Methodology
70 cases reviewed | 27 indicators across 6 themes
The study aims to assess the quality of decision making to identify strengths and areas for improvement, as well as to inform performance reporting to the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS).
A third-party reviewer, Paul Daly, Research Chair in Administrative Law and Governance at the University of Ottawa, was hired to conduct the assessment and was supported by the IRB Audit and Evaluation team.
The cases in the sample were proportionally representative of the overall case composition for region and language.
Considerations
To ensure quality and consistency in the assessment, a reviewer was selected based on their in-depth knowledge of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), refugee and immigration matters, and administrative law. Their observations do not lend themselves to firm conclusions on legal matters such as the correct application of the law, the weighing of the evidence, or the fairness of the proceedings from a natural justice perspective. Only a court reviewing the case can arrive at such conclusions. Where sample sizes are too small for ‘if applicable' indicators, observations or recommendations may still have been provided but these are not based on representative findings.
Legend
|
|---|
Below expectations
|
Meets expectations
|
Exceeds expectations |
Overall performance
Text format - Overall performance
| Percentage of cases that met or exceeded expectations | 100% |
*The Departmental Results Framework target is for 80% of assessed cases to meet or exceed the high-quality standard. This target was surpassed, with 100% of cases meeting or exceeding the expectations.
Performance by theme
Text format - Performance by theme
| Reasons state conclusions on all determinative issues | 100% meets expectations |
| Pre-proceeding readiness | 100% meets expectations |
| Fair and respectful proceedings | 1% below expectations | 89% meets expectations | 10% exceeds expectations |
| Focused and robust proceedings | 1% below expectations | 91% meets expectations | 8% exceeds expectations |
| Decisions provide findings and analysis necessary to justify conclusions | 1% below expectations | 96% meets expectations | 3% exceeds expectations |
| Reasons are transparent and intelligible | 4% below expectations | 94% meets expectations | 2% exceeds expectations |
Key indicators that impacted lower scoring themes (ex. Reasons are Transparent and Intelligible) were the organization and logical sequence of reasons, and the likelihood of reasons being understood by the general public.
What we did well
The Immigration Division (ID) performed well in many areas, especially in being well-prepared for hearings, ensuring fair and respectful proceedings, and producing justified, complete, transparent, and intelligible reasons.
- Members were invariably well prepared for hearings. It was evident that they had reviewed the file in advance, appreciated the key issues, and arrived ready to focus discussion on relevant legal and factual matters.
- In detention reviews specifically, members undertook fresh assessments in all cases, considered the s. 248 factors and invited evidence from bondspersons.
- Members' training in managing hearings, their training in relevant legal issues and their use of standard-form scripts allowed them to excel on these indicators.
- Persons concerned were treated with sensitivity and respect, were accommodated where appropriate, and members ensured that persons concerned and the Minister could address all relevant issues.
- Members addressed all relevant issues in their reasons and based their decisions on evidenced adduced in the proceedings.
- In virtually all cases, members supported findings of fact by reference to credible evidence, addressed evidence running contrary to their conclusion and relied on legislation, regulations, rules, or Chairperson's guidelines, where appropriate.
- Members rendered plain-language, issues-based, point-first decisions which were generally very easy to understand, were concise, well-organized and logically sequenced.
Recommendations
- Members are very well trained in the substantive law they apply and in how to handle hearings. They evidently rely on scripts for conveying information during hearings and on templates for decision writing. The excellent results in this review are largely attributable to the work being done by the Immigration Division before members hear matters. This preparatory work should continue.
- The Immigration Division should prepare new plain language scripts for communicating information about the nature of the proceedings, the relevant legal and factual issues, the possible conclusions and the availability of appeal or judicial review routes. Members should ensure fairness and respect by communicating in plain language with the person concerned, whether they are represented or not, at the outset of the hearing.
- The Immigration Division should consider whether it is advisable to encourage members to invite oral testimony more often from potential bondspersons in detention reviews. This may assist in resolving doubts or gaps in evidence in relation to a bondsperson.
- Members should produce succinct summaries of decisions, whether they are rendering them orally or in writing, in order to optimize the accuracy of decision-making and enhance the accessibility of their decisions to the person concerned and the general public.
Management Response
The Immigration Division accepted all recommendations.
The Division will update its scripts, or memory aids, to reflect plain language guidance, deliver training on plain language communication in adjudicative settings, and remind members to communicate key information in plain language. The Division will offer refresher training on when to invite oral testimony from bondspersons. They will also develop and deliver training on providing succinct decision summaries.
For more information
For more information, please see the full report:
Quality Performance in the Immigration Division 2024.