Quality performance in the Refugee Appeal Division – FY 2020 to 2021: Summary report



​​ ​ ​   ​ Below expectations 
​​​​ ​ ​   ​ ​Meets ​expectations 
​ ​   ​​ Exceeds expectations

Overall performance

70 cases | 3 themes | 22 questions​​

Overall performance graph
Text format – Overall performance​
Percentage of hearings that met or exceeded the high-quality standard: 90%10% Below expectations90% Meets or exceeds expectations

Performance by theme

Performance by theme graph
Text format – Performance by theme
Reasons are complete10% Below expectations75% Meets expectations15% Exceeds expectations
Reasons are transparent and intelligible7% Below expectations77% Meets expectations16% Exceeds expectations
Supplementary questions4% Below expectations75% Meets expectations21% Exceeds expectations

Performance by region

Performance by region graph
Text format – Performance by region
Eastern region – 28 cases8% Below expectations74% Meets expectations18% Exceeds expectations
Central region – 34 cases8% Below expectations75% Meets expectations17% Exceeds expectations
Western region – 8 cases4% Below expectations82% Meets expectations14% Exceeds expectations

Top 5 performing areas by question

Top 5 performing areas by question
Text format – Top 5 performing areas by question
Where appropriate, the member incorporates a trauma-informed and/or an intersectional approach to the assessment of the appeal.90% Meets expectations10% Exceeds expectations
Where applicable, the member applies the appropriate tests for considering when a hearing is required.100% Meets expectations
The member uses plain language.1% Below expectations93% Meets expectations6% Exceeds expectations
The member addresses the positions of all parties, if appropriate.1% Below expectations99% Meets expectations
The member's reasons refrain from relying on myths, stereotypes and assumptions and exhibit cultural competency.3% Below expectations86% Meets expectations11% Exceeds expectations

Lowest 4​ performing areas by question

Lowest 5 performing areas by question
Text format – Lowest 5 performing areas by question
The member succinctly summarizes the main issues.24% Below expectations49% Meets expectations27% Exceeds expectations
The member supports findings of fact with clear examples of evidence shown to be probative of these findings.23% Below expectations47% Meets expectations30% Exceeds expectations
The member considers all relevant issues and adequately justifies the outcome of the appeal.14% Below expectations79% Meets expectations7% Exceeds expectations
The member gives appropriately clear and concise reasons.11% Below expectations72​% Meets expectations17% Exceeds expectations



The hearings in the sample were proportionally representive of the general population by member finalizations, region, Guideline 4 and 9, outcome, language, and ministerial intervention.

New members were excluded from the assessment.

For further information and a full report on data contained in this dashboard please see: Quality Performance in the Refugee Protection Division 2020-21: Report of results


  • Continue training on high-quality decision writing with an emphasis on point-first and issue based writing, writing for the losing side, and summarizing the decision in opening paragraphs.
  • Provide training on writing convincing reasons, writing on determinative issues, presumptions, and balancing shortness, economy and responsiveness.
  • Highlight decisions that do a good job of linking factual findings to evidence.
  • Develop strategies for ensuring all relevant issues are considered on appeal, addressing the tension between the need for an independent assessment and the need for responsiveness, and writing transparent and intelligible reasons.
  • Remind members that their decisions may provide useful guidance to the RPD.
  • Reinforce member awareness of SOGIE characteristics such as the impact of traumatic experiences on testimony.
  • Consider​ protocols to ensure that identifying information is removed from SOGIE decisions.