 385 Rexdale Blvd 870 FTEs* 280 members*	Montreal 200 René Lévesque Blvd W 800 René Lévesque Blvd W 715 Peel St 705 FTEs* 150 members*

Notes:
* Numbers are approximate
† Although the IRB has offices in each region, the Refugee Appeal Division uses a national model for assigning and processing files. The Refugee Protection Division also manages some of its inventory and scheduling of files on a national level rather than regionally, and will continue to expand on this practice to a full national model. Adjudicative support services and registry operations are also moving towards a national model.

Tribunal Independence

Key Messages

• The IRB is characterized by both adjudicative independence and by a degree of institutional independence.
• The IRB reports to Parliament through the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

Background
The IRB as an Administrative Tribunal

• As an administrative tribunal, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB or the Board) is characterized by both (i) individual decision-maker (“adjudicative”) independence and (ii) a degree of institutional independence.
• Maintaining an appropriate degree of independence is important because it enhances public confidence in the institution where both the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness appear as parties, and allows the Ministers to stay at arms-length from the difficult and often sensitive decisions that are made by IRB decision-makers.
• With respect to the degree of independence required of any particular administrative tribunal, the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that it depends on many factors, including the rights that are at stake and whether the tribunal functions similarly to a court^{Note 2} . In this regard, the IRB has been found to have a high degree of independence, as it adjudicates important Charter-protected rights. The Federal Court of Appeal has stated that the IRB “is structured to operate as an administrative tribunal with as much independence from its sponsoring department as is ever found in the contemporary administrative justice system”^{Note 3} .

IRB Decision-makers

• Accordingly, IRB decision-makers are themselves independent in the exercise of their adjudicative functions. This means that no improper influence may be brought to bear upon their decision-making.

Institutional Independence

• With respect to the meaning and extent of institutional independence, it is important to note that the IRB does not report to the Minister but reports to Parliament through the Minister. Further, the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that institutional independence, in the context of courts, includes control over the assignment of judges, sittings of the court, and assignment of dockets/cases^{Note 4}. As an administrative tribunal at the higher end of the independence spectrum, it is likely that many of the elements of institutional independence set out by the Supreme Court of Canada apply to the IRB. This is reinforced by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which provides that the Chairperson apportions work among decision-makers of the Board and fixes the place, date, and time of proceedings. Therefore, the Chairperson has the authority to control the IRB’s docket, set priorities, and direct the case management of the Board in conformity with its mandate to resolve proceedings efficiently and fairly.
• At the same time, the IRB is part of the executive branch of government and does not enjoy the same level of institutional independence as, for example, a court. Indeed, while the IRB enjoys a degree of institutional independence beyond that of other “line departments”, the Minister is still ultimately accountable for the organization’s effective functioning and must answer questions in Parliament for all matters pertaining to it.

Ministerial Engagement

• In this context, where a tribunal enjoys a degree of independence and at the same time the Minister is ultimately accountable for its effective functioning, Open and Accountable Government^{Note 5} sets out examples of both appropriate and inappropriate communications and interventions by the Minister. Appropriate areas for the Minister to engage include:
• The exchange of views on matters of general relevance to both parties, such as management and budgeting, the IRB’s mandate and enabling legislation, the Minister’s responsibility to answer for the Board in Parliament, and portfolio coordination;
• Communication of the government’s broader agenda, and its possible impact on the IRB;
• Communication with the Board concerning the potential impact of proposed legislation or other initiatives; and
• Communication with the IRB concerning the effectiveness with which the current legislative framework supports the Board in delivering on its mandate.
• Conversely, based on the principles of independence set out above and to respect the integrity of the adjudicative processes, there are areas where the Minister, political staff, and departmental officials must not communicate with the IRB, including in regard to:
• Any specific cases currently before a decision-maker, except as permitted through the Minister’s counsel’s participation in an IRB proceeding (hearing or written submissions to a proceeding) or by way of a general update; and
• Requests made to schedule or postpone a specific hearing, except through a proper application made under the IRB Rules of the appropriate division.

Role of the Minister

• Lastly, in the absence of express statutory authority regarding the role of the Minister, there are areas where the boundaries are less clearly defined. One such area is in relation to any guidance from the Minister to the Board regarding government priorities and their relationship to broad scheduling priorities. In such circumstances, any such guidance should balance the Board’s role as being part of the executive branch, with the need to protect its institutional independence. Accordingly, any such guidance or statement of priorities from the Minister should be consistent with the legislative principles outlined in the enabling statute (IRPA); should be transparent and pursuant to agreed-upon protocols and/or governance structures;^{Note 6} and be informed by the Board’s operational realities.
• In short, supporting and advancing the Minister’s accountability to Parliament for the proper functioning of the IRB requires careful consideration in order to protect the IRB’s adjudicative and institutional independence.

The IRB and Canada's Immigration and Asylum System

Key Messages

• The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) are each responsible for different stages of the immigration and asylum continuum.
• The IRB, Canada's largest independent administrative tribunal, is responsible for making well-reasoned decisions on immigration and refugee matters, efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law.

Background

• Canada has a managed migration model with formal pathways to permanent residence and annual admissions targets to achieve a pace and mix of immigration that will best contribute to economic and social well-being. People may be admitted as temporary (visitors, students, temporary foreign workers) or permanent residents (economic immigrants, family class, refugees, and protected persons).
• The Government of Canada sets targets for permanent resident admissions through a multi-year levels plan. This plan includes projections for refugees and protected persons; however, asylum intake is unplanned, and Canada has an obligation under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention) to process every claim it receives.
• The enabling legislation for immigration and the asylum system is the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA or the Act) – (2002) and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR). These enable immigration to Canada, refugee protection, and enforcement activities. Except as otherwise provided in the legislation, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is responsible for the administration of the IRPA. The Minister of Public Safety is responsible for the administration of the enforcement provisions of the Act. The Act provides the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) with jurisdiction to hear and decide cases on immigration and refugee matters.

Immigration and Asylum Portfolio Organizations

• The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) is responsible for carrying out enforcement functions related to immigration and refugee matters. These include detention, removals, investigations, security screening, and intelligence and immigration control functions in Canada, at ports of entry and overseas. The CBSA is an Agency in the portfolio of the Minister for Public Safety. CBSA also determines the eligibility of all refugee protection claims made at a port of entry and refers eligible claims to the IRB for a decision. In certain instances, the Minister (via Minister’s counsel) can be a party to proceedings before the IRB.
• Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has the overall responsibility for immigration and refugee matters. It is responsible for selecting immigrants, issuing visitors' visas, and granting citizenship. IRCC also determines the eligibility of refugee protection claims made inside Canada and refers eligible claims to the IRB for a decision. In certain instances, the Minister (via Minister’s counsel) can be a party to proceedings before the IRB.
• The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) is Canada's largest independent administrative tribunal. It is responsible for making well-reasoned decisions on immigration and refugee matters, efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law. The IRB decides, among other responsibilities, who needs refugee protection among the thousands of claimants who come to Canada annually and those already in Canada. The IRB reports to Parliament through the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, but the IRB remains independent from IRCC and the Minister.
• The Federal Court is responsible for deciding applications for leave and judicial review of decisions made by the IRB, IRCC, and CBSA.

How the IRB Fits into the Immigration System

1. Canada's immigration law permits the CBSA to detain permanent residents and foreign nationals under certain conditions. Officers must consider all reasonable alternatives before making the decision to detain an individual. The Immigration Division (ID) of the IRB is responsible for reviewing detention at certain intervals as set out in IRPA.
2. IRCC or the CBSA refers foreign nationals or permanent residents to the ID for an admissibility hearing if that person is believed to be inadmissible to Canada under the law. There are several reasons someone can be found inadmissible, such as for human or international rights violations, for participating in organized criminality, or for misrepresentation.
3. The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the IRB is responsible for hearing appeals of certain admissibility decisions. If the ID finds that a person is not inadmissible to Canada, the CBSA may appeal the decision to the IAD.
   Permanent residents, protected persons, and holders of permanent resident visas may also appeal removal orders made against them to the IAD.
4. The IAD also hears appeals of family class sponsorship applications refused by IRCC officials and appeals by permanent residents who have been found by an IRCC official outside of Canada not to have fulfilled their residency obligation.

How the IRB Fits into the Asylum System

• The Canadian refugee system has two main parts:
• the Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program, for people who need protection from outside Canada, and
• the In-Canada Asylum Program for people making refugee protection claims from within Canada or at a port of entry.
• The IRB has a significant role to play in the In-Canada Asylum Program.

1. People make asylum claims at a port of entry or in-land in Canada. Eligibility is determined by the CBSA or IRCC. A person may be found not eligible based on:
• Criminality and security concerns;
• Entering from the United States (Safe Third Country Agreement);
• Previous protection claims in Canada;
• Protection claims in another country;
• Having received protection from another country.
2. Eligible claims are referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). The RPD rejects or accepts the claim for refugee protection in keeping with the Refugee Convention, as implemented through the IRPA.
3. Successful claimants become protected persons and may apply for permanent resident status and eventually citizenship.
4. If unsuccessful at the RPD, the claimant may, in most cases, appeal the decision to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) of the IRB. If the IRPA prohibits an appeal to the RAD, the claimant may make an application to the Federal Court for leave and judicial review of the RPD decision. The Minister may also appeal an RPD decision to the RAD or to the Federal Court.
5. If unsuccessful at the RAD, the claimant may make an application to the Federal Court for leave and judicial review of the RAD decision.
6. Failed claimants who have exhausted all recourse avenues available to them have 30 days to voluntarily depart Canada or are removed by the CBSA as soon as possible. Some individuals may be eligible to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) before removal. A PRRA allows IRCC to assess whether a person would face danger of torture, risk of persecution, or risk to their life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Organizational Structure and Biographies

Senior Leader Biographies

 

Roger Ermuth - Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer

Roger started with the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada in October 2021. Prior to his appointment, Roger was an Assistant Comptroller General with the Office of the Comptroller General where he had responsibility for public accounts, community development and government-wide policy related to financial management, transfer payments, costing, and charging.

Roger has held a number of positions across the federal public service, including Vice President, Health Security and Infrastructure at the Public Health Agency of Canada and Deputy Chief Financial Officer at Correctional Services Canada. He has also worked at the Privy Council Office, Indian and Northern Affairs, Agriculture Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency.

In recognition of his contributions to the accounting profession, he was admitted as a Fellow of Chartered Professional Accounts (FCPA-FCMA). Roger also has an MBA from the University of Ottawa, a graduate certificate from Harvard University and a BComm from Carleton University. Prior to joining the government, he worked for PricewaterhouseCoopers. Roger was also a Moderator with the legacy CMA (accounting) program and part time instructor at the University of Ottawa’s MBA program.

 

Roula Eatrides - Deputy Chairperson of the Refugee Protection Division

Roula Eatrides was appointed Deputy Chairperson of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in September 2019. Ms. Eatrides joined the IRB in 2018 as Deputy Chairperson of the Immigration Division (ID). Previously, she was the Deputy Superintendent for Operations and Corporate Services at the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. Ms. Eatrides has also served as Executive Director and General Counsel at the Federal Court and as Registrar of the Tax Court of Canada. Prior to joining the Public Service, Ms. Eatrides practiced law at Osler and Stikeman Elliott and was a part-time professor at the University of Ottawa's Common Law Program for several years.

Ms. Eatrides is a member of the Ontario Bar and holds an undergraduate degree in Economics, a Bachelor of Laws Degree and a Master’s Degree in Business Administration.

 

Suzanne Gilbert - Deputy Chairperson of the Immigration Appeal Division

Suzanne Gilbert was appointed Deputy Chairperson of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) in April 2019. Prior to this appointment she held the position of Assistant Deputy Chair (ADC) of the IAD Central Region. From 2006 to 2016, Ms. Gilbert held a number of positions, including Chair and Associate Chair for the Social Justice Tribunals Ontario with the Child and Family Services Review Board and Custody Review Board. Prior to that appointment, she worked in a number of positions at the IRB in Montreal and Toronto, including Assistant Deputy Chairperson of the Refugee Protection Division in Toronto.

Ms. Gilbert holds a Master's Degree in Health Law from the Université de Sherbrooke.

 

Paula Thompson - Deputy Chairperson of the Refugee Appeal Division

Paula Thompson was appointed as the Deputy Chairperson of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) in April 2019. Ms. Thompson has also served as Assistant Deputy Chairperson at the RAD. Previously, as IRB Chief of Staff, she provided strategic leadership and policy advice to a number of former IRB Chairpersons. Ms. Thompson has extensive experience in refugee law and adjudication and has held a number of executive positions within the IRB. Paula has also worked with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Bosnia-Hercegovina, Romania and Ukraine.

Ms. Thompson has a Master of Laws degree in International Human Rights Law from the University of Essex in the United Kingdom. An expert in minority rights in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Paula has also studied at the University of Vienna and Carleton University. She is a recipient of the Public Service Award of Excellence.

 

Greg Kipling - Deputy Chairperson of the Immigration Division

Greg Kipling was appointed Deputy Chairperson of the Immigration Division (ID) in October 2019. Prior to this appointment he was Director General for Policy, Planning Corporate Affairs at the IRB. Between 1999 and 2016 Mr. Kipling served in a number of progressively senior positions at the Board, including Director of Research, Chief of Staff to the Chairperson and Director General for Policy, Planning and Research. Prior to joining the IRB, Mr. Kipling worked as a consultant in the field of Indigenous health and human rights as well as a researcher and writer on social issues.

Mr. Kipling holds Bachelor of Arts degrees from the University of Toronto and Carleton University as well as a Master of Arts degree from Carleton University.

 

Julie Wellington - Senior General Counsel

Julie Wellington was appointed Senior General Counsel of the IRB Legal Services in May 2021. Previously, Ms. Wellington served as Director and General Counsel at Justice Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Legal Services, where her main client was the Canadian Coast Guard. Prior to that, she spent almost 20 years in the Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section at Justice Canada, where she practiced mainly in administrative law and constitutional law. In addition to her practice, she was an instructor for a number of professional development courses, including the Basic Principles of Administrative Law, Liability of the Crown, Crown Immunity and Solicitor-Client Privilege in the Government Context. She held several senior roles, including Deputy Director General and General Counsel and Acting Director General and Senior General Counsel. She began her career at Justice Canada in the Competition Law Division, providing advisory and litigation services.

Ms. Wellington is a member of the Law Society of Ontario and holds a Bachelor of Commerce (B. Comm) and a Bachelor of Laws Degree (L.L.B) from the University of Ottawa.

 

Raymond Kunze - Ombudsperson

Raymond Kunze was appointed as the IRB’s first Ombudsperson in October 2020. Previously, Mr. Kunze served as Chief Audit Executive at Global Affairs Canada (2019-2020), Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (2015-2019) and Infrastructure Canada (2012-2015). At the latter two departments, he also served as the Senior Officer responsible for internal disclosures. Prior to this, he held a variety of positions, including Director, Performance Audits at the Office of the Auditor General of Canada from 1998 to 2012.

Mr. Kunze holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Economics and a Master’s Degree in Natural Resource Management from the University of Manitoba. He is a Certified Internal Auditor and a Certified Leadership Coach.

IRB Organizational Structure

Text version

IRB Chairperson

Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer - Roger Ermuth

• Chief Innovation and Technology Officer – Irwin Bess
• Director General, Human Resources – Kevin Whitehouse
• Deputy Chief Financial Officer – Paul Mokha
• Director General, Strategic Directions and Corporate Affairs – Heather Primeau
• Director General, Operations and Regional Services – Christian Laverdure
• Director, Regional Operations (Eastern) – Daniel Sobczak
• Director, Regional Operations (Western) – Stephanie Strong
• Director, Regional Operations (Central) – Neil Willard

Chief of Staff - Evan Travers

Senior General Counsel – Julie Wellington

• General Counsel and Manager (Eastern) – François Guilbault
  
• General Counsel and Manager (Western) – Ward Bansley
  
• General Counsel and Manager (Central) – James Ward
  
• General Counsel and Manager (Corporate Legal Services) – Emma Markowitz
  

Deputy Chairperson, Refugee Protection Division (RPD) – Roula Eatrides

• Assistant Deputy Chairperson, RPD (Eastern) – John Szekula
• Assistant Deputy Chairperson, RPD (Western) – Karin Michnick
• Assistant Deputy Chairperson, RPD (Central) – Catherine Smith
• Assistant Deputy Chairperson, RPD (Quality Center) – Negar Azmudeh
• Assistant Deputy Chairperson, RPD (Taskforce on Less Complex Claims and Gender Related) – John Hutchings

Deputy Chairperson, Immigration Division (ID) – Greg Kipling

• Assistant Deputy Chairperson, ID (Eastern) – Isabelle Germain
• Assistant Deputy Chairperson, ID (Western) – Alice Tang
• Assistant Deputy Chairperson, ID (Central) – Heather Gibbs

Deputy Chairperson, Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) – Suzanne Gilbert

• Assistant Deputy Chairperson, IAD (Eastern) – Caroline Labranche
• Assistant Deputy Chairperson, IAD (Western) – Linda Taylor
• Assistant Deputy Chairperson, IAD (Central) – Tsering Sergong

Deputy Chairperson, Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) – Paula Thompson

• Assistant Deputy Chairperson, RAD (Ottawa) – Laura Brittain
• Assistant Deputy Chairperson, RAD (Eastern) – Roxane Vachon
• Assistant Deputy Chairperson, RAD (Western) – Jody Brennan
• Assistant Deputy Chairperson, RAD (Central) – Angus Grant

Ombudsperson – Raymond Kunze

IRB Executive Governance

Text version

Current IRB Internal Governance

Tier 1 – Chairperson-Level Committees	Lookahead Overview of Weekly Divisional Performance, upcoming priorities, events and governance calendar Updates on: Cabinet business, media stories, audit and evaluations, Parliamentary/Comms, correspondence, ATIP, litigation chart and GIC member complement Chair: Chairperson IRB Membership: Direct Reports to the Chairperson, ED Sector DGs, Ombudsperson	Executive Management Board (EMB) Sets organizational priorities and objectives and provides overall strategic direction to the Board Chair: Chairperson IRB Membership: Direct Reports to the Chairperson (+ED Sector DGs as needed)	Adjudication and Operations Committee (AOC) Direction-setting regarding various adjudicative strategies, quality initiatives, and policy approaches Updates on operational performance and dashboards, including trends, challenges and issues Chair: Chairperson IRB Membership:Direct reports to the Chairperson, DG ORSB & DG SDCA	Audit, Evaluation and Performance Management Committee (AEPMC) Provides oversight and recommendations to the functions mandated by the TBS: Internal Audit, Evaluation, Performance Measurement and Integrated Risk Management Chair: Chairperson IRB Membership: Direct Reports to the Chairperson, SPAR Director (+ ED Sector DGs as needed)
Tier 2 – ED-Level Committee		Corporate Management Committee (CMC) Further discussion and consensus on human resources and corporate management matters Prioritization and strategic alignment of investments Ad-hoc senior committee for various needs, e.g., Return to Office Exceptions Chair: ED Membership: Direct reports to Chairperson, ED Sector DGs, Ombudsperson
Tier 3 – DG-Level Committees	Resourcing and Planning Committee (RPC) (pending implementation) Investment governance and oversight, resources allocation, procurement and accommodations Management Agenda, Human Resources and Sustainable Development Travel Oversight Chair: DG HRB & DCFO Membership: One EX or equivalent (non-DC) rep from each division; all HRB, FAB & SDCA Directors; RDOs; Legal Services	Digital Steering Committee (DSC) Strategic alignment and advancement of the Digital Strategy Chair: CITO Membership: All directors from CITO Branch; one EX or equivalent (non-DC) rep from each division (+ ED Sector EXs as needed)	DG Policy and Operations Committee (DGPOC) (pending implementation) Policy, Registry and Research Project Governance and Oversight Chair: DG SDCA & DG ORSB Membership: One ADC rep from each division; CITO; Sr. Directors PEPA and RRSS; Directors PMA, SPAR & Research; RDOs; Legal Services

Legend

• ---: Pending Implementation
• DCFO: Deputy Chief Financial Officer
• CITO: Chief Innovation and Technology Officer
• ADC: Assistant Deputy Chairperson
• RDO: Regional Director of Operations
• SPAR: Strategic Planning, Accounting and Reporting
• ORSB: Operational and Regional Services Branch
• SDCA: Strategic Directions and Corporate Affairs
• HRB: Human Resources Branch
• FAB: Finance and Administration Branch
• PEPA: Policy Engagement and Parliamentary Affairs
• RRSS: Registry and Regional Support Services
• PMA: Performance Measurement and Analytics

Key External Meetings

Key Messages

• The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB or the Board) participates in national and international conferences, committees, forums, and capacity-building initiatives every year.
• This participation ensures the IRB remains engaged with and responsive to its stakeholders and aware of developing issues, which in turn enriches IRB initiatives, policies, and operations.

Background

• Every year, the IRB participates in a variety of national and international meetings that serve as opportunities to stay informed on key issues related to the Board’s mandate, to communicate and exchange best practices with other participating states, international counterpart organizations and key actors involved in refugee and immigration matters, and to reinforce the IRB’s reputation as a recognized leader in immigration and refugee status determination.

National Conferences and Committees

• The IRB hosts the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s Consultative Committee (IRBCC). Meeting biannually, the IRBCC brings together stakeholders with specialized knowledge or expertise and IRB’s senior management (see Tab 7A for further details).
• In addition to hosting IRBCC, the IRB participates in national conferences hosted by the Board’s main stakeholder organizations. Typically, representatives from the Divisions and Legal Services attend, but the Chairperson has attended in the past to deliver keynote addresses. Some of these annual / national conferences are hosted by:
• Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l'immigration (AQAADI)
• Canadian Bar Association (CBA)
• Canadian Association for Refugee and Forced Migration Studies (CARFMS)
• Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL)
• The Council of Canadian Administrative Tribunals (CCAT)
• Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR)
• Legal Aid Ontario’s Refugee Law Office (RLO)
• Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC)
• The Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators (SOAR)
• The Law Society of Ontario (LSO)
• There are also regularly scheduled regional meetings that complement the national meetings. Regional meetings normally focus on local issues, such as the local impact of implementing national practices and procedures. IRB regional offices coordinate participation at these meetings.

Intenational Forums and Capacity-building

• Participation at international engagement meetings, activities, and conferences allows for the sharing of expertise and best practices between countries to support continuous improvement of worldwide asylum systems. Currently, the IRB provides assistance, alongside portfolio and international partners, to Mexico’s Refugee Assistance Commission (COMAR) on the framework of the Regional Capacity Building Initiative (RACBI). An expansion of the RACBI model is currently being considered to Panama.
• The Inter-Governmental Consultations on Migration, Asylum and Refugees forum (IGC) is an informal, non-decision-making forum for intergovernmental information exchange and policy debate on all issues of relevance to the management of international migratory flows. The IRB has traditionally attended the biennial IGC working groups focused on Asylum and Refugees, Country of Origin Information, and Technology, as well as the IGC’s Senior Officials meeting, twice per year.
• The International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges (IARMJ) is a voluntary association of judges and quasi-judicial decision makers seeking to foster an understanding of the obligations created by the United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees. The IRB has a longstanding working relationship with the IARMJ, including as part of the Executive Board of the Americas Chapter and through participation in capacity-building initiatives and conferences to deliver training to refugee status determination adjudicators in different parts of the world.
• Additionally, the UNHCR identifies countries where capacity building by the IRB could have a significant positive impact, such as through bilateral and multi-lateral arrangements in the Americas with national authorities and / or in collaboration with the UNHCR. For several years, the IRB has been engaged in capacity building initiatives such as the ones that follow:
• Regional Asylum Capacity-building Initiative, RACBI (Mexico). Since 2015, the Canadian and US governments, in collaboration with the UNHCR, have been funding and providing technical assistance to the Mexican government under RACBI to strengthen its asylum process and address mixed / irregular movements into the US and Canada.
• Administrative Migratory Tribunal, TAM (Costa Rica). In 2017, the Government of Costa Rica sought assistance from the IRB to support training of newly appointed Judges of the Administrative Migratory Tribunal (TAM). Over the years, the IRB has provided training in Costa Rica and welcomed TAM representatives on a study visit to Toronto. Both parties have also signed a Memorandum of Understanding to establish a protocol for information exchange and best practices related to the refugee appeal process as well as a staff exchange program. The IRB has become aware of potential and significant changes coming to the Costa Rican national asylum system. There is currently a reform initiative presented to congress proposing that the attributions of about a dozen administrative tribunals in Costa Rica are returned to the Executive Branch. In the case of TAM, if this proceeds, it would cease to exist, and the immigration and asylum appeals would return to the Ministry of Security. The TAM may or may not exist if this plan proceeds. Given this scenario, and once the IRB is officially informed of the outcome, there exists the possibility that the current MOU in place could become null.

Financial and Human Resources

Funding Profile 2017-18 to 2025-26

Key Messages

• Since 2018, the Government has made temporary investments of close to $600 million in the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (the IRB or the Board), to keep pace with growth in claim volumes.
• The Board doubled in size and budget between 2018 and 2021, significantly reducing the inventory of refugee claims and appeals and associated wait times. Before 2022, due to the temporary nature of the investments, 50% of the Board’s workforce was temporary in nature.
• In Budget 2022, the Government announced permanent funding of an additional $150 million per year, starting in 2023-24, bringing total permanent funding for the Board to $270 million annually. Among this permanent funding, $13 million is subject to a Treasury Board decision, which established frozen allocations pending demonstration of ongoing need to manage the Mexico visa exemption. The IRB has been informed that funds are currently unfrozen until March 31, 2025.
• This permanent funding has allowed the Board to continue to process up to 50,000 refugee claims annually and stabilize its work force, increasing its permanent complement to approximately 2,100 permanent full-time employees (FTE), while ensuring the stability and integrity of Canada’s asylum system.
• 2023-24 marks the first year of conversion from temporary to permanent funding of $150 million annually.
• In addition to this permanent funding growth, Budget 2022 announced a further, temporary top up investment of $87 million over two years that currently sunsets in 2024-25, which will allow the Board to hire over 300 temporary employees (including approximately 100 decision makers). This additional top-up funding is intended to help address the forecasted rise in asylum claims by funding the processing of up to 10,000 claims over a two-year period. In this light, the IRB plans to have approximately 2,368 FTEs in place by the end of Fiscal Year 2023-24, of which approximately 88% are permanently funded positions.
• █████████████████████████████████████████████████
  
• █████████████████████████████████████████████████

Background

• The IRB has seen significant growth over the last few years—the largest in the Board’s 30-year history. The growth in the IRB’s budget and employee complement is substantial, with the Board essentially doubling in size and budget between 2017-18 and 2020-21. This enabled the Board to more than double the number of decision makers at the Refugee Protection Division and Refugee Appeal Division and hire additional support staff so that the Board could process up to 50,000 refugee claims and 13,500 refugee appeals a year, significantly reducing the inventory of refugee claims and appeals and associated wait times from where they would otherwise be.
• Budgets 2018 ($74M) and 2019 ($208M) provided $282 million in temporary funding through 2020-21, with Budget 2020 providing an additional $300 million until the end of 2022-23 ($150M in fiscal year 2021-22 and 2022-23), representing the largest investment in the Board’s history.
• Through Budget 2022, the IRB and other government departments (such as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)) received the following funding:
• $1.3 billion over five years starting in 2022-23
• $331.2 million per year ongoing, to support increased capacity for Canada’s asylum system
• Budget 2022 made a significant commitment to the Board by permanently funding the previous temporary investment into the Board's salary and operating budget (i.e., ongoing funding of $150 million per year from fiscal year 2023-24). That permanent funding has allowed the IRB to stabilize its workforce and support the Board’s capacity to process up to 50,000 refugee claims and 13,500 refugee appeals a year.
• In addition, Budget 2022 announced a further, temporary, investment of $87.5 million over two years, for the purpose of hiring additional staff (over 300 FTEs, including 100 decision makers) to process an additional 10,000 refugee claims over a two-year period (2,500 in year 1 and 7,500 in year 2).
  

• █████████████████████████████████████████████████
• █████████████████████████████████████████████████
• █████████████████████████████████████████████████
• █████████████████████████████████████████████████
• █████████████████████████████████████████████████
• █████████████████████████████████████████████████
• █████████████████████████████████████████████████
• █████████████████████████████████████████████████
• █████████████████████████████████████████████████
• █████████████████████████████████████████████████

Footnotes:

• Actual authorities though 2021-22 as per Departmental Result Reports
• Actual authorities in 2022-23 as per Q4 Quarterly Financial Report
• Planned authorities for 2023-24 and following as per Departmental Plan 2023-24.

Text version

IRB funding profile (2017-26)

Program	Actuals Authorities						Planned Authorities
	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23	2023-24	2024-25	2025-26
A-Base	$133 M	$133 M	$136 M	$138 M	$138 M	$141 M	$270 M	$270 M	$270 M
Temporary Funding and reprofile	$5 M	$40 M	$94 M	$157 M	$158 M	$159 M	$38 M	$1 M	$-
Temporary Top-up	$-	$-	$-	$-	$-	$-	$24 M	$52 M	$-
Full Time Equivalent Base	1,057	1,245	1,577	1,778	2,028	2,169	2,090	2,090	2,090
Full Time Equivalent Top-up						2,169	2,368	2,431	2,090
Total Funding	$138 M	$173 M	$230 M	$295 M	$296 M	$300 M	$332 M	$323 M	$270 M
Variance from previous year (%)	-	25%	33%	28%	0%	1%	11%	-3%	-16%

Note: The above funding profile aligns with reprofile request of Budget 2022 Claim Processing Top-up.

Text version

IRB Full Time Equivalents Evolution

Program	Actuals Full Time Equivalents Utilization						Planned Full Time Equivalents
	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23	2023-24	2024-25	2025-26
Refugee Protection Decisions	488	621	778	882	1,094	1,174	1,260	1,263	1,035
Refugee Appeal Decisions	89	118	205	243	257	255	373	423	344
Immigration Appeal Decisions	128	127	126	113	102	114	165	166	163
Admissibility and Detention Decisions	78	83	86	89	104	99	138	140	134
Internal Services	273	296	382	451	471	527	432	439	414
Total Full Time Equivalents	1,056	1,245	1,577	1,778	2,028	2,169	2,368	2,431	2,090
Funding Profile ($)	138	173	230	295	296	300	332	323	270

* Full Time Equivalents's for Legal and Adjudicative support have been applied to the appropriate activity of Adjudication of immigration and refugee cases

HR Growth Strategy

Operating Context and IRB's Growth and Transformation Agenda

Growth and Transformation Placemat

Text version

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
IRB Growth and Transformation Agenda, May 2023

Growth

B2018-B2020:
$600M / 5 years to April 2023

B2022:
$150M ongoing + $87M flexible funding over 2 years

Transformation

Productivity

• Culture of performance and results
• Efficiency measures from intake to recourse
• Task Force on Less Complex Claims
• Innovation

Quality

• Quality Assurance Framework
• Chairperson’s Guidelines
• Gender-Related Task Force

Management

• System-wide approach
• Managing COVID: Respond, Recover, Re-imagine
• Digital Agenda
• Organizational Culture

Results

IRB: Doubling in Size

Budget

2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23
$138M	$173M	$230M	$295M	$296M	$300M

FTE

2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23
1,050	1,250	1,600	1,800	2,100	2,370

IRB: A Performing Organization

2018-2023

• Consistently met or exceeded performance commitments

	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21 (2020 Pandemic)	2021-22	2022-23
Commitment	32,000	40,700	47,826	55,000	55,600
Finalizations up to commitment	32,000	40,700	39,508	55,000	55,600
Finalizations above commitment	2,858	1,823		4,165	3,441

2020-2023

• 58% reduction in actionable inventory since the pandemic²
• Wait times for actionable cases:
• 14 months for new claims
• 4 months for new appeals

	Refugee claims and appeals actionable inventory
May-20	96,450
Jun-20	95,242
Jul-20	93,390
Aug-20	92,061
Sep-20	90,099
Oct-20	88,179
Nov-20	86,263
Dec-20	84,072
Jan-21	76,563
Feb-21	71,588
Mar-21	61,567
Apr-21	59,608
May-21	59,804
Jun-21	58,975
Jul-21	59,186
Aug-21	57,966
Sep-21	57,036
Oct-21	55,355
Nov-21	52,547
Dec-21	51,336
Jan-22	49,358
Feb-22	45,781
Mar-22	41,657
Apr-22	42,935
May-22	43,440
Jun-22	45,388
Jul-22	46,505
Aug-22	47,780
Sep-22	47,902
Oct-22	49,336
Nov-22	51,116
Dec-22	52,768
Jan-23	54,230
Feb-23	55,393
Mar-23	56,416
Apr-23	56,629
May-23	61,140

UNHCR identified Canada as 1 of only 4 countries that were able to significantly reduce backlogs of pending refugee cases in the first full year of the pandemic³.

IRB Quality Assurance Framework: an International Best Practice

• Plan Do Monitor and Measure Adjust

IRB's Digital Transformation

• 96% of hearings held remotely since January 2021
• Over 100,000 hearings held virtually
• 97% satisfaction rate in refugee claim post-hearing survey

Outcomes

• Improved Access to Justice and Public Confidence

¹Refugee claims and appeals.
²Refugee claims and appeals that are not pending upstream processes, as of May 31, 2023.
³UNHCR Global Trends Report 2021, published June 2022.

Quality Agenda and the Quality Assurance Framework for Decision-Making

Key Messages

• The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB or the Board) is committed to its strategic objective of enhanced quality and consistency in decision-making as part of its multi-year Growth and Transformation Agenda, which aims to improve access to justice and strengthen public confidence in Canada’s refugee and immigration determination system.
• The IRB published its Quality Assurance Framework for Decision-Making (QAF) in May 2021, after it was reviewed by an independent third party. That review identified the Framework as an international best practice. An updated version published in March 2023 includes all four divisions (the previous iteration focused on the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and Refugee Appeal Division (RAD)) and information about tools and resources for external parties appearing before the Board.
• The Framework provides an overview of the activities, processes, strategies, and structures that contribute to quality and consistent adjudicative decision-making across the IRB.
• The IRB maintains a sustained focus on quality and a commitment to a culture of continuous improvement. The Board uses the QAF as its guiding framework to identify elements which may be strengthened. On a yearly basis, a subset of these elements are identified as areas of focus, and over time, the entire framework is continuously improved and matured.

Background
The IRB's Quality Agenda

• The IRB is committed to maintaining its reputation for high quality and fair decisions. The Board's Quality Agenda, which is guided by its Quality Assurance Framework for Decision-Making, will continue to support and enhance the quality of and consistency in decision making.
• Over the past four years, as part of its Quality Agenda and articulated through its Departmental Plans and Departmental Results Reports, the Board has targeted the following priorities:
  • Training, professional development and mentorship for members, including the creation of the Member Learning Secretariat, expanding the RPD’s National Mentorship Program, and initiating a review of new member training across all divisions.
• Reviewing and strengthening adjudicative policy and support tools, including:
• Chairperson’s Guideline 2 related to Detention;
• Chairperson’s Guideline 3: Child Refugee Claimants;
• Chairperson's Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board;
• Chairperson’s Guideline 8: Procedures with Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB;
• Chairperson’s Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics; and,
• Additionally, the IRB updated and implemented new Immigration Appeal Division Rules and is working on updating the Immigration Division Rules.
• Establishing specialized teams and training, including the implementation of the RPD Gender-Related Task Force, and mandatory training to support decision-makers in adjudicating cases related to gender-based violence for RPD and RAD members.
• Enhancing performance management frameworks and tools for members.
• Establishing Quality Centres in both the RPD and RAD with a mandate to monitor and analyze trends and improve adjudicative quality and consistency, through the enhancement of training, mentorship, performance management and adjudicative strategies.
• Implementing Quality Measurement Initiatives (QMIs), third-party quality reviews of decision-making, conducted for each division.
• Implementing recommendations from a third-party evaluation of the IRB’s Member Complaint Process, including implementing revised Procedures for Making a Complaint About a Member and minor updates to its Code of Conduct for members of the IRB. To bolster the independence of the member complaints process, the IRB appointed its first Ombudsperson.
• For 2023 to 2024, the focus of the IRB’s Quality Agenda includes training and support for members and management. It also involves continued work on increasing access to justice for certain populations appearing before the Board, including enhancements to its Designated Representative and Interpreter programs, and services for unrepresented (self-represented) appellants.

Quality Assurance Framework for Decision-Making

• The IRB’s Quality Assurance Framework for Decision-Making provides an overview of the activities, processes, strategies, and structures that contribute to quality adjudicative decision making at the Board.
• An independent review of the Framework, completed in 2021, identified the Framework as an international best practice:

“I carefully reviewed the IRB’s impressive Quality Assurance Framework. International best practice in administrative justice involves ensuring that tribunals are set up to get decisions right, set processes right and put errors right. The QAF puts in place high quality, robust processes to maximize decisional accuracy, prepare members to render accurate decisions through a fair procedure and to oversee potential errors in decision-making. I would have no hesitation in recommending that other administrative tribunals in Canada and further afield use the IRB’s QAF as a model to optimize their own processes.” Dr. Paul Daly, University Research Chair in Administrative Law and Governance at the University of Ottawa

• The IRB Quality Assurance Framework is organized according to the stages of a continuous improvement cycle: Plan, Do, Monitor & Measure, and Adjust (see figure 1). Although many of the activities across the stages run concurrently, there is a natural flow of progression.

Text version

Plan

• Identify and prioritize training and mentoring needs
• Identify and prioritize quality evaluation and audit plan
• Identify adjudicative policy tools
• Identify innovative solutions and support tools

Do

• Merit based recruitment
• Training for new members
• Professional development
• Mentorship
• Reasons review by Legal Services
• Adjudicative policy and support tools
• Adjudicative consistency groups
• Specialized teams/training
• Support and tools for external parties appearing before the Board

Monitor

• Performance management
• Internal and external reporting
• Appeal and/or judicial review
• Review higher court decisions
• Quality Centres

Measure

• Evaluations
• Reviews
• External audits
• Results of member complaints

Adjust

• Develop and implement management action plans (Audits, third-party reviews)
• Revise training programs
• Develop and implement adjudicative policy and support tools
• Individual remedial programs

IRB Budget and Impact on Refugee Claim Inventory and Wait Times

Text version

Budget

	Actual (Budget Investments: 2018-19 to 2023-24)									Projected: Return to base funding and ███ annual intake. (Additional program and financial interventions required to lower wait times and actionable inventory.)
	2015-16	2016-17	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23	2023-24	2024-25	2025-26	2026-27
Budget ($M)	119	123	138	173	230	295	296	300	332	323	270	270

Pending and Wait Time

Fiscal year	Month	Pending refugee claims	Wait time for all refugee claims (months)	Wait time for actionable claims (months)
2015-16	2015-Mar	15,300	9	-
	2015-Sep	15,900	8	-
2016-17	2016-Mar	18,400	6	-
	2016-Sep	20,900	10	-
2017-18	2017-Mar	27,600	14	-
	2017-Sep	40,800	17	-
2018-19	2018-Mar	53,000	19	-
	2018-Sep	69,400	19	-
2019-20	2019-Mar	74,200	21	-
	2019-Sep	82,400	22	-
2020-21	2020-Mar	91,700	23	-
	2020-Sep	87,300	21	-
2021-22	2021-Mar	69,800	18	-
	2021-Sep	61,900	15	-
2022-23	2022-Mar	54,100	14	-
	2022-Sep	63,000	15	-
2023-24	2023-Mar	85,100	19	-
	2023-Sep	116,400	24	-
2024-25	2024-Mar	147,500	██	██

Border restrictions: 2020-21 to 2022-23

Intake volumes, especially in the current context, are difficult to predict and are subject to variation. The projected intake for 2023-24 is based on the latest high range forecasts received from partners and is assumed in the scenario illustrated above to be ███ claims per year over the following years. ███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████. This scenario also assumes a return to IRB A-Base funding as of fiscal year 2025-26 with no new investments.

Refugee Continuum Over the Years Placemat

Text version

Intake and Finalizations Trends

	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23
RPD monthly finalizations	2,900	3,540	2,475	4,000	4,000
Referrals to the IRB	4,540	4,790	520	2,520	5,600
Asylum intake	4,540	4,790	520	3,090	8,000

Pending Refugee Claims and Wait Time

Fiscal year	Month	Pending refugee claims	Wait time for new refugee claims (months)
2018-19	2018-Mar	53,000	19
	2018-Sep	69,400	19
2019-20	2019-Mar	74,200	21
	2019-Sep	82,400	22
2020-21	2020-Mar	91,700	23
	2020-Sep	87,300	21
2021-22	2021-Mar	70,000	18
	2021-Sep	61,900	15
2022-23	2022-Mar	54,000	14
	2022-Sep	63,000	15

Border restrictions: 2020-21 to 2022-23

	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23
Intake	56,000	60,000	8,000	32,000	79,000
Irregular border crossers	18,000	17,000	900	4,000	32,000
Regular claims	38,000	43,000	7,100	28,000	47,000
Average intake per month	4,540	4,790	520	2,520	6,600
Finalizations	35,000	42,500	29,700	48,000	48,000
Average finalizations per month	2,900	3,540	2,475	4,000	4,000
Pending inventory at end of fiscal year	74,200	91,700	70,000	54,000	85,000
Wait time for new claims at the end of fiscal year (months)	21	23	18	14	18
Finalizations attributable to investments since Budget 2018*	11,000	16,500	3,700	22,000	22,000
Cumulative impact on inventory	-11,000	-27,500	-31,200	-53,200	-75,200
Inventory in absence of additional investments	85,200	119,200	101,200	107,200	153,200
Wait time in absence of additional investments	39	55	47	49	74

* Assumes pre-2018 base funding for 26,000 finalizations per year ongoing.

Key Takeaways

• Monthly referrals to the IRB have increased steadily since the border reopening, rising from below processing capacity of approximately 4k claims per month to over 9k per month in recent months.
• Asylum system intake has been 10k claims per month since the beginning of 2023, and referral levels have followed suit with an average of 9.3k claims per month.
• Investments to the IRB made since Budget 2018 and operational changes have resulted in a refugee claim inventory (97k vs 200k) as of June 2023 that is less than half of what it would otherwise be and wait times for all claims (23 months vs 92 months) are four times shorter. For actionable claims, expected wait times at the RPD are now 12 months.
• As of June 2023, inventories and wait times have returned to pre-pandemic levels, with intake levels expected to remain above funded levels for the foreseeable future.
• Top-up funding to process an additional 10k claims over 2 years will help slow that growth ████████████████████████████████.
• ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.

Operational Plans and Storyboards by Division

Refugee Protection Division (RPD)

Text version

Productivity and Quality - Refugee Protection Division

Volume	2020-21				2021-22				2022-23
	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Inventory – non-actionable: 30,574	86,874	84,416	77,931	66,266	57,557	50,615	45,752	38,370	40,705	43,880	49,851	54,571
Inventory - actionable: 54,571	4,870	2,884	3,337	3,578	7,646	10,599	11,419	15,775	15,775	19,116	21,037	30,574
Decisions - annualized Target range for 2022-23: 45,000 to 50,000	1,571	5,950	8,277	13,916	11,330	11,454	12,221	12,998	11,351	10,468	11,744	14,532
Decisions - average by business day	25	95	132	223	181	183	196	208	182	167	188	233
Intake - annualized	1,882	1,496	2,212	2,355	6,634	7,463	8,173	9,989	13,780	16,968	19,655	28,680
Intake - average by business day	30	24	35	38	106	119	131	160	220	271	314	459

Projected wait time for new claims: 20 months to final decision (up from 13 months at the beginning of the fiscal year). Intake outpaced decisions by 61% in 2022-23.

Strategic Case Management Priorities - Year-to-date

Processing Time¹

Actual	23 months
Target: less than 2 years

¹Includes wait time for cases to become actionable and RPD processing time.

Age of Inventory

	Claims currently over 3 years	Claims at risk of pending over 3 years
Claims pending over 3 years	7%	0%
Target: at most 5% of claims pending over 3 years

	Claims currently over 2 years	Claims at risk of pending over 2 years
Claims pending over 2 years	9%	0%
Target: at most 10% of claims pending over 2 years

Year-End Highlights

• The RPD finalized 48,164 claims in 2022-23, the highest number of annual finalizations since 2012 Refugee Reform.
• Increased member productivity and strategic case management resulted in the highest number of principal merit decisions of RPD history.
• The RPD saw a record annual intake of 79,234 claims – approx. 145% more than the same period last year, resulting in increased wait times for new claims.
• Processing capacity increased substantially, permitted the expected processing times for the actionable inventory to remain at 13 months over the FY, despite the growth in inventory.
• Strategic case management results were within 2% of their targets, with age of inventory metrics at their lowest levels since 2019.

Overturned by Federal Court

Actual	0.2%
Target: less than 1%

Remittal Rate from RAD

Actual	11% 3%

Text version

2023-24 Monthly Targets

Monthly decisions, targets and projection	APR	MAY	JUNE	JULY	AUG	SEPT	OCT	NOV	DEC	JAN	FEB	MAR	Total
Target: 52,5001	1,944	3,939	4,257	3,915	4,095	3,847	4,708	4,786	4,872	5,339	5,348	5,449	52,500
Actual decisions	1,944	4,219	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Actual (YTD)	1,944	6,163	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Last fiscal year actual	3,328	3,476	4,528	4,003	3,676	3,774	4,135	4,094	4,029	3,436	4,076	5,486	48,041

¹Funded capacity.

Key Indicators

Key indicators (12-month period ending on May 31, 2023)
Intake:	88,489 claims
Finalizations:	46,808 claims
Inventory: (as of May 31, 2023)	96,811 claims
Expected wait times:	Overall: 23 months Actionable claims: 14 months

2023-24 Strategic Case Management Priorities: Year-To-Date Results

Processing Time

Time within which 80% of claims are decided from the date the claim was referred	16 months
Target: 24 months for time within which 80% of claims are decided from the date the claim was referred

Inventory Composition by Age and Type

	<12 months	1-2 years	2+ years	Total
Total	78,099 (81%)	11,783 (12%)	6,929 (7%)	96,811
Regular	44,660 (77%)	8,094 (14%)	4,966 (9%)	57,720
Irregular	33,437 (86%)	3,689 (9%)	1,963 (5%)	39,089

Age of Inventory

	Cases currently over 3 years	Cases at risk of 3 years
Claims pending over 3 years	6%	1%
Target: no more than 5% of claims pending over 3 years

Legend

	Green	Yellow	Red
Increase to planned results required to meet target	0% or less	Up to 10%	Over 10%

Refugee Appeal Division (RAD)

Text version

Productivity and Quality - Refugee Appeal Division

Volume	2020-21				2021-22				2022-23
	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Inventory – non-actionable: 1,026	1,264	875	830	1,160	1,200	1,194	1,175	1,615	1,471	1,106	1,036	1,026
Inventory - actionable: 3,302	7,289	6,493	6,277	3,820	4,297	4,276	3,710	3,242	3,819	4,195	3,978	3,302
Decisions - annualized Target range for 2022-23: 10,000-13,500	560	13,212	8,392	17,200	9,028	10,720	12,280	12,592	10,948	9,848	10,872	11,828
Decisions - average per business day	2	53	34	69	36	43	49	50	44	39	43	47
Intake - annualized	908	8,472	7,352	8,692	11,096	10,608	9,940	12,480	12,680	9,892	9,724	9,084
Intake - average per business day	4	34	29	35	44	42	40	50	51	40	39	36

Output and intake declined this fiscal year (3% and 6% respectively). As a result, inventory decreased by 11%, reaching the 4,300 level. Projected wait time for new appeals decreased to 5 months, from 7 months back in 2021-22.

Strategic Case Management Priorities - Year-to-Date

Processing Time

Actual	5 months
Target: at most 1 year

Age of Inventory

	Appeals currently over 18 months	Appeals at risk of pending over 18 months
Appeals pending over 18 months	2%	0%
Target: less than 5% of appeals pending over 18 months

	Appeals currently over 12 months	Appeals at risk of pending over 12 months
Appeals pending over 12 months	5%	0%
Target: at most 10% of appeals pending over 12 months

Year-End Highlights

• All fiscal year 2022-23 strategic case management priorities were met.
• The RAD showed continued stability by meeting or exceeding its targeted throughput in six of the last seven quarters.
• Inventory was reduced by 11% keeping wait times for new appeals below 6 months since March 2021.
• The impact of significant member vacancies throughout the year was offset by a lower than anticipated rate of appeal on RPD decisions.

Overturned by Federal Court

Actual	1.7 0.1%
Target: less than 1%

Text version

2023-24 Monthly Targets

2023-24 monthly targets	APR	MAY	JUNE	JULY	AUG	SEPT	OCT	NOV	DEC	JAN	FEB	MAR	TOTAL
Target: 11,0001	883	993	987	869	742	930	877	938	803	960	1,008	1,008	11,000
Actual decisions2	372	954	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Actual (YTD)	372	1,326	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Last fiscal year actual	846	848	1,043	726	856	880	893	977	848	822	876	1,258	10,873

¹Funded capacity (based on full member complement and sufficient intake).

²Actual results for Q1 impacted by 2023 labour disruption.

Key Indicators

Key indicators (12-month period ending on May 31, 2023)
Intake:	9,412 appeals
Decisions:	10,505 appeals
Inventory: (as of May 31, 2023)	4,169 appeals
Expected wait times for new appeals:	5 months

2023-24 Strategic Case Management Priorities: Year-to-Date Results

Processing Time

Time within which 80% of claims are decided from the date the claim was referred	4 months
Target: 6 months for time within which 80% of claims are decided from the date the claim was referred

Inventory Composition by Age and Type

	<90 days	3-6 months	6+ months	Total
Total	1,847 (44%)	1,679 (40%)	643 (15%)	4,169
Regular	1,596 (46%)	1,413 (41%)	473 (14%)	3,482
Irregular	251 (37%)	266 (39%)	170 (25%)	687

Age of Inventory

	Cases currently over 12 months	Cases at risk of 12 months
Claims pending over 12 months	5%	1%
Target: no more than 5% of claims pending over 12 months

Legend

	Green	Yellow	Red
Increase to planned results required to meet target	0% or less	Up to 10%	Over 10%

Immigration Division (ID)

Text version

Productivity and Quality - Immigration Division

Admissibility Hearings

Volume	2020–21				2021–22				2022–23
	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Inventory	477	551	512	488	444	453	403	406	393	393	501	498
Decisions - annualized	484	728	1,288	1,528	1,336	1,180	1,124	1,156	1,276	1,320	1,380	1,484
Decisions - average by business day	2	3	5	6	5	5	4	5	5	5	6	6
Intake - annualized	448	1,016	1,132	1,436	1,116	1,204	928	1,168	1,212	1,320	1,812	1,472
Intake - average by business day	2	4	5	6	4	5	4	5	5	5	7	6

Intake outpaced decisions by 7% in 2022-23.

Detention Reviews

Volume	2020–21				2021–22				2022–23
	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Decisions - annualized	3,948	4,176	4,552	4,720	5,296	5,452	7,496	7,168	7,276	8,172	10,104	10,112
Decisions – average by business day	13	14	15	16	18	18	25	24	24	27	34	34
Intake - annualized	3,524	4,264	4,404	4,800	5,388	5,444	7,772	6,976	7,296	8,568	10,052	10,176
Intake - average by business day	12	14	15	16	18	18	26	23	24	29	34	34
Time compliance	96%	96%	95%	96%	97%	98%	98%	98%	99%	98%	98%	98%

Decisions and intake are aligned in 2022-23.

Strategic Case Management Priorities - Year-to-Date

Processing Time

Percentage of admissibility hearings concluded within 9 months	89%
Target: 80% of admissibility hearings concluded within 9 months

Percentage of Time Compliance for all Types of Detention Reviews	98%
48 hour	98%
7 day	97%
30 day	99%
Target: 96% of time compliance for all types of detention reviews

Year-End Highlights

• All 2022-23 strategic case management targets were met or exceeded.
• Compliance to time standards was met across all types of detention reviews despite a steady increase in volumes to pre-pandemic levels.
• Admissibility hearings throughput increased each quarter but was outpaced in Q3 leading to a 23% growth in inventory over the year.
• The return to pre-pandemic detention review volumes limited ID responsiveness to the Q3 surge in admissibility hearings intake.

Overturned by Federal Court

Admissibility hearings	0.7%
Detention reviews	0%
Target: less than 1%

Text version

2023–24 Monthly Targets

2023-24 Monthly targets	APR	MAY	JUNE	JULY	AUG	SEPT	OCT	NOV	DEC	JAN	FEB	MAR	TOTAL
Admissibility hearing - Forecast: 1,4001	103	125	123	113	126	113	113	119	108	125	119	113	1,400
Intake	119	153	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Actual decisions	123	173	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Intake (YTD)	119	272	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Actual decisions (YTD)	123	296	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Variance from intake (YTD)	3%	9%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Last fiscal year actual	95	109	115	108	125	97	123	127	95	92	121	157	1,364

2023-24 Monthly targets	APR	MAY	JUNE	JULY	AUG	SEPT	OCT	NOV	DEC	JAN	FEB	MAR	TOTAL
Detention review - Forecast: 9,0001	655	802	788	729	815	729	729	765	692	802	765	729	9,000
Intake	717	924	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Actual decisions	714	913	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Intake (YTD)	717	1,641	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Actual decisions (YTD)	714	1,627	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Variance from intake (YTD)	0%	-1%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Last fiscal year actual	580	572	667	571	692	779	920	869	736	793	778	954	8,911

¹April 1st forecast.

Key Indicators

Key indicators (12-month period ending on May 31, 2023)
Total intake:	11,127
Admissibility hearings decisions:	1,456
Detention review decisions:	9,387

2023-24 Strategic Case Management Priorities: Year-to-Date Results

Admissibility hearings (AH)

Inventory

Admissibility hearings pending	619
Target: no more than 7002 admissibility hearings pending

²Equivalent to 6 months of work based on planned finalizations.

Processing Time

AH concluded within 9 months	90%
Target: no less than 80% of AH concluded within 9 months

Age of Inventory

	Less than 6 months	6-12 months	13+ months
Admissibility hearings pending	357 (58%)	113 (18%)	149 (24%)

Detention Reviews (DR)

Output to Intake Ratio

DR output to intake ratio	99%
Target: no less than 98% of DR output to intake ratio

Time Compliance - Legislated Requirement

Overall	98%
Actual results: 48 hour	98%
Actual results: 7 day	96%
Actual results: 30 day	98%
Target: no less than 96% for all types of detention reviews

Legend

	Green	Yellow	Red
Increase to planned results required to meet target:	Within 2%	Up to 10%	Over 10%

Immigration Appeal Division (IAD)

Text version

Productivity and Quality - Immigration Appeal Division

	2020-21				2021-22				2022-23
	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Inventory - non-actionable: 902	1,932	1,815	1,677	1,482	1,336	1,231	1,222	1,129	1,249	1,159	643	902
Inventory - actionable: 1,297	1,713	1,610	1,488	1,314	1,184	1,091	1,083	1,002	1,022	1,114	1,605	1,297
Decisions - annualized Target range for 2022-23: 2,700-3,300	1,328	2,516	3,600	3,604	3,500	3,456	3,312	3,308	3,176	2,968	3,016	3,696
Intake - annualized	1,052	1,616	2,524	2,048	2,268	2,420	2,968	2,364	3,480	2,788	2,744	3,316

Projected wait time for new claims: 9 months, stable since last fiscal year

Decisions outpaced intake by 4% in 2022-23

Strategic Case Management Priorities - Year-to-Date

Processing Time

Percentage of planned decisions finalized within 8 months of record received	94%
Target: 80% of planned decisions finalized within 8 months of record received

Percentage of planned decisions finalized, and 1st stays within 12 months of appeal filed	90%
Target: 80% of planned decisions finalized, and 1st stays within 12 months of appeal filed

Actual processing time	7 months
Target: no more than 1 year

Age of Inventory

	Appeals currently pending over 12 months	Appeals at risk of pending over 12 months%
Appeals pending over 12 months	5%	0%
Target: at most 20% of appeals pending over 12 months

Year-End Highlights

• All 2022-23 strategic case management targets were met or exceeded.
• Despite an upward trend in intake for the past 2 years, inventory and wait times for new appeals remained stable within target ranges.
• Productivity was supported by a high Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) rate, resulting in more than half of all cases decided without a hearing.
• While non-actionable cases comprised more than half of the inventory through the first half of the year, this proportion was reduced to 41% by the end of 2022-23.

Overturned by Federal Court

Actual	0.6% 0.6%
Target: less than 1%

Text version

2023-24 Monthly Targets

2023-24 Monthly targets	APR	MAY	JUNE	JULY	AUG	SEPT	OCT	NOV	DEC	JAN	FEB	MAR	TOTAL
Target: 3,0001	218	267	264	243	270	243	243	255	232	267	255	243	3,000
Actual decisions	192	350	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Actual (YTD)	192	542	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Last fiscal year actual	249	264	280	242	248	252	257	245	252	301	284	341	3,215

¹Resourced capacity (assumes stable intake).

Key Indicators

Key indicators (12-month period ending on May 31, 2023)
Intake:	3,104 appeals
Decisions:	3,227 appeals and stay decisions
Inventory: (as of May 31, 2023)	2,234 appeals
Expected wait times for new appeals:	7 months

2023-24 Strategic Case Management Priorities: Year-to-Date Results

Inventory

Total:	2,234
Non-stayed:	1,659 (74%)
Stayed:	585 (26%)
Target: no more than 2,000 appeals pending5

⁵Exludes stayed appeals.

Processing Time

Percentage of planned decisions finalized within 8 months of record received	103%
Target: no less than 80% of planned decisions finalized within 8 months of record received

Time within which 80% of appeals are decided from the date the appeal was filed	10 months
Target: 12 months

Average processing time:	6 months
Target: no more than 1 yr average processing time

Age of Inventory

	Cases currently over 12 months	Cases at risk of pending over 12 months
Appeals pending over 12 months	6%	62%
Target: no more than 10% of appeals5 pending over 12 months

	Total	<12 months	12+ months
Number of cases	1,649	1,544 (94%)	105 (6%)

⁵Exludes stayed appeals.

Legend

	Green	Yellow	Red
Increase to planned results required to meet target:	0% or less	Up to 10%	Over 10%

Inventory Analysis as of March 31, 2023

Refugee Protection Division (RPD)

Overall

The RPD received an intake of 60,600 cases in 2022, 145% more than the previous year. This increase in intake, beginning with the border reopening in the fall of 2021, is continuing in 2023 with 9,300 new claims received on average per month from January to May inclusively. This represents an 85% increase of monthly intake compared to 2022.

The RPD finalized approximately 46,600 claims in 2022, a decrease of 6% over the previous year. This decrease was fully offset by a strong Q4 in 2022-23.

Text version

The majority of the inventory is less than 1 year old

Less than 12 months	81%
12 months and older	19%

Diverse inventory with almost half concentrated in 5 source countries

Top 5 countries	48%
Other 163 countries	52%

The proportion of irregular claims in inventory is in steady increase since the reopening of the border in the fall of 2021

Regular	60%
IBC	40%

Inventory

Growth: At the end of May 2023, the pending inventory comprised more than 96,800 claims, an increase of more than 75%, or 41,700 claims in a year, and 4% over the previous historic peak of 93,000 claims in May 2020. Over 80,000 referrals are expected to be received at the IRB in 2023-24.

Status: As of the end of May 2023, 27% of pending claims were already heard or on the schedule, and 40% were non-actionable due to pending security or documents. The balance remaining to be scheduled represents 33% (or approximately 7 months of work).

Actionable and non-actionable inventory: Prior to the pandemic (March 2020), the volume of actionable claims (e.g., claims ready to be scheduled for a hearing) in the inventory was significant enough that non-actionable claims (e.g., claims that cannot be scheduled for a hearing due to pending security or documents) had little to no impact on RPD operational efficiencies. Between September 2020 and April 2022, the volume of non-actionable claims in the inventory grew while actionable claims were significantly reduced. Since April 2022, intake has exceeded capacity and both actionable and non-actionable inventories have grown along with expected wait times.

Age: 81% of pending claims were less than 1 year old (received between June 2022 and May 2023).

• 48% of cases were received in 2023.
• 41% of cases were received in 2022.
• 5% of cases were received in 2021.
• 6% of cases were received in or prior to 2020.

Region: 52% of the inventory was in Eastern (Montreal) region, 40% was in Central (Toronto) region, and 8% was in Western (Vancouver) region.

Wait Times

Average processing time for claims finalized in 2022 (the average age of claims at the time of their decision) was 24 months.

Projected wait time for new claims received as of June 2023 (the months of work the inventory represents at the Division’s current capacity) is 23 months.

The wait time attributable to non-actionable cases has doubled three times over the last three years from 1 month in October 2020 to 9 months as of June 1st, 2023.

Wait time attributable to actionable cases were significantly reduced during the pandemic (from 18 to 4 months) but have since increased to represent 14 months of the total expected wait time of 23 months.

Refugee Appeal Division (RAD)

Overall

The RAD received intake of 11,200 appeals in 2022, representing 24% of Refugee Protection Division finalizations. Over that period, irregular intake comprised 19% of appeals.

The RAD finalized about 11,000 appeals in 2022, a decrease of 11% over the previous year. This decrease was fully offset by a strong Q4 in 2022-23.

Text version

The majority of appeals are less than a year old

0-90 days	44%
3-12 months	50%
12+ months	5%

Diverse inventory with high concentration in 5 source countries

Top 5 countries	65%
Other 113 countries	35%

Irregular appeals make up less than a quarter of the pending inventory

Regular	84%
Irregular	16%

Inventory

Growth: At the end of May 2023, the RAD inventory comprised 4,200 appeals, down 21% in 12 months and almost 60% down from its peak of 10,400 in September 2019.

Age: 95% of pending appeals were less than 1 year old (received between June 2022 and May 2023)

Region: 60% of the inventory was in Central (Toronto) region, 29% was in Eastern (Montreal) region, and 11% was in Western (Vancouver) region.

Wait Times

Average processing time for appeals finalized in 2022 (the average age of appeals at the time of their decision) was 5 months.

Projected wait time for new appeals filed as of June 2023 (the months of work the inventory represents at the Division’s current capacity) is 5 months.

Immigration Division (ID)

Overall

Wait Time

Average wait time for admissibility hearings finalized in 2022 was 6 months.

Projected wait time for new admissibility hearings requested as of June 2023 is 5 months.

Time compliance for all type of detention reviews: target of 96% met.

Immigration Appeal Division (IAD)

Wait Time

Average wait time for appeals finalized in 2022 was 8 months.

Projected wait time for new appeals filed as of June 2023 is 9 months.

Stakeholders

IRB Consulative Committee Overview

Key Messages

• The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s (IRB or the Board) main stakeholders include key organizations such as those representing lawyers and immigration consultants, refugee advocacy organizations and provincial legal aid programs.
• These organizations represent a broad range of interests and perspectives, and are valuable allies to the Board.
• IRB’s stakeholders play a meaningful role in providing on-the-ground perspectives to the IRB as the Board develops and implements new initiatives. They also provide valuable feedback when consulted in the development of new policies or procedures.
• Stakeholders are also valuable in assisting the Board in communicating information on its procedures and expectations to those appearing as parties before the Board.
• The IRB Consultative Committee (IRB CC) serves as the key forum for dialogue and engagement with its main national stakeholder organizations.
• The IRB also interacts regularly with academics and other stakeholder organizations by participating in research projects and external requests for information, sending IRB speakers to events and conferences, and enabling their involvement in the Board’s consultative initiatives.

Background
External Stakeholders

• The IRB’s key stakeholder groups include, notably:
• Professional associations: Organizations representing lawyers and immigration consultants are a key constituency for the IRB. They communicate Board initiatives, procedures and expectations to their members, and provide valuable input as the IRB develops and implements new initiatives.
• Canadian Bar Association (CBA): The CBA is one of the IRB’s key national stakeholder organizations, representing 37,000 members across Canada with a mandate to seek improvements in the law and the administration of justice. The CBA’s Immigration Law Section holds their Immigration Law Conference every spring, where the IRB is usually invited to participate in speaking engagements.
• Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL): CARL has been a strong and active contributor to the IRB’s consultative activities, having a membership of 400 lawyers, academics, and law students across the country. The organization serves as an informed national voice on refugee law and the human rights of refugees and forced migrants and promotes just and consistent practices in the treatment of refugees in Canada.
• Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC): CAPIC has had strong and sustained engagement with the IRB over the years, serving the interests of their more than 4,300 members who are citizenship and immigration consultants. CAPIC holds their annual National Citizenship and Immigration Conference each spring and normally invites the IRB to speak at the conference’s sessions.
• Provincial legal aid programs: Effective representation by legal counsel helps to ensure that application deadlines are met, parties are well-prepared, and proceedings proceed efficiently. In this context, the IRB has collaborative and positive working relations with legal aid programs in key jurisdictions. The IRB Consultative Committee (see below) includes legal aid representation from Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia.
• Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR): The IRB has a long-standing, positive and collaborative working relationship with the CCR, a national non-profit umbrella organization representing more than 180 groups across Canada involved in the settlement, sponsorship and protection of refugees and immigrants.
• United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR): The IRB has a history of close collaboration with the UNHCR spanning over the past three decades. This relationship is multi-faceted, encompassing consultation on IRB policy and operational initiatives; information and data sharing; and cooperation in the delivery of international capacity building, including in the context of efforts to strengthen refugee determination systems in Mexico, Costa Rica and elsewhere in Latin America. As well, the UNHCR has certain authorities under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, for example the entitlement to observe IRB proceedings involving a refugee claimant or a protected person, in line with its responsibility for supervising the application of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Consulative Committee

• The IRB CC is the main forum for dialogue and engagement with ten key national stakeholder organizations (full list provided below).
• IRB CC meetings—both biannual and at times ad hoc—deal with current and emerging issues of national relevance and mutual concern and focus on the IRB's operations as they impact stakeholders. The IRB utilizes this forum to advise its stakeholders of its organizational priorities, gather their views, and consult on specific policies and initiatives as appropriate.
• Most recently, the IRB has frequently consulted this committee in the context of its evolving hearings operating model, to ensure that specific needs and differing situations are considered for those who appear before the Board.
• The last IRB CC biannual meeting, which was chaired by the IRB Chairperson, was held in May 2023 in Ottawa, and it was the first time this forum had gathered in-person since fall 2019.
• The next IRB CC biannual meeting is being planned for late fall 2023, which will enable the new Chairperson to meet IRB’s ten national stakeholder groups.

Digitization Advisory Committee (sub-committee of the IRB CC)

• The Digitization Advisory Committee (DAC), chaired by the Chief Innovation and Technology Officer, is a sub-committee of the IRB CC that meets bi-annually, or on an ad hoc basis when required. Participating stakeholders of the DAC represent different user groups. The DAC last convened in March 2023.
• The DAC considers external facing digital services including, but not limited to, the My Case Portal. Feedback is sought about user needs, challenges, and possible solutions / opportunities.

List of the IRB CC External (Stakeholder) Membership

• Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration (AQAADI) (2 members)
• Aide juridique Montréal/Laval (1 member)
• Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC) (2 members)
• Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) (2 members)
• Canadian Bar Association (CBA) (3 members)
• Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR) (3 members)
• Legal Aid British Columbia (LABC) (1 member)
• Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) (1 member)
• Refugee Lawyers Association of Ontario (RLA) (1 member)
• United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (1 member)

Summary of May 2023 IRB CC Meeting

Chairperson's opening remarks

The Chairperson spoke to changes in the operating context over the past years and some key positive results of the Board’s Growth and Transformation Agenda, including:

• Inventories and wait times dropped across the Board;
• The new Quality Assurance Framework was hailed as a model for other countries, while new Quality Centres have allowed the Board to monitor trends and develop targeted responses in support of continuous improvement;
  
• Three Chairperson’s Guidelines have been updated, relating to detention, gender, and sexual orientation, gender identity and sexual characteristics (SOGIESC). The Board has continued to keep its suite of policy instruments aligned with the law, evidence from the social sciences, and evolving trends in human migration;
• Transformation of operations to become a digital organization, a significant accelerator for both productivity and quality gains that took on new significance and gained momentum during the pandemic; and
• Issuance of almost 1,000 permanent letters of offer, stabilizing the Board’s current capacity.

Operational updates

Each of the IRB’s four Deputy Chairpersons (DC) provided an update on their divisions’ operational plans for fiscal year 2023-24, intake and finalization metrics, the current state of their divisions’ inventories, and current initiatives. The DCs also responded to several of the topics suggested by stakeholders for discussion at this meeting.

Refugee Protection Division (RPD)

• The RPD finalized over 48,000 cases last year, the highest number in any year.
• The RPD is focusing on a first in first out (FIFO) approach, with an emphasis on oldest claims but also on detained, vulnerable, unaccompanied minors, RAD and Federal Court returns, as per Guideline 6, as well as Less Complex Claims.
• The projected wait time at the RPD is approximately 20 months for new refugee claims. Currently, the projected wait time for all refugee claims is 23 months. However, processing times for actionable claims (e.g., not awaiting front-end security screening (FESS), health care workers, suspended, etc.) was approximately 13 months, despite the growth in referrals.
• Progress has been made with respect to high volume counsel; at the beginning of the year, they held 40% of claimants, but this is now down to 10%.
• The requirement for immigration consultants to complete accreditation before July 1, 2023 will impact over 2,400 principal claims, as consultants will not be able to represent their clients until their accreditation is complete.
• Coordinating members (CM) have been case managing unrepresented claimants. Unrepresented claimants at the RPD are about 6% of overall claims, which is lower than other divisions at the IRB. However unrepresented claimants whose claims are being adjudicated through paper determinations are higher, at approximately 14%.
• In response to the implementation of the one-touch program, the RPD has been proactively contacting claimants to ensure their case is on track.
• The RPD continues to work with IRCC and CBSA on front-end processing issues, such as one touch and claimant transfers, which have a potential downstream impact.
• Last year, about 10% of all claims at the RPD were heard by the Gender-Related Task Force (GRTF).
• Less-complex claims now make up approximately 20% of finalizations.
• We welcomed 57 new decision makers in April.
• The RPD would like to work with IRB CC members to understand the qualities that make a good decision maker to assist with hiring and training.
• The RPD will be setting up a session for the RPD’s Consolidated Practice Notice.

Refugee Appeal Divsion (RAD)

• The RAD finalized just under 11,000 cases last year, which is the second highest in the RAD’s history.
• The RAD also employs a FIFO approach.
• Average processing time at the RAD is now 5 months.
• A Senior Director, Program Management and Excellence has been hired to advance divisional initiatives to enhance access to justice, particularly for unrepresented appellants.
• The RAD has also continued transitioning to a national approach to bring greater consistency and it is expected that regional variances should diminish as a result.
• An advanced training module on 1Fa exclusions is being developed, as well as a plain language style guide focused on supporting members in writing decisions for appellants.
• Additionally, a quality review of the RAD’s decision making is being undertaken.

Immigration Division (ID)

• The ID finalized about 8,900 detention reviews and 1,370 admissibility hearings, which compares with an intake of approximately 9,000. detention reviews and 1,450 admissibility hearings from the previous FY.
• Detention review intake reached pre-pandemic levels in the second half of the year, while admissibility hearing referrals remain slightly below where intake stood prior to the pandemic.
• The ID has seen a trend towards more complex inadmissibility allegations.
• The ID has exceeded 96% compliance with statutory time-limits for all types of detention reviews in the last fiscal year.
• For admissibility hearings, intake slightly exceeded output over the fiscal year due to an increase in referrals from CBSA starting in October.
• In the coming fiscal year, the ID is expecting both detention review and admissibility hearing intake to remain relatively stable, with output at or above last year’s levels.
• The mental health working group made several recommendations with respect to detention reviews for persons experiencing mental health issues. An action plan has been finalized and will be implemented in the next 12-24 months.
• Eight provinces have advised CBSA that they will no longer house immigration detainees in their provincial jails. With the initial withdrawals of Alberta and British Columbia this summer, the ID’s focus is on ensuring detention reviews for individuals in these provinces. The DC and CBSA headquarters are meeting regularly and are meeting with Legal Aid BC and Alberta.
• With respect to ID rules review, the ID has conducted initial consultations internally and externally to establish a view of the changes needed. The next steps are to consolidate those comments. The ID will share for feedback before drafting the updated rules.

Immigration Appeal Division (IAD)

• 3,000 finalizations were targeted and achieved last year.
• The IAD met all its performance targets last fiscal year and ended the year with 90% decided within 12 months of filing, with an average processing time of 7 months.
• Intake of new appeals continues to increase at a moderate pace but is still not at pre-pandemic levels, which was about 4,000-4,500 appeals yearly.
• New IAD rules came into effect in January 2023. For the most part, the CBSA and ID have been meeting the new time limits for appeal records, which has allowed parties to begin preparing their case much earlier. The IAD has recently started receiving documents under the new disclosure rule and scheduling these files.
• This year will focus on mental health supports and the continued plain language improvements that are underway.

Stakeholder feedback:

• Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) noted that there are many inconsistencies between the IRB, IRCC and CBSA.
• UNHCR noted that information on the IRB, CBSA and IRCC websites with respect to front end processing have not been updated fast enough or communicated regularly enough in plain language and multiple languages for claimants. UNHCR noted that making these changes would allow for faster front-end processing.
• The RPD proposed meeting with all 3 departments and stakeholders to raise concerns and streamline processes.
• The Chairperson recommended adding this topic to the next IRB CC agenda to discuss system wide views on this process.

Follow-up items

• The topic of consistency of information available online will be added to the next IRB CC agenda.
• The ID will share the recommendations and action plan with IRB CC stakeholders.
• With respect to the updating of the ID Rules, the ID will share preliminary views with stakeholders and provide another opportunity to provide feedback prior to the drafting of the new Rules, which is expected to take place in late-fall 2023.
• The RPD will convene a meeting with stakeholders to discuss the mitigation of downstream impacts of front-end processing by IRCC and CBSA.

Thematic presentations

Designated Representatives (DR)

Stakeholder feedback:

• Stakeholders (LAO and the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR)) raised systemic issues related to DRs, expressing concern that they are not meeting their obligations. For example, they fail to meet with clients or to meet with them in-person. This raises issues of concern with respect to access to justice and procedural fairness.
• There is also sometimes a lack of DR continuity from proceedings before one division to proceedings before a different division at the Board.
• The IRB advised that a comprehensive review of roles, responsibilities, and code of conduct formed the basis of the DR guide. The IRB has completed work related to remuneration and is currently working on strengthening quality assurance, which includes setting up of a formal and transparent structure through which stakeholders can send feedback, allowing involved groups to see what is being done with their feedback.
• The pool of DRs is currently small, but the Board is looking into expanding it. The Board is also looking at ways to improve the quality of DRs at an individual level.

Follow-up items:

• The Board (Operations and Regional Services (ORS)) to create a working group with stakeholders from IRB CC to inform the way forward regarding the development of the quality assurance framework for DRs.
• ID described some of the work it has undertaken to make improvements and stakeholders have asked for more information on this.

Official Languages

Stakeholder feedback:

The Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration (AQAADI) spoke to the issue of official languages:

• Although claimants can choose the language of procedure and can submit documents to the Board in whichever official language they prefer, AQAADI is concerned with seemingly systemic issues when files are transferred between regional offices. The stakeholder noted instances where files with a few short pieces of French documentation are reassigned to IRB members who do not hold adequate proficiency in French. AQAADI expressed that they sometimes feel a pressure to submit documents in English instead of French, in instances where the latter is the preferred claimant’s language. According to the stakeholders, this continues to create language barriers and affect access to justice and procedural fairness.
• AQAADI also raised concerns regarding the practice of double translations.
• AQAADI has inquired about receiving a list of bilingual IRB members. The stakeholder has expressed that they are not always aware if the IRB member assigned to a particular file is proficient in French or not.

Follow-up items

• IRB is seized with this issue and reassured stakeholders that bilingualism is at the heart of the Board’s organizational culture. It recognizes that there are some gaps which the Board is working to eliminate. The Chairperson urged stakeholders that if there are issues in particular cases, IRB CC organizations should bring those to the attention of Michel-Eric Thériault at ORS and the appropriate DC(s).
• An action plan will be developed and brought forward to the next meeting for discussion, and in the meantime the Board will continue to work on strengthening gaps.

Stakeholder roundtable updates

Stakeholders shared their organizations’ recent initiatives and priorities, including:

• operational updates;
• new staff additions;
• conferences held;
• consultative and educational efforts;
• internal initiatives;
• litigation activities; and
• advocacy work.

Stakeholder feedback:

• Stakeholders inquired about the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the hearings process. The Chairperson clarified that there is no use of AI in the hearings process; however, in the future, automation may be implemented on the administrative side to assist with triaging and scheduling.

Guest speaker: Martin Mündel (IRCC) – IRCC Portal

Martin Mündel provided an overview of the IRCC portal and spoke to recent changes to the portal and challenges to date. Martin noted that IRCC takes feedback on its portal seriously and is committed to making necessary improvements to strengthen efficiency of the portal.

Stakeholder feedback:

• The RLA asked if the IRB is aware of the technical limitation of the IRCC portal. The RLA noted that the address and activity history do not allow change of address or employment overlap.
• Martin noted that IRCC could do some work to formalize exchange of information regarding the portal with the IRB. Additionally, a feature to add a note if a factual inaccuracy was introduced because of system limitations.
• AQAADI mentioned that they are concerned that the IRCC Portal is still plagued with issues.
• While CARL recognized that this is a new system, they are concerned with the unequal information that is made available between the different parties involved with the file in question. CARL is concerned with certain files being presented to IRB members who may not have adequate context on the particular file, based on the information that is provided to them. Information should be displayed in a more uniform and accessible way to anyone who may need access to the file. There are continuing issues with data entry regarding dates.

Follow-up items:

• IRCC to verify whether overlapping address/employment history issue has been resolved in the portal.
• IRCC will consider AQAADI’s feedback and take it back to the Department.
• CCR indicated that they are interested in being part of on-going discussions on the IRCC Portal, including technical and process improvements.

Update on the IRB Hearings Operating Model

• The Chairperson provided background information on virtual vs. in-person hearings at the IRB and highlighted some of the positive outcomes of having moved to virtual by default.
• The Practice Notice (PN): Scheduling of virtual, hybrid, and in-person hearings at the IRB came into effect on September 20, 2022. The purpose of this PN was to increasingly offer in-person hearings, to the extent possible, under challenging public health conditions of the time. After consultations with stakeholders, a new PN has been developed and will come into force on September 5, 2023, to further facilitate access to in-person hearings for persons appearing before the Board and to provide more flexibility.
• The expanded scope of the new PN allows for requests to be accepted without the need to provide reasons in many circumstances.
• Each DC described the approach for their division.

Stakeholder feedback:

• CCR noted that there should be the option of having in-person hearings for 48-hour and 7-day detention reviews in certain cases.

Follow-up items:

• The Chairperson spoke about this being a step on the pathway towards a fully choice based model. Some questions and comments were raised for the Board to consider moving forward. This item could be included in the agenda of the IRB CC 2024 Biannual Meeting.

Update on counsel conduct

• Since the last IRB CC meeting, the IRB has approved an approach to addressing counsel conduct concerns that involves a revised process for receiving, assessing, tracking and acting on concerns, dedicated resources, enhanced use of the Board’s inherent jurisdiction related to the fairness and integrity of its proceedings, and strengthening relationships with regulatory bodies.

Stakeholder feedback:

• The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) asked whether counsel conduct issues also apply to Minister’s counsel and noted that many issues relate to CBSA counsel conduct.
• The IRB indicated that when there have been issues with CBSA officers in the past, the ADC in the region reaches out to their counterparts at the CBSA to address the issue.
• The IRB indicated that it would look into the issue of Minister’s counsel and consider whether to include them in the framework.

Update on the Chairperson’s Guidelines

Chairperson’s Guideline 3: Child Refugee Claimants and Procedural and Evidentiary Issues

• The IRB is expanding the Guideline to all four divisions at the IRB.
• This will ensure consistency with the principle established under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
• Roles and responsibilities of designated representatives will be refined to ensure consistency across divisions.
• The Guideline will include enhanced guidance on strategies to elicit evidence from minors and will include substantive legal guidance on issues specific to each division.

Chairperson's Guideline 8: Concerning Procedures with Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB

The IRB outlined the consultation feedback, which included:

• shifting away from a "vulnerable person" designation towards a focus on accommodations;
• moving away from the threshold of “severely impaired”;
• including more examples of available accommodation;
• expanding the Guideline to include guidance on substantive issues;
• incorporating guidance on trauma-informed approach (TIA) and on intersectionality;
• de-emphasizing the need to obtain medical reports; and
• adding more guidance on other acceptable supporting documentation.
• The second round of stakeholder consultations is now complete for both Guidelines and an analysis of the comments received is ongoing. Both Guidelines are expected to be published in the summer and come into force in the fall.

Stakeholder feedback:

• On both Guidelines: Overall, stakeholders indicated that they felt their comments had been considered and generally addressed.
• They also had the opportunity to share concerns and comments in the written responses to the consultation on the Guideline update.
• Guideline 3:
• Stakeholders commented on references to internal flight alternatives (IFA) and child abductions; calling unaccompanied minors as witnesses; anonymization and privacy relating to safety; and implications for the eligibility process considering DRs are not appointed at the border.
• Guideline 8:
• Stakeholders requested more time to submit comments and the Chairperson agreed to an extension of a few days, noting the intention is to publish in the summer.
• Stakeholders again had the opportunity to raise concerns, in addition to providing written comments on the Guideline update. Stakeholders suggested: a mechanism for an informal application process; consistency across the different divisional sections; less prescriptive language; and including early screening for vulnerability.

Update on the IRB Digital Agenda

The IRB provided updates on the progress of the IRB Digital Strategy; room upgrades and optimizing access through My Case Portal; and outcomes from the Digital Advisory Committee (DAC) meeting that took place on March 28, 2023, which included many of the stakeholders from the IRB CC.

Stakeholder feedback:

• In general stakeholders like the portal.
• Stakeholders asked if the package of documents could be automatically added as part of the material provided in the portal and whether it would be possible to have a personalized view on the portal.

Key Issues Requiring Early Engagement

Budget 2024 – Impact on IRB Funding

Key Messages

• Temporary funding from Budget 2022 is scheduled to sunset in 2024-25, which represents $87 million to process an additional 10,000 refugee claims. After this time, without new funding, the Immigration and Refugee Board (the IRB, or the Board) will return to base capacity to process up to 50,000 refugee claims annually, and funding levels of $270 million annually. (To be adjusted post Budget 2023 Refocusing the Government Spending confirmation).
• Temporary funding will represent over 16% of the total IRB budget in 2024-25. To manage resource capacity and to avoid losing the investments made in temporary resources, the IRB will require confirmation of a funding source for the asylum system by the spring of 2024. This is necessary to accommodate additional claims and maintain the integrity of the asylum system.
• ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████

Supplementary Messages

• ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
• ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
• ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
• Established Deputy Minister level governance through the Asylum System Management Board (ASMB) would monitor actual, as well as projected intake of asylum claims regularly (quarterly).
• ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████

Background
Growth Strategy

• ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
• ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
• ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
• ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████

Appointment and Reappointment of GIC Members

Key Messages

• Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) and Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision makers are appointed by the Governor in Council (GIC)—the Governor General acting on the advice of Cabinet. Appointments are made on the recommendation of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship following an open, transparent, and merit-based selection approach.
• At 150 GIC decision makers (equating to 141.5 full-time equivalents (FTE), the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) has by far the largest number of GIC appointees in a single organization in the Government of Canada.
• The IRB works closely with the Minister’s Office (MO) and the Privy Council Office (PCO) to maintain as close to a full complement of GIC decision makers as possible, and to ensure that the composition of the appeal divisions reflects operational, linguistic, gender and diversity requirements.
• A full decision maker complement enables the Board to most efficiently provide access to justice.
• As of June 12, 2023, 33.5 FTE decision maker positions were vacant, or 19% of the total GIC decision maker complement.
• To respond to current vacancies and account for further growth, the Board will endeavour to increase its GIC decision maker complement by an additional 52.5 FTEs over this fiscal year and next.

Background
Member Complement

• IRB’s appellant divisions are currently funded for 190 FTE decision maker positions, of which 34 are allocated to the IAD, 142 are allocated to the RAD and 14 have been temporarily set aside with no intention to fill this year.
• Of the 190 FTE decision maker positions, 178 are considered permanent positions (i.e., A-base), while 12 are funded through temporary sources (refugee top-up or immigration levels, for example).
• The Board’s complement of GIC decision makers has grown significantly over the past four years, largely due to funding provided to accelerate the processing of refugee claims and appeals.
• Since April 1, 2019, the RAD-funded decision maker complement has increased by 38% (from 103 FTE positions to 142 FTE positions).
• RAD’s actual decision maker complement will continue to grow over this year and next in response to two years of top-up funding which will allow the Refugee Protection Division to finalize an additional 10,000 claims.
• 2023-24: RAD received funding for an additional 11 decision makers, to finalize 675 additional appeals.
• 2024-25: RAD will receive funding for another additional 19 decision makers, to finalize 2,125 additional appeals.

Appointment Process

• All candidates seeking appointment to GIC decision maker positions are subject to an open, transparent and merit-based selection process through which they are assessed by a selection committee consisting of representatives from MO, PCO, the Prime Minister’s Office and the IRB. Candidate assessments involve application screening, a written exam, interviews and reference verifications.
• Following the assessment of candidates, the selection committee submits an advice letter to the Minister identifying the candidates found to be most qualified for appointment. Based on this advice, the Minister then makes a recommendation to the GIC for appointment.
• A roster of highly qualified candidates is established to draw upon for future vacancies. Being found qualified and placed on the roster is not a guarantee of appointment and the establishment of a roster does not preclude launching further selection processes.
• Initial appointments are usually three years in length.

Reappointments

• Following a careful review of a decision maker’s performance, the Chairperson of the IRB advises the Minister on which decision makers should be reappointed and for what duration. Based on this advice, the Minister then makes a recommendation to the GIC for reappointment.
• Reappointments typically vary from two to five years in length and are neither automatic nor guaranteed.

Financial Stability Review

Key Messages

• The Financial Stability Review has the following objectives:
• Review the current productivity and costing models (Completed).
• Review existing planning related activities and functions (report of findings to be shared with FSR Steering Committee members for review by early July).
• Propose a new dynamic costing model with updated and documented assumptions that will respond to current and future growth scenarios (target completion is mid-July).
• Propose a process and governance approach to harmonize and integrate all planning functions to maximize budget and resource utilization while considering various growth scenarios (target completion is end of August).

Background

• The fiscal and macroeconomic environment in which IRB operates is drastically changing:
• Refugee and Immigration intake is trending upwards;
• There has been a historic reliance on temporary funding that represented a significant portion of our overall funding;
• Starting from 2023-24, as part of Budget 2022, the IRB received $150M of additional permanent funding which allowed the IRB to stabilize its workforce and brought the total amount of permanent funding to $270M annually; and,
• There is an increasing need for a governed approach to managing future Board investments and initiatives.
• Under the backdrop of these conditions, Niewe, a third-party firm, is conducting a Financial Stability Review to:
• Understand how much it costs to run the organization;
• Understand how to plan for future investments and initiatives; and,
• Allocate resources equitably across the organization through the redevelopment of the costing and allocation models.

Progress to Date

• Existing costing and productivity models have been reviewed.
• Consultations with each division and branch have been completed, to identify cost drivers and their relationship to resource utilization, and to update the costing model data and assumptions for the new costing model.
• The new costing model will be presented for senior management approval in late July.
• Niewe has reviewed integrated business planning functions and sought comments on preliminary findings during the month of June.
• The firm will organize bilateral discussions with internal stakeholders on design recommendations during the month of July.

Central Region Office Move (25 St. Clair)

Key Messages

• The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB or the Board) is relocating its main Central Region office in Toronto from 74 Victoria Street to the newly renovated and LEED-certified building at 25 St. Clair Avenue East (a Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) building).
• The IRB was chosen by PSPC to relocate to the Crown owned building at 25 St. Clair as part of the government’s cost savings initiative of moving departments out of the expensive downtown core of Toronto.
• The move to 25 St. Clair will take place between November 24 and December 3, 2023, and the IRB’s reception area will be open to the public as of December 4, 2023, offering a welcoming space for visitors.
• Hearings will conclude at 74 Victoria Street on December 1, 2023, and begin at 25 St. Clair on January 2, 2024 to allow staff to train on new equipment.
• The decommissioning of 74 Victoria will begin after all employees have been moved to 25 St. Clair.

Supplementary Messages
Move Schedule

• The following move schedule was created in collaboration with the Divisions and the Operations and Regional Services Branch (ORSB):
• Phase 1 – November 24 - 26, 2023: Move ORSB employees within Records and Mail (R&M) and the Interpreters Unit. This will include central records and some equipment required for R&M. Some staff from Security, Accommodations and Information Management / Information Technology will also move to support employees.
• Phase 2 – December 1 - 3, 2023: Move all remaining staff, and remaining case and human resources files. All remaining equipment to be used at 25 St. Clair will move.

Move Status

• This is a “briefcase move,” as the workplace has been mostly depersonalized and it is essentially equipment and case files that will be moving.
• Move captains for all applicable teams and divisions have been chosen and meetings take place monthly.
• A detailed move strategy is being developed and will be available in July 2023.
• Employees receive periodic written updates and participate in periodic town halls on the office move. Employees will likely be able to tour the new facility in fall 2023, once construction work is completed.

Notes

The Minister is represented by an officer (Minister’s counsel) from either CBSA (Minister of Public Safety) or IRCC (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship)

Return to note 1 referrer

Bell Canada, 2003 SCC 36

Return to note 2 referrer

Ahumada, 2001 FCA 97

Return to note 3 referrer

Valente, 1985 S.C.R. 673

Return to note 4 referrer

Canada. Privy Council Office. 2015. Open and Accountable Government. https://pm.gc.ca/sites/pm/files/inline-files/oag_2015_english.pdf, Annex H.

Return to note 5 referrer

Cooperation MOU between IRCC, CBSA and IRB and/or the Asylum System Management Board

Return to note 6 referrer