A review of the complaint found that the allegations were not within the jurisdiction of the Member complaints process. The complaint was dismissed, and the file was closed.
The Complainant was counsel for a refugee claimant whose case was heard by a Member of the Refugee Protection Division. The Complainant alleged that the Member had unreasonable expectations regarding submitting evidence, that the Member did not allow the Complainant to ask questions the way they wanted to, and that the Member was biased towards the Complainant.
The Office of the Ombudsperson reviewed the complaint and found that the allegations were regarding adjudicative discretion, not conduct. Part of a Member's decision-making is to set due dates for evidence, to accept or reject the reasons for delays and to question counsel about the appearance and organization of any submitted evidence. A member's adjudicative discretion also includes whether to allow lines of questioning by counsel. In this case, the allegation of bias was based on the conduct described in the other allegations, which were all found to be matters of Member decision-making and adjudicative discretion. Therefore, this allegation of bias falls outside of the Member complaint process.
The Ombudsperson therefore recommended to the Chairperson that the allegations be dismissed as they do not fall within the scope of the Procedures for Making a Complaint about a Member. The Chairperson agreed with the recommendation.