Text Format - Refugee Protection Division Dashboard
Chart 1.
This is a column chart that illustrates the score distribution of cases. The aggregate average score is 2.4. The highest aggregate average score is 2.9 and the lowest is 1.8. Any case scoring 2 or higher has met expectations. 97% percent of cases are shown to have met quality standards.
Chart 2.
This is a bar chart of five bars describing performance categorized by five themes relating to hearing quality.
The first bar is entitled 'Pre-Proceeding Readiness” and describes the percentage of cases that met, exceeded, or fell below the fair pre-proceeding readiness criteria. 81% of cases exceeded expectations, 12% of cases met expectations, and 7% of cases fell below expectations.
The second bar is entitled 'Respectful Proceedings' and describes the percentage of cases that met, exceeded, or fell below the respectful proceedings criteria. 37% of cases exceeded expectations, 55% of cases met expectations, and 8% of cases fell below expectations.
The third bar is entitled 'Focused Proceedings' and describes the percentage of cases that met, exceeded, or fell below the criteria for focused proceedings. 38% of cases exceeded expectations, 47% of cases met expectations, and 15% of cases fell below expectations.
The fourth bar is entitled 'Reasons State Conclusions on all Issued Decisions' and describes the percentage of cases that met, exceeded, or fell below the criteria for ensuring reasons stated conclusions for all issued decisions. 46% of cases exceeded expectations, 43% of cases met expectations, and 11% of cases fell below expectations.
The fifth bar is entitled 'Findings Necessary to Justify Conclusions are Provided' and describes the percentage of cases that met, exceeded, or fell below the criteria for providing necessary findings to justify conclusions. 45% of cases exceeded expectations, 46% of cases met expectations, and 9% of cases fell below expectations.
The sixth bar is entitled 'Reasons are Transparent and Intelligible' and describes the percentage of cases that met, exceeded, or fell below the criteria for having reasons that are transparent and e. 63% of cases exceeded expectations, 35% of cases met expectations, and 2% of cases fell below expectations.
Chart 3.
This is a bar chart describing performance separated by the three regions: Western, Central, and Eastern. 12 files were included from the Western region, 35 files were included from the Central region, and 19 files were included from the Eastern region.
The first bar is entitled 'Western' and describes the percent of cases heard in the western region that met, exceeded or fell below the criteria during review. 57% of cases exceeded expectations, 41% of cases met expectations, and 2% of cases fell below expectations.
The second bar is entitled 'Central' and describes the percent of cases heard in the central region that met, exceeded, or fell below the criteria during review. 45% of cases exceeded expectations, 43% of cases met expectations, and less than 12% of cases fell below expectations.
The third bar is entitled 'Eastern' and describes the percent of cases heard in the eastern region that met, exceeded, or fell below the criteria during review. 60% of cases exceeded expectations, 31% of cases met expectations, and 9% of cases fell below expectations.
Chart 4.
This is a bar chart of five bars describing the five top performing areas by indicator.
The first bar is entitled 'The member uses plain language' and describes the percentage of cases where the member used plain language during the proceeding. 94% of cases exceeded expectations, 6% of cases met expectations, and no cases fell below expectations.
The second bar is entitled 'Conclusions are based on the issues and evidence adduced during the poroceedings' and describes the percentage of cases that met, exceeded, or fell below the criteria for basing conclusions on issues and evidence adduced during the proceedings. 53% of cases exceeded expectations, 47% of cases met expectations, and no cases fell below expectations.
The third bar is entitled 'The member manages challenging situations as they arise' and describes the percentage of cases that met, exceeded, or fell below the criteria for members managing challenging situations as the arose. 26% of cases exceeded expectations, 74% of cases met expectations, and no cases fell below expectations.
The fourth bar is entitled 'The member accommodates needs of the vulnerable participants, including unaccompanied minors, to facilitate their presentation of evidence' and describes the percentage of cases that met, exceeded, or fell below the criteria for accommodating the needs of vulnerable participants to facilitate their presentation of evidence. 11% of cases exceeded expectations, 89% of cases met expectations, and no cases fell below expectations.
The fifth and last bar is entitled 'Reasons are easily understood and logically sequenced' and describes the percentage of cases that met, exceeded, or fell below the criteria for having easily understood and logically sequenced reasons. 59% of cases exceeded expectations, 39% of cases met expectations, and 2% of cases fell below expectations.
Chart 5.
This is a bar chart of five bars describing the five lowest performing areas by indicator.
The first bar is entitled 'During the course of the hearing, the member narrowed the issues' and describes the percentage of cases where members narrowed the issues during the course of the hearing. 9% of cases exceeded expectations, 58% of cases met expectations, and 33% of cases fell below expectations.
The second bar is entitled 'The member narrows the issues for final representations' and describes the percentage of cases where the member narrowed the issues for final representations. 27% of cases exceeded expectations, 48% of cases met expectations, and 24% cases fell below expectations.
The third bar is entitled 'Issues identified as determinative at the hearing are dealt with in the reasons' and describes the percentage of cases where the determinative issues were dealt with in the reasons. 39% of cases exceeded expectations, 39% of cases met expectations, and 21% of cases fell below expectations.
The fourth bar is entitled 'The member deals with oral applications made by parties' and describes the percentage of cases where the member dealt with oral applications. 37% of cases exceeded expectations, 44% of cases met expectations and 19% of cases fell below expectations.
The fifth bar is entitled 'The member clearly idenitifies the potential determinative issues at the start of the proceeding' and describes the percentage of cases where the member clearly identified the potential determinative issues at the start of the proceeding. 30% of cases exceeded expectations, 52% of cases met expectations and 18% of cases fell below expectations.
Text Box 1.
This is free text with the heading 'Considerations,' which includes the following content:
The hearings in the sample were proportionally representive of the general population by region, language, outcome (accepted and dismissed), and representation by counsel.
Claim types related to Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE) as well as Women Fearing Gender-Based Violence (WFGBV) were also represented in the sample and analy
sed.
For further information and a full report on data contained in this dashboard please see
Quality Performance in the Refugee Protection Division 2019-20: Report of Results
Text Box 2.
This is a free text with the heading 'Takeaways,' which summarizes the strengths and areas for improvement found during the 2019-2020 RPD QMI:
Strengths:
In virtually all cases across regions, members excelled in providing clear, intelligible, and organized reasons.
The average scores for each results section was not different when compared between WFGBV cases and the sample as a whole.
Best Practices and professional development areas were identified to improve the experience of claimants with respect to their ability testify effectively and ensure they are treated with sensitivity.
The majority of cases made excellent use of the NDP, often quoting from it or referring extensively to specific portions.
Areas for Improvement:
Members should be reminded of the requirement in Guideline 7 to establish a clear and detailed issue agenda in consultation with counsel and to explain expectations regarding how the hearing should unfold to both counsel and the claimant.
Members would benefit from professional development on the reference to and use of rules, regulations, Chairperson's Guidelines, Jurisprudential Guides or persuasive decisions in their reasons and members should be encouraged to provide additional explanation of their application of the Chairperson's Guidelines in their reasons when relevant.
The RPD should provide ongoing, compulsory training on the use of Guideline 9 and the impact that SOGIE considerations can have on the refugee determination process, including the ability of the claimant to testify.