Chairperson’s guideline: Changing the date or time of a proceeding

​This guideline explains the IRB’s approach to deciding applications to change the date or time of a proceeding. It comes into force on June 1, 2026, and replaces Chairperson guideline 6: Scheduling and changing the date or time of a proceeding (December 15, 2012).

Guidelines issued by the Chairperson, pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

On this page

  1. Introduction
  2. Purpose
  3. General considerations in all applications
  4. Approach to specific applications
  5. Enquiries

1. Introduction

  • 1.1. This guideline sets out the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB or the Board) approach to deciding applications to change the date or time of a proceeding (“CDT applications” or “applications”).
  • 1.2. This guideline comes into force on June 1, 2026, and replaces Chairperson guideline 6: Scheduling and changing the date or time of a proceeding, December 15, 2012.

2. Purpose

  • 2.1. The purpose of this guideline is to assist members with respect to the key considerations when deciding CDT applications.
  • 2.2. Members should take a strict approach to allowing CDT applications. Section 162 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) requires the IRB to deal with all proceedings before it as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit. Unnecessary changes of date or time of hearings have a negative impact on the IRB’s ability to fulfill this requirement.

3. General considerations in all applications

Guideline to be applied consistently with the rules of each Division

  • 3.1. Under the authority of subsection 161(1) of the IRPA, the chairperson has made rules of practice and procedure for each division of the IRB. This guideline complements the rules and must be applied consistently with them.
  • 3.2. The rules of the divisions emphasize that the primary consideration in deciding whether to allow a CDT application is the existence of exceptional circumstances.
  • 3.3. Members are expected to consider all relevant factors when deciding CDT applications. Factors identified in this guideline are not intended to be exhaustive. 

Fairness and natural justice

  • 3.4. Members should generally only allow a CDT application when it is necessary to ensure the proceedings respect the principles of fairness and natural justice.

Members not bound by parties agreeing to the CDT application

  • 3.5. Members deciding a CDT application are not bound by the fact that all parties agree to a change of date or time. While members should carefully consider joint submissions or the consent of other parties, they must be satisfied there are valid reasons to justify a change of date or time. If not following a joint submission or consent, the member should provide oral or written reasons for refusing the CDT application.

Applications to be made in a timely manner

  • 3.6. Members are expected to consider whether a CDT application was made in a timely manner. The IRB expects a party to request a change of date or time promptly when they know, or should have known, of the need for a change of date or time.

Members to consider previous changes of date or time

  • 3.7. Members are expected to consider whether changes of date or time were previously allowed and the reasons for allowing those applications.

Peremptory dates

  • 3.8. While not determinative, designating a date and time of a proceeding as peremptory signals that further changes of date or time are very unlikely, and the parties should be prepared to proceed on the next scheduled date because it is almost certain to proceed.
  • 3.9. When allowing a CDT application, members are expected to consider whether the next date and time should be fixed on a peremptory basis, considering the following factors as appropriate:
    • whether there have been previous changes of date or time
    • the reasons for any previous changes of date or time
    • previous challenges in scheduling the proceeding, particularly those attributable to the party who made the application
    • whether the party who made the application has failed to comply with a requirement, rule or order of the division
    • how long the matter has been outstanding
  • 3.10. Members deciding a CDT application are expected to consider if the date and time for the proceeding was set on a peremptory basis. When a matter has been set on a peremptory basis, this factor carries significant weight, particularly if the same party is making a subsequent application.

Members to consider the operational impact to the Board

  • 3.11. Members are expected to consider the impact on the operations of the Board, such as whether the scheduled hearing time can be used for another matter.

Designated representatives

  • 3.12. The same considerations set out in this guideline apply where the IRB has designated a person under subsection 167(2) of the IRPA to represent the subject of the proceedings (a designated representative).
  • 3.13. Members must not proceed in the absence of a designated representative as the duty to designate is a statutory obligation. However, in appropriate circumstances, the IRB may order that a designated representative be replaced, such as where they are not cooperating with the tribunal to schedule the matter or, due to circumstances such as a serious health condition, they will not be available to proceed in a reasonable time.

Abandonment if party not present

  • 3.14. When an application is denied prior to the proceeding or the IRB was not able to communicate its decision to the party before the proceeding, the party and, if represented their counsel, must still appear at the IRB and be prepared to proceed; otherwise, the IRB may start abandonment proceedings or declare the matter abandoned in accordance with subsection 168(1) of the IRPA.

4. Approach to specific applications

4.1. Applications related to counsel

Context

  • 4.1.1. In this guideline, “counsel” refers both to counsel for the subject of the proceedings before the IRB and Minister’s counsel.
  • 4.1.2. While subsection 167(1) of the IRPA provides that parties appearing before the IRB have the right to be represented by counsel, this right is not absolute. Parties and any counsel they retain must be ready and able to appear and proceed according to the scheduling requirements of the division and the requirements of the legislation.
  • 4.1.3. The IRB generally does not allow a CDT application where counsel is unavailable to proceed within a reasonable time or was not reasonably available to consult regarding scheduling the proceeding. When a party is represented, the IRB usually attempts to accommodate counsel’s availabilities. However, attempts to contact a counsel or accommodate a counsel’s schedule cannot interfere with the IRB’s ability to schedule its proceedings efficiently, fairly, and within any legislated time limits.
  • 4.1.4. If the IRB cannot reasonably contact counsel or counsel is not available within a reasonable time, the IRB may schedule cases on dates when counsel is not available. The IRB expects the party and their counsel to make the necessary arrangements such that the case may proceed on the scheduled date.
  • 4.1.5. The IRB generally expects unrepresented parties to be prepared to proceed on the date fixed for a hearing. However, members are expected to consider the situation of unrepresented parties who are unfamiliar with the rules and processes of the Board.

Applications based on counsel not being available

  • 4.1.6. Members are expected to consider the following factors, as applicable, when deciding an application to change the date or time of a proceeding because a party’s counsel is not available:
    • whether counsel was consulted about the date or whether the IRB made efforts to contact the counsel that were unsuccessful
    • whether the counsel agreed to represent the party after the date for the proceeding had been set when they knew, or should have known, that they were not available on that date
    • whether the reason for counsel’s unavailability was reasonably foreseeable
    • counsel’s efforts to be replaced, where the reasons for counsel’s unavailability were known, or should have been known, far enough in advance of the hearing
    • whether the reasons for asking for a CDT relate to matters that are urgent or beyond the counsel’s control

Applications based on needing time to retain counsel

  • 4.1.7. Members are expected to consider the following factors, as appropriate, when deciding a CDT application because an unrepresented party wishes to retain counsel:
    • the time the party has had to retain counsel
    • the party’s efforts to retain counsel who is available and prepared to proceed on the date fixed for the hearing
    • if the party was previously represented, the reason the party wishes to change counsel, if the reason can be disclosed without breaching solicitor-client privilege
    • the party’s ability to represent themselves
    • any personal characteristics which cause challenges for the party
    • the complexity of the matter
    • if the party is waiting for legal aid, when the party made the application for legal aid and any delays in processing the legal aid application that were beyond the control of the party

4.2. Applications made for medical reasons

  • 4.2.1. Members are expected to consider the following factors, as appropriate, if a party makes an application to change the date or time of a proceeding because of a medical condition other than those associated with counsel:
    • the nature of the medical condition, including how it impacts the party’s ability to participate in the proceeding, without asking for a diagnosis
    • whether the condition can be accommodated, such as by giving more frequent breaks or changing the hearing to another format (for example, proceeding virtually by videoconference or in-person)
    • whether the party has provided a date when they expect to be prepared to proceed
  • 4.2.2. Where appropriate, members may request a medical certificate or other documentation, particularly where the party is seeking a lengthy delay or there was a previous CDT application allowed based on the medical condition of the party.

4.3. Applications made due to other ongoing immigration proceedings

  • 4.3.1. The IRB does not generally allow a CDT application to wait for the outcome of other immigration proceedings involving the party. Members are expected to consider the following factors, as appropriate:
    • the likelihood the other proceeding will be concluded in a timely manner
    • whether the outcome of the other proceedings may render the IRB proceeding unnecessary

4.4. Applications made to seek more time to prepare

  • 4.4.1. Members are expected to consider the following factors, as appropriate, when a party makes a CDT application because they need more time to prepare:
    • how much time the party has already had to prepare for the proceeding
    • the efforts the party made to be ready for the proceeding, including when they began their preparations
    • the complexity of the proceeding
    • any personal characteristics which cause challenges for the party
    • whether the time is needed to address an issue which was not reasonably foreseeable
    • where the party is waiting to obtain documents:
      1. when the party knew, or should have known, that the documents were necessary
      2. the efforts made to obtain the documents, including when they were first requested
      3. the importance of the documents to the relevant issues
      4. whether the documents are likely to be obtained in a timely manner
      5. whether the hearing may proceed with time given after the hearing to obtain and submit the documents, if necessary

4.5. Applications made to arrange communications with witnesses

  • 4.5.1. The IRB generally does not allow CDT applications to make arrangements to hear witnesses. Members are expected to consider the following factors, where appropriate, when deciding whether to allow an application to provide time to arrange to hear a witness:
    • whether the witness information was provided in a timely manner in accordance with the relevant Division’s rules
    • whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the witness would need accommodations or special arrangements
    • the efforts the party made to have the witness ready to testify, including making required arrangements to have the witness testify from outside Canada where applicable
    • the necessity of the witness’ testimony

4.6. Immigration Division

Detention reviews

  • 4.6.1. The Immigration Division (ID) does not generally allow applications to change the date or time of a detention review if doing so results in the review being conducted outside the legislated time limits.
  • 4.6.2. More specific guidance regarding changes of date or time in detention reviews is provided in section 9 of Chairperson Guideline 2: Detention.

Admissibility hearings

  • 4.6.3. The ID does not generally allow an application to change the date or time of a proceeding in the following circumstances:
    • the application is made for the purpose of providing relief from the effect of issuing a removal order, such as avoiding the impact the issuance of a removal order may have on other legal processes
    • the application is made by the Minister seeking time to gather further evidence or prepare for the proceedings where it was reasonably foreseeable on the date of referral that such documentation or such efforts would be required. The ID expects the Minister to be prepared to proceed in an admissibility hearing from the date it is referred to the division
    • the application is made to wait for a pending application for ministerial relief from inadmissibility
  • 4.6.4. Members are expected to consider the following factors, as appropriate, when deciding an application to change the date or time of a proceeding pending an appeal of a conviction on criminal charges:
    • whether the appeal has been filed and the likelihood it will be concluded in a timely manner
    • whether the outcome of the appeal may render the ID proceeding unnecessary
    • the prejudice to the parties
    • whether allowing the application would unreasonably delay the proceeding
    • whether the person concerned will have a right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division

4.7. Immigration Appeal Division

  • 4.7.1. Members are expected to consider the following factors, as appropriate, when deciding a CDT application due to pending criminal charges or pending an appeal of a conviction on criminal charges:
    • whether the charges will be resolved in a timely manner or whether an appeal has been filed and the likelihood it will be concluded in a timely manner
    • whether the outcome of the charges or appeal may render the IAD proceeding unnecessary
    • the prejudice to the parties
    • whether allowing the application would unreasonably delay the proceeding

5. Enquiries

For information, send your request by email: IRB.Policy-Politiques.CISR@irb-cisr.gc.ca or by mail at:

Senior Director, Policy, Engagement and Parliamentary Affairs Directorate
Strategic Directions and Corporate Affairs Branch
Minto Place, Canada Building
344 Slater Street, 14th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario  
K1A 0K1

Signed April 13, 2026

Manon Brassard
Chairperson
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

​
​