Internal Evaluation of the IRB Refugee Determination System - Management Response and Action Plan

Recommendation #1: The IRB should consider a limited exercise where members would keeptrack of their time for a few weeks once or twice over a year. That information could be used to update reform assumptions and enable more accurate resource estimates.

Three years of experience in the reformed system has provided sufficient empirical evidence for new resource estimates to be made. A zero-based budgeting exercise will be undertaken in 2016‑17 which will objectively examine resourcing requirements at the IRB. Forecast models linking fluctuating intake and resource needs may be considered.

Recommendation #2: The previous system had more extra-hearing support for the decision-making process, by assisting members with triaging and preparing files for hearings. The IRB should consider a pilot project to determine if the provision of similar [adjudicative] supports would be a cost-effective method of increasing the efficiency of the system in finalizing claims.

RPD

The RPD agrees with this recommendation. Work is underway within the RPD to determine what type(s) of additional member support could be integrated into the faster system at appropriate costs.

Recommendation #3: The IRB should consider a pilot project on the provision of RPD transcripts to the RAD to assess the efficiency gains the availability of transcripts would provide.

RAD

The RAD has already begun a six-month transcript pilot from November 2015 to May 2016 after which a report will be prepared assessing the costs and benefits of transcripts in the RAD and Registry.

Recommendation #4: The IRB should review the adjudicative approach of basing decisions on a single determinative issue and whether that approach supports a more efficient refugee determination system by considering the strategy from the perspective of the entire system and not just the RPD.

RPD

Even though this change to the RPD adjudication strategy might reduce the number of remittals from the RAD, any change in the approach to decision making that expands the RPD member’s responsibility to examine issues is likely to curtail its ability to meet its mandate of proceeding efficiently and within the targets for time limits for decisions.

Recommendation #5: The IRB, IRCC, and the CBSA should discuss how to address issues related to scheduling hearings, FESS delays, and information‑sharing. In particular, discussions should consider the development of a more robust/flexible scheduling tool, improvements to scheduling practices that gives the RPD more control, and more timely and responsive information-sharing. Any such discussions must be conducted in a manner that respects the institutional independence of the IRB.

RPD with PPCAB (PPD)

The RPD agrees and will continue to work through PPD with portfolio organizations to maximize operational coordination, always keeping in the forefront the independence of the tribunal and the IRB.

With regards to scheduling, it is important for natural justice considerations to have scheduling done at the earliest possible moment, i.e. at referral. As such, scheduling should remain with the referring officer. With this in mind, the RPD will continue to explore changes to the scheduling regime which will afford the division additional flexibility to assign and distribute claims more effectively among its members. Enhancements to the Hearing Booking Tool will also be considered with these objectives in mind.

Recommendation #6: The IRB should consider as part of recommendation #2, whether there should be a greater redesign of the RPD Registry roles or whether some other method is more suited to providing members with more [administrative] support.

RPD

The RPD agrees with this recommendation. Work is underway within the division to determine what registry support structure might best support efficient file processing, thereby furthering the division’s objective of delivering fair, expert and quality decisions in a timely manner. Work will be tailored to the unique requirements of each region.

Recommendation #7: In combination with recommendation #2, the IRB should consider undertaking an examination of what needs to be done for the Research Directorate (RD) to deliver more timely responses with more focused content to the RPD.

RPD with Tribunal Services Branch (RD)

The RPD and the RD agree with this recommendation. The RD will work with the RPD to examine what kind of research is possible in light of tight processing time limits and limited capacity. Opportunities to increase capacity and improve research services and content where applicable will be identified and actioned.

Recommendation #8: The IRB should review how the IRB’s analytical function can be restructured to enhance its effectiveness.

RPD, RAD

The RPD and the RAD agree with this recommendation. Both divisions are included in the cyclical review of work descriptions; in 2016 EC positions—which includes divisional analysts—will be considered. Following this review, a clearer understanding of the IRB’s analytical function is expected.

Recommendation #9: The individual performance targets should be set in consultation with members and based on evidence of what is reasonable in the current system. 

RPD

The RPD discusses performance targets with members on an individual basis. With three years of experience in the reformed system, the RPD sets reasonable schedules for members, who are expected to contribute to overall divisional finalizations with a reasonable number of quality resolutions.

RAD

As per recommendation #1, a budgeting exercise will form the basis of evidence-based performance targets.

Recommendation #10: The RPD and the RAD should consider whether they should be more active in identifying and posting persuasive decisions or other decisions of public interest on their website. In addition, the RPD and the RAD should evaluate the Ready Tours and Information sessions to obtain a better idea of the uptake and satisfaction with these activities.

RPD

Legal Services, on behalf of the division, already actively identifies decisions of public interest which, once redacted and translated, are shared on CanLII. The evaluation of Ready Tours is ongoing and carried out on a regional level. 

RAD

All decisions of the RAD, including any decisions of public interest, are currently published on CanLII. Evaluation of Information Sessions is ongoing. The RAD is assessing the potential of use of persuasive decisions.

Recommendation #11: The RPD should review the Basis of Claim (BOC) form to determine if improvements are needed to allow for a clear narrative of the information relevant to the claim.

RPD

The RPD has already begun significant work to review and redraft the BOC form to be more effective. This project will continue into 2016-17.

Recommendation #12: Surges in intake are likely to continue to magnify the operational challenges under the reformed system and test RPD resilience. Delays in scheduling initial hearings resulting from such surges should be tracked appropriately and examined to understand the precise cause of delayed initial hearings during these periods. Equally important, the RPD should consider the downstream effects of such surges on member productivity, in an effort to more fully understand the division-wide impact of these surges.

RPD and PPCAB (SAM)

SAM will enable daily monitoring of intake volumes and early detection of capacity risks.

Recommendation #13: In its performance measurement framework that became effective for fiscal year 2015‑16, the IRB conceptualizes FESS as external and outside its control. Yet, data shows a substantial proportion of delay related to FESS occurs after confirmation has been received. This part of the delay is due to the operational limitations of the RPD and should be categorized as such and reflected in the revised performance measure. Using this approach, the RPD will be able to provide a more complete assessment of the impact of reforms and the capacity issues it is facing.

RPD and PPCAB (SAM)

SAM will monitor and report capacity to reschedule FESS-delayed cases in a timely manner.

Recommendation #14: Monitoring and reporting on the backlog should be factored into the RPD’s performance measures. As part of this ongoing monitoring, the RPD should continue to track and report on the volume and age of the inventory, but also analyze and report on the nature of the cases in the backlog inventory and the factors that contributed to these cases ending upas backlog.

RPD and PPCAB (SAM)

SAM will enable monthly monitoring of variance in age of pending inventory and will incorporate the data into the current divisional reporting framework (monthly, quarterly and annual reports).

Recommendation #15: The RPD and the RAD should review [member] suggestions for the improvement of knowledge management tools raised in this evaluation and take action as warranted.

RPD

The RPD agrees and will continue to look for opportunities to identify and improve knowledge management tools for members.

RAD

The scheduled migration of databases, including the National Reasons Database, to the Corporate Repository is expected to improve functionality for members.