Legend
|
|---|
Below expectations
|
Meets expectations
|
Exceeds expectations |
Methodology
70 cases reviewed | 22 indicators across 3 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, who is the Research Chair in Administrative Law and Governance at the University of Ottawa, was hired to conduct the assessment and was supported by the Audit and Evaluation team.
The cases in the sample were proportionally representative of the general population for region, language, and outcome. Members with less than 6 months of experience were removed from the sample.
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, 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. Moreover, a small sample size limits the inferences that may be made about the broader caseload.
Overall performance
Text format – Overall performance
| Percentage of hearings that met or exceeded the high-quality standard: 87%Footnote 1 | 13% Below expectations | 97% Meets or exceeds expectations |
Performance by theme
Text format – Performance by theme
| Reasons are complete | 12% Below expectations | 69% Meets expectations | 19% Exceeds expectations |
| Reasons are transparent and intelligible | 7% Below expectations | 65% Meets expectations | 28% Exceeds expectations |
| Supplementary questions | 8% Below expectations | 71% Meets expectations | 21% Exceeds expectations |
What we did well
The RAD performed well in the important task of producing reasons for decision that are justifiable, intelligible and transparent:
- Applying legal frameworks accurately.
- Ensuring clarity and completeness of factual analysis.
- Evidencing commitment to best practices for contemporary administrative tribunal reasons, such as plain-language communication, issues-based analysis, point-first drafting and writing for the losing side.
- Demonstrating cultural competence and sensitivity to intersectionality.
Recommendations
The RAD has reviewed and accepted the recommendations below. They have developed an action plan that includes training for new and existing members, developing new materials and guidance, and leveraging examples of best practices from the assessment.
- Members should continue to receive training on plain-language, issues-based and point-first writing.
- Members and team leaders should receive additional information on the importance of issues-based analysis to achieving the RAD's mission and ensuring public confidence in the RAD.
- Members should receive additional training on how to summarize decisions.
For more information
For more information, please see the full report:
Quality performance in the Refugee Appeal Division 2022 to 2023.