2012-13 Part III ‑ Departmental Performance Report

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

The original version was signed by
The Honourable Chris Alexander
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Message from the Interim Chairperson

Section I: Organizational Overview

Section II: Analysis of Programs

Section III: Supplementary Information

Section IV: Other Items of Interest


Message from the Interim Chairperson

Ken Sandhu, Interim Chairperson I am pleased to present the 2012-13 Performance Report for the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB). This report is a balanced and comprehensive review of the IRB's performance and accomplishments as set against stated plans and priorities for 2012-13, the final full year of the late chairperson Brian Goodman's mandate.

The IRB is an independent and accountable tribunal entrusted by Parliament with resolving immigration and refugee cases efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law. Through the work of its four divisions, namely the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), the Immigration Division (ID) and the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), the Board contributes directly to Canada's humanitarian traditions, the security of Canada and the quality of life of Canadians as well as to the fulfilment of our international obligations.

Results for Canadians

Throughout the year, the IRB strived to maximize productivity while ensuring fairness for those with proceedings before it. In this regard, I am proud of what the Board's decision-makers and adjudicative support personnel have accomplished. Thanks to their dedication and hard work, as well as internal efficiency measures, the IRB achieved high output levels, despite 2012-13 being a year of profound change for the Board.

In the RPD in particular, substantial inroads continued to be made into the IRB's backlog of unprocessed refugee protection claims. As a result of innovative case management strategies and a consistently high level of decision-maker productivity, among other factors, the RPD has brought down the backlog of pending claims from a high of 62,000 in October 2009 to 27,900 at the end of the reporting period. In addition to its achievements in this regard, the RPD also successfully handled a substantial intake of new claims, totalling approximately 75,000 between October 2009 and December 2012.

Reform implementation

The IRB underwent significant organizational and business re-engineering in 2012-13 as it prepared for the coming into force (CIF) of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act on December 15, 2012.

Activities carried out included the development of new mechanisms for processing refugee protection claims much more quickly than was previously the case; the establishment of a new refugee appeal mechanism; the development or retooling of information technology systems to reflect legislative and other process changes; the hiring and training of required personnel, including the RPD's complement of new public servant decision-makers; and the transition of approximately half of all IRB employees to new positions or reporting relationships.

Despite the added challenge of further legislative changes made just six months prior to the CIF of the reform legislation, the IRB was nonetheless successful in implementing the new system on time and within budget. This achievement would not have been possible without the dedication and hard work of personnel at all levels, both in the regions and at IRB National Headquarters.

The road ahead

The year ahead again promises to be challenging for the IRB, as it continues to ramp up its output in the new refugee determination system and make adjustments as required. In addition, the Board will continue to prioritize efforts to reduce the backlog of legacy refugee protection claims that remained pending at the time the new legislation came into force.

I feel fortunate as Interim Chairperson to lead a tribunal whose personnel, whether public servants or Governor-in-Council appointees, are so committed to the fulfilment of its mission and strategic priorities, and I know that I can count on them to ensure the IRB's continued success.



The original version was signed by
Ken Sandhu
Interim Chairperson


Section I: Organizational Overview

Raison d'être and Responsibilities

Mission
Our mission, on behalf of Canadians, is to resolve immigration and refugee cases efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law.

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) is an independent administrative tribunal that was created on January 1, 1989, by an amendment to the Immigration Act. In 2002, the Immigration Act was replaced by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which was amended by the Balanced Refugee Reform Act (BRRA) in 2010 and further amended by the BRRA and the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act (PCISA) in 2012. IRB divisions derived their mandates from the IRPA, BRRA and PCISA during the 2012-13 reporting period.

IRB Division Mandates
Refugee Protection Division (RPD)
  • Decides claims for refugee protection
  • Decides applications for vacation of refugee protection
  • Decides applications for cessation of refugee protection
  • Decides pre-removal risk assessments (PRRA)Note 1
Refugee Appeal Division (RAD)
  • Hears appeals from some decisions of the RPD allowing or rejecting claims for refugee protection
Immigration Division (ID)
  • Conducts admissibility hearings for foreign nationals or permanent residents who seek entry into Canada, or who are already in Canada and are alleged to be inadmissible
  • Conducts detention reviews for foreign nationals or permanent residents who are detained for immigration reasons
Immigration Appeal Division (IAD)
  • Hears appeals of family sponsorship applications refused by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)
  • Hears appeals from certain removal orders made against permanent residents, Convention refugees and other protected persons, and holders of permanent resident visas
  • Hears appeals by permanent residents against whom a CIC officer outside Canada has decided that they have not fulfilled their residency obligation
  • Hears appeals by the Minister of Public Safety of ID decisions at admissibility hearings

Notes

Note 1

Activities associated with PRRA will begin in a future reporting period; see Refugee Protection program for more details.

Return to note 1 referrer

Regional Operations

The IRB carries out its work in three regional offices located in Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver. The Central Region is responsible for Ontario, excluding Ottawa; the Eastern Region for Quebec, Ottawa and the Atlantic provinces; and the Western Region for the Western provinces and the Northern territories. All four divisions hold hearings in these regions and are assisted by registry services and corporate support. The IRB also has an office in Calgary in which hearings are held. Hearings are also held in a small number of itinerant locations. Internal and support services are managed at IRB National Headquarters, located in Ottawa.

Administrative Justice

Through the work of each division, the IRB strives to deliver a simpler, more accessible and expeditious form of justice than that provided by the courts. The IRB applies the principles of administrative law, including those of natural justice, in its proceedings. Its decisions are rendered in accordance with the law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The IRB is committed to fairness in all aspects of its work. Each case is decided on its own merits. The Board respects the dignity and diversity of the individuals who appear before it and their unique and sometimes highly traumatic experiences.

Benefits for Canadians

Immigrants and refugees have always contributed significantly to Canada's growth and development. The IRB ensures continued benefits to Canadians in three important ways:

  • In the hearing of refugee protection claims and the resolution of refugee protection appeals, it ensures that Canada accepts those in need of protection in accordance with international obligations and Canadian law.
  • Through admissibility hearings and detention reviews, it contributes to the integrity of our immigration system, ensures the maintenance of the balance between individual rights and the safety and security of Canadians, and upholds Canada's reputation for justice and fairness.
  • As an independent tribunal responsible for resolving sponsorship, removal order and residency obligation appeals, it helps to promote family reunification, helps to ensure Canadians' safety and security, and safeguards the integrity of Canada's immigration system.

The IRB also contributes more broadly to the quality of life of Canada's communities by strengthening our country's social fabric and by reflecting and reinforcing the core values that are important to Canadians. These include respect for human rights, peace, security and the rule of law.


Strategic Outcome and Program Alignment ArchitectureNote 2

Notes

Note 2

In April 2012, updates were made to the Policy on Management, Resources and Results Structures nomenclature. Specifically, "Program Activity Architecture" was replaced by "Program Alignment Architecture," and "program activity" was replaced by "program."

Return to note 2 referrer

As directed by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), the 2012-13 Performance Report (DPR) is based on the IRB's mandate as legislated in the 2012-13 reporting period and on the Program Alignment Architecture (PAA) approved at that time. As illustrated in the table below, the IRB has a single strategic outcome and four core programs that include responsibility for all tribunal decisions and resolutions. The fifth program, Internal Services, supports the first four.

Strategic Outcome: Resolve immigration and refugee cases before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law

Strategic outcome
Programs Responsibilities
1. Refugee Protection program Renders quality decisions and otherwise resolves cases in a timely manner regarding:
  • Refugee protection claims made by persons in Canada
  • PRRA of persons subject to a removal orderNote 3
2. Refugee Appeal program Renders quality decisions and otherwise resolves cases in a timely manner regarding:
  • Appeals from RPD decisions concerning refugee protection claims
3. Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews program Renders quality decisions and otherwise resolves cases in a timely manner regarding:
  • Admissibility of foreign nationals or permanent residents who are alleged to be inadmissible to Canada under the IRPA
  • Detention reviews for foreign nationals or permanent residents who are detained under the IRPA
4. Immigration Appeal program Renders quality decisions and otherwise resolves cases in a timely manner regarding:
  • Family sponsorship applications refused by CIC
  • Certain removal orders made against permanent residents, Convention refugees and other protected persons, and holders of permanent resident visas
  • Permanent residents outside of Canada who have been found not to have fulfilled their residency obligation
  • Appeals by the Minister of Public Safety against a decision of the ID on admissibility
The following program supports the strategic outcome within this organization:
5. Internal Services program
  • Management and Oversight, Communications, Legal, Human Resources Management, Financial Management, Information Management, Information Technology, Procurement and Assets Management, Internal Audit and Evaluation

Notes

Note 3

Activities associated with PRRA will begin in a future reporting period; see Refugee Protection program for more details.

Return to note 3 referrer

Organizational Priorities

The IRB's for 2012-13 all support the same single strategic outcome and are summarized in the following table.

Strategic Outcome: Resolve immigration and refugee cases before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law

Strategic priorities
Priorities Type Summary of Progress
1. Prepare for and implement the BRRA Previously committed to With the coming into force (CIF) of the BRRA and PCISA in December 2012, the IRB has experienced one of the most significant transformations in its history. The IRB took all necessary steps to implement the new legislation, which involved major process changes to the Refugee Protection program, as well as the creation of processes for the newly established Refugee Appeal program. In all cases, the required implementation activities were completed on time and within budget.
2. Continue to maximize case resolutions while ensuring quality and fairness Ongoing The number of available decision-makers remains critical to the IRB's ability to maximize case resolutions. The IRB continued to assess and recommend qualified candidates to the Minister for appointment in order to maintain a full complement of Governor-in-Council (GIC) decision-makers. Additional appointments of GIC decision-makers, internal efficiency measures and increased productivity are among the factors that allowed the IRB to reduce its backlog of unresolved refugee protection claims by more than half since October 2009. With the transition from GIC to public servant decision-makers in the RPD, as provided for under the BRRA, public servant decision-makers were selected and appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA). A new qualitative performance measurement system was applied to the ID and the IAD, and it will be applied to the remaining divisions once a sufficient number of cases have been completed.
3. Continue to promote an adaptive, integrated and flexible organization that values its people Ongoing The IRB continued to ensure the consistent delivery of high-quality administrative justice within a changing environment. In 2012-13, the IRB adapted to the changes brought about by the reform of the refugee determination system. Emphasis was placed on human resources (HR) management practices, training and human change management. In addition, the IRB took steps to ensure that relevant and up-to-date information regarding the new refugee determination system and other changes at the Board was shared with personnel and external stakeholders in a timely manner.
Risk Analysis
Risk Risk Response Strategy Link to PAA Link to Organizational Priorities
Reform to Canada's refugee system: Implementation of the BRRA and the PCISA by the CIF date requires significant organizational transformation, in particular to capacity, accommodations, information technology (IT) systems, rules and policy instruments. The IRB carried out the risk response strategy described in the 2012-13 Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP), which resulted in a successful transition to the new refugee determination system by the CIF date.

IRB efforts included the fit up of new hearing rooms and offices, the hiring and training of new personnel, and the launch of NOVA, the IRB's case-tracking system-all completed while maintaining day-to-day operations.
Refugee Protection

Refugee Appeal
Priority 1: Prepare for and implement the BRRA

Priority 3: Continue to promote an adaptive, integrated and flexible organization that values its people
Appointment of decision-makers: A full complement of GIC and public servant decision-makers is key to meeting program deliverables. Ongoing GIC recruitment campaigns ensured that a sufficient pool of qualified candidates was available for consideration by the GIC for appointment to the former RPD, the RAD and the IAD.

A staffing strategy consisting of multiple staffing processes to recruit qualified public servant decision-makers resulted in a nearly full complement of decision-makers in the new RPD by the CIF date.
Refugee Protection

Refugee Appeal

Immigration Appeal
Priority 1: Prepare for and implement the BRRA

Priority 2: Continue to maximize case resolutions while ensuring quality and fairness
Pending case inventory: A historical shortfall in the GIC decision-maker complement and increased intake have resulted in an inventory of refugee protection claims and immigration appeals beyond the IRB's funded capacity. As described in the RPP, the IRB implemented a special backlog reduction initiative consisting of the appointment of additional GIC decision-makers and adjudicative support personnel for the purpose of reducing the inventory of unresolved refugee protection claims.

The IRB reallocated internal resources, including by retaining GIC appointees in the RPD to continue to hear legacy claims after the CIF date, by hiring public servant decision-makers on a temporary basis prior to the CIF date and by assigning legacy refugee protection claims to RPD public servant decision-makers.

These measures resulted in the reduction of the RPD legacy inventory from 40,300 cases at the beginning of the fiscal year to 27,900 cases at the end of the year.

Due to the prioritization of efforts to reduce the RPD legacy inventory, the IAD inventory grew slightly to 11,800 cases at the end of the reporting period.
Refugee Protection

Immigration Appeal
Priority 2: Continue to maximize case resolutions while ensuring quality and fairness

Operating Environment

The IRB carries out its mandate within a complex and ever-changing environment. Both international and domestic factors influence the IRB's operating environment. Conflicts and country conditions abroad can affect the number of refugee protection claims made in Canada. Similarly, shifts in international migration patterns and changes to domestic policies by other receiving countries can affect the number of people seeking admission to Canada.

Refugee populations. Most industrialized countries faced an increase in asylum claims in 2012, according to the report Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries 2012, published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Collectively, the 44 industrialized countries examined received approximately 479,300 asylum claims, an eight percent increase over the previous year. Canada ranked seventh in intake, behind the United States, Germany, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Switzerland. The number of new claims received by Canada declined for the third consecutive year; in 2012, Canada's intake stood at 20,500 claims, down 19 percent in comparison with 2011.

Immigration appeals. In 2012-13, the Government of Canada introduced a number of legislative reform initiatives that the IAD projected would impact its inventory volumes. These included limitations on the IAD's jurisdiction in cases involving serious criminality, regulatory changes with respect to family class sponsorship of parents and grandparents, and other changes that will increase the time period before a new sponsorship application is allowed in the case of individuals found to be inadmissible for misrepresentation. Other program changes seek to reduce fraud and promote system integrity in relation to spousal sponsorships. Given the timing of these changes, they did not have an impact on the IAD's inventory in 2012-13. Nevertheless, the IAD's capacity to finalize cases was adversely affected by the need to give priority to preparations for the CIF of the new refugee determination system and to the reduction of the RPD inventory of unresolved refugee protection claims. In addition, IAD hearing capacity was reduced, particularly in the second half of the fiscal year, as a consequence of Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) resourcing issues.

Challenges

Reform to Canada's refugee determination system. Following Royal Assent of the BRRA and the PCISA, the IRB worked diligently with portfolio organizations, stakeholders and other organizations to ensure successful and timely implementation. The new legislation came into force on December 15, 2012, and provided for significant changes to the structure, timelines and manner in which the IRB processes refugee protection claims and appeals. As fiscal year 2013-14 will be the first full reporting year in which the IRB operates in the new refugee determination system, progress achieved will be reported in next year's performance report.

Appointment of decision-makers. In order to resolve the cases before it, the IRB depends on the timely appointment and reappointment of decision-makers, including GIC decision-makers in the newly established RAD. During 2012-13, the IRB continued to assess and recommend qualified candidates to the Minister for appointment and reappointment in order to maintain a full complement of GIC decision-makers. As set out in the BRRA, RPD decision-makers are now selected and appointed in accordance with the PSEA, as is the case in the ID.

Legacy cases. In 2012-13, the IRB implemented a concerted strategy to reduce the number of pending legacy refugee protection claims. The Board reallocated internal resources and sought the support of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism for the reappointment of GIC decision-makers to continue to hear and decide legacy cases until the CIF date. In addition, changes brought about by the PCISA allowed the IRB to hire public servant decision-makers on a short term basis after Royal Assent in June 2012. When the new refugee determination system came into force on December 15, 2012, approximately 30,000 legacy claims remained unheard. In the new system, the IRB is funded to resolve a projected annual intake of 22,500 new refugee protection claims within regulated time limits; the resolution of legacy claims is not funded. Nevertheless, by taking advantage of temporarily available capacity, the IRB has steadily reduced its legacy inventory. Lower than anticipated referral levels in the final quarter of the fiscal year also allowed some RPD resources to be allocated to the finalization of legacy claims.

Replacement of STAR by NOVA. The IRB successfully developed and launched NOVA, its new case tracking and reporting system, in time for the CIF of the new legislation. The project was completed under budget.

Opportunities

Portfolio management. As immigration and refugee portfolio organizations, the IRB, CIC and the CBSA collaborate on operational matters while respecting each other's distinct mandates and the IRB's institutional and adjudicative independence. Portfolio organizations are party to a trilateral memorandum of understanding that provides a framework under which organizational priorities are discussed and information is shared as appropriate. This collaborative approach provides for improved communication and operational coordination. The diagram below outlines the distinct functions and roles of the portfolio organizations as well as the overarching goals they share. During 2012-13, this institutional coordination remained invaluable as the IRB collaborated with its portfolio partners to prepare for the implementation of the new legislation.

Immigration and refugee portfolio organizations and their responsibilities 

[Alternate format]

The image illustrates a three-set Venn diagram.

The diagram is composed of three overlapping rectangular shapes that illustrate the distinct functions and roles of the portfolio organizations as well as the overarching goals they share.

The first rectangle shape represents CIC with the following:

  • Overall responsibility for immigration and refugee policies
  • Determines claims for refugee protection abroad at Canadian embassies
  • Consults, selects immigrants, issues visitor visas, grants citizenship
  • Resettles, protects and provides a safe haven for refugees

The second rectangle shape represents CBSA with the following:

  • Provides integrated border services that support national security priorities and facilitates the free flow of persons and goods, including animals and plants, that meet all requirements under program legislation
  • Carries out enforcement and intelligence functions related to immigration and refugee matters

The third rectangle shape represents IRB with the following:

  • Independent administrative tribunal
  • Resolves immigration and refugee cases efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law

The intersection area of the three rectangles describes the following:

  • Security of Canadians
  • Integrity of Canada's immigration and refugee system
  • Strength and diversity of Canada
  • Results and benefits for Canadians

Summary of Performance

2012–13 Financial Resources - Total Organizational ($ Millions)
Total Budgetary Expenditures (Main Estimates) Planned Spending Total Authorities
(Available for Use)
Actual Spending
(Authorities Used)
Difference (Planned vs. Actual Spending)
145.7 145.7 152.4 134.3 11.4

2012–13 Human Resources (Full-time Equivalents [FTEs])
Planned Actual Difference
1,147 1,045 102

Performance Summary Table

Strategic Outcome: Resolve immigration and refugee cases before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law

Performance Summary
Program Total Budgetary Expenditures (Main Estimates 2012–13) Planned Spending Total Authorities (Available for Use) 2012–13 Actual Spending (Authorities Used) Alignment to Government of Canada Outcomes
2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2012–13 2011–12 2010–11
Refugee Protection 71.4 71.4 43.9 51.4 82.6 69.8 72.4 63.4 A safe and secure world through international engagement
Refugee Appeal 18.0 18.0 21.6 15.8 4.8 3.8 1.8 n/aNote 4 A safe and secure world through international engagement
Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews 8.6 8.6 10.0 10.0 11.9 11.1 11.5 11.0 A safe and secure Canada
Immigration Appeal 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.8 14.5 16.5 16.4 A safe and secure Canada
Subtotal 115.9 115.9 93.4 95.1 117.1 99.2 102.2 90.8 -
Internal Services 29.8 29.8 29.6 29.4 35.3 35.1 38.8 34.8 -
Total 145.7 145.7 123.0 124.5 152.4 134.3 140.8 125.6 -

Notes

Note 4

This program was not scheduled to begin until a later reporting period.

Return to note 4 referrer

The decrease in planned spending in 2012-13 was mainly due to a reduction in temporary funding to implement the new refugee determination system and a transfer of funds to Shared Services Canada (SSC). The difference between planned spending and total authorities in 2012-13 is mainly due to funding carried forward from the previous year. The decrease in actual spending from 2011-12 to 2012-13 is mainly due to a lower reimbursement of eligible paylist expenditures (primarily for the immediate payment component of severance pay and termination benefits as a result of revisions to specific collective agreements).


Expenditure Profile

Spending Trend 2009-10 to 2015-16

Expenditure Profile - Spending Trend Graph 

[Alternate format]

The image illustrates a line graph with two data lines:
Total Spending Before Reform/Sunset Funding and Strategic and Operating Review Reductions
Total Spending Including Reform/Sunset Funding and Strategic and Operating Review Reductions

All amounts are in millions of dollars.

It shows the spending trend by fiscal years from 2009-10 to 2015-16

The fiscal years are devised into two sections:
Actual Spending
Planned Spending

The following are the numbers by fiscal year of the Actual Spending section for the data line Total Spending Before Reform/Sunset Funding and Strategic and Operating Review Reductions

For the fiscal year 2009-10 the amount is $114.1

For the fiscal year 2010-11 the amount is $119.7

For the fiscal year 2011-12 the amount is $123.5

For the fiscal year 2012-13 the amount is $112.5

The following are the numbers by fiscal year of the Actual Spending section for the data line Total Spending Including Reform/Sunset Funding and Strategic and Operating Review Reductions

For the fiscal year 2009-10 the amount is $114.1

For the fiscal year 2010-11 the amount is $125.6

For the fiscal year 2011-12 the amount is $140.8

For the fiscal year 2012-13 the amount is $134.3

The following are the numbers by fiscal year of the Planned Spending section for the data line Total Spending Before Reform/Sunset Funding and Strategic and Operating Review Reductions

For the fiscal year 2013-14 the amount is $117.1

For the fiscal year 2014-15 the amount is $117.8

For the fiscal year 2015-16 the amount is $116.3

The following are the numbers by fiscal year of the Planned Spending section for the data line Total Spending Including Reform/Sunset Funding and Strategic and Operating Review Reductions

For the fiscal year 2013-14 the amount is $123.0

For the fiscal year 2014-15 the amount is $124.5

For the fiscal year 2015-16 the amount is $117.0

Increases in actual spending in 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 were mainly due to sunset funding related to activities to implement the new refugee determination system. The planned spending figures for future years reflect the impact of incremental reform related funding ($17.9 million in 2013-14 and $19.5 million in each of 2014-15 and 2015-16) and the re profiling of $6.0 million from 2012-13 to 2014-15. These amounts are offset by strategic and operating review reductions of $12.0 million in 2013-14 and $18.8 million beginning in 2014-15.


Estimates by Vote

For information on the IRB's organizational votes and/or statutory expenditures, please see the Public Accounts of Canada 2013 (Volume II). An electronic version of the Public Accounts 2013 is available on the Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) Web site.


Section II: Analysis of Programs

Strategic Outcome

Strategic Outcome and Programs 

[Alternate format]

The image illustrates a flow chart.

There are two main boxes one on top of the other.

The bottom box contain five smaller boxes that illustrate how the five IRB programs support the achievement of its strategic outcome.

The main bottom box flows into the upper box.

The first box at the top stretches the width of the diagram and describes the Strategic Outcome, the Performance Indicator, the Target and the 2012-13 Actual Result

Strategic Outcome: Resolve immigration and refugee cases before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law

Performance Indicator: Percentage of IRB decisions overturned by the Federal Court (This quality indicator is used in addition to the indicators described in the programs.)

Target: Less than 1%

2012-13 Actual Result: The IRB met its performance target, with less than 0.8% of its decisions overturned by the Federal Court. This is an indication of the fairness and high quality of the decisions rendered by the Board.

These boxes below describe the programs, and are arranged as four wide boxes on the left, and one narrow box on the right.

The first box on the left identifies the Refugee Protection Program

Below that is the second box identifying the Refugee Appeal Program

Below that is the third box identifying the Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews Program

Below that is the fourth box identifying the Immigration Appeal Program

The fifth narrow box on the right flows back into the other four program boxes. It identifies the Internal Services Program

2012-13 Highlights

  • Strategic outcome successfully achieved
  • 54,000 cases resolved
  • Less than 0.8% of decisions overturned by the Federal Court

As discussed in Section I, based on the IRB's legislated mandate and approved PAA, the IRB has a single strategic outcome. Each of its four core programs is focused on the efficient and fair resolution of the different types of immigration and refugee cases. These programs, which are supported by Internal Services, are responsible for all tribunal decisions and case resolutions, and for a successful strategic outcome.

To achieve its strategic outcome, the IRB must resolve the cases before it in a timely manner while ensuring quality and fairness.

The following sections further describe the IRB's five programs, identifying actual results, performance indicators and targets, as well as outlining the resources associated with each of the programs.


Program 1: Refugee Protection

Description

The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) delivers the IRB's Refugee Protection program. It determines claims for refugee protection made in Canada. Processing of refugee protection claims is the largest of the IRB's activities and commands the largest of its resources. Through the work of the RPD, Canada fulfills its obligations as a signatory to a number of international human rights conventions.

Additional information on the RPD is available at
http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/eng/refcladem/pages/rpdspr.aspx.

2012-13 Highlights

  • 16,900 new refugee protection claims filed
  • 26,600 refugee protection claims resolved, 5,100 more than forecast
  • 27,900 legacy claims remained in the inventory at year end

2012–13 Financial Resources ($ Millions)
Total Budgetary Expenditures (Main Estimates) Planned Spending Total Authorities (Available for Use) Actual Spending (Authorities Used) Difference (Planned vs. Actual Spending)
71.4 71.4 82.6 69.8 1.6

2012–13 Human Resources (FTEs)
Planned Actual Difference
556 573 (17)

Performance Results

Expected Result: Quality decisions rendered and cases resolved in a timely manner regarding refugee protection claims made in Canada

Performance Results
Performance Indicators Targets Actual results
Clarity, completeness, conciseness and timeliness of decisions Target is "Meet Expectations" on a scale of 1 to 3 where 2 represents "Meet Expectations." Targets have been established for performance in this new program. Validation and reporting will begin in 2013-14.
Percentage of designated country of origin (DCO) cases finalized within 150 days 90% These performance indicators reflect BRRA provisions on refugee protection claim processing that did not come into force. Following the Royal Assent in June 2012 of the PCISA, which introduced new claim processing time frames, new indicators have been developed and will be reported against in the 2013-14 reporting period.
Percentage of non-DCO cases finalized within 180 days 90%
Average cost per case finalized $2,900 $2,900
Number of finalized cases 21,500 26,600

Performance Analysis and Lessons Learned

New refugee determination system. As a result of the CIF of the BRRA and the PCISA, the refugee determination system underwent a major transition in 2012-13. Upon CIF, time limits for the scheduling of refugee protection hearings were introduced for the first time, and RPD decision-makers began to be selected and appointed in accordance with the PSEA.

The reformed RPD. The introduction of regulated time limits for the hearing of refugee protection claims required significant changes to the way RPD decision-makers and support staff carry out their work. Planning and implementation efforts continued throughout the first three quarters of the fiscal year. Transitional work included a significant investment in training across the organization, including for registry staff, decision-makers and managers. In preparation for the CIF date, approximately 100 RPD public servant decision-makers and managers were hired and trained.

The RPD began operations under the reformed legislative scheme in the final quarter of 2012-13. During this time, the quality of RPD decisions continued to be underpinned by up to date country-of-origin information, high-quality legal advice and timely jurisprudential updates. Training was provided when required. Not unexpectedly, ongoing monitoring resulted in adjustments being made to the Division's practices and procedures where warranted.

Following the CIF date, referral levels were significantly lower than historical averages for the same period in preceding years. Because of this, RPD public servant decision-makers were able to contribute to the finalization of legacy claims during this period of time. Finally, early performance information points to a significant reduction in processing times for the finalization of new referrals.

Legacy inventory. There were approximately 40,300 refugee protection claims waiting to be heard at the beginning of 2012-13, which was well above the Division's capacity to address with existing resource levels. Furthermore, overall finalizations in the RPD were projected to decrease in 2012-13 as a result of the transition to the new system, which involved significant changes in personnel and introduced new ways of doing business across the Division and portfolio. Despite these challenges, the Division finalized 26,300 legacy claims in 2012-13, resulting in a pending inventory of 27,900 legacy claims at the end of the reporting period.

Pre-removal risk assessment. The transfer of the PRRA function from CIC to the IRB will take place at a date to be fixed by the GIC. Planning for this transfer of responsibility will begin in 2013-14.

Refugee Protection 

[Alternate format]

The image illustrates a bar chart.

For each of the last four fiscal years, it shows the following:

Cost per Claim
Claims Referred
Claims Finalized
Claims Waiting

Claims that were finalized fall into the following three categories:

Accepted
Withdrawn/Abandoned
Rejected

Claims waiting are broken down into the following time periods:

0-6 months
7-12 months
13-24 months
more than 2 years

The following are the numbers by fiscal year (Note: The totals may not be exactly 100% due to rounding):

For the fiscal year 2009–10 the cost per claim is $2,850. 29,900 claims were referred, 28,600 claims were finalized and 59,000 claims were waiting.

Finalized claims are broken down into the following percentages: 40% were accepted, 22% were withdrawn/abandoned and 38% were rejected.

Claims waiting are broken down into the following percentages: 23% for 0 to 6 months, 25% for 7 to 12 months, 39% for 13 to 24 months and 13% for more than 2 years.

For the fiscal year 2010–11 the cost per claim is $2,500. 22,700 claims were referred, 33,500 claims were finalized and 48,200 claims were waiting.

Finalized claims are broken down into the following percentages: 37% were accepted, 20% were withdrawn/abandoned and 43% were rejected.

Claims waiting are broken down into the following percentages: 26% for 0 to 6 months, 19% for 7 to 12 months, 36% for 13 to 24 months and 19% for more than 2 years.

For the fiscal year 2011–12 the cost per claim is $2,400. 24,700 claims were referred, 33,400 claims were finalized and 39,400 claims were waiting.

Finalized claims are broken down into the following percentages: 38% were accepted, 14% were withdrawn/abandoned and 48% were rejected.

Claims waiting are broken down into the following percentages: 34% for 0 to 6 months, 22% for 7 to 12 months, 26% for 13 to 24 months and 18% for more than 2 years.

For the fiscal year 2012–13 the cost per claim is $2,900. 14,800 claims were referred, 26,400 claims were finalized and 27,900 claims were waiting with 1,900 additionnal claims from the new system.

Finalized claims are broken down into the following percentages: 34% were accepted, 16% were withdrawn/abandoned and 50% were rejected.

Claims waiting are broken down into the following percentages: 21% for 0 to 6 months, 27% for 7 to 12 months, 36% for 13 to 24 months and 15% for more than 2 years.


Program 2: Refugee Appeal

Description

The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) delivers the IRB's Refugee Appeal program. It hears appeals from decisions of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). Most proceedings are paper processes in which decisions are based on the written record of the RPD hearing, as well as written submissions from the Minister and the person who is the subject of the appeal. In limited circumstances, the RAD may hold an oral hearing. The appeal is generally restricted to the evidence that was before the RPD, but the RAD may accept new evidence if specific conditions are met. The RAD may confirm the RPD decision, substitute its own decision, or refer the case back to the RPD with instructions.

Additional information on the RAD is available at
http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/eng/refapp/pages/radsar.aspx.

2012-13 Highlights

  • Beginning of program on December 15, 2012
  • Continued implementation activities
  • Delivery of training to RAD decision-makers

2012–13 Financial Resources ($ Millions)
Total Budgetary Expenditures (Main Estimates) Planned Spending Total Authorities
(Available for Use)
Actual SpendingNote 5
(Authorities Used)
Difference (Planned vs. Actual Spending)
18.0 18.0 4.8 3.8 14.2

Notes

Note 5

This program became operational late in 2012–13. Actual expenditures were mainly for implementation activities.

Return to note 5 referrer

2012–13 Human Resources (FTEs)
Planned Actual Difference
143 22 121

Performance Results

Expected Result: Quality decisions rendered and cases resolved in a timely manner regarding refugee protection appeals

Performance Results
Performance Indicators Targets Actual results
Clarity, completeness, conciseness and timeliness of decisions Target is "Meet Expectations" on a scale of 1 to 3 where 2 represents "Meet Expectations." Targets have been established for performance in this new program. Validation and reporting will begin in 2013-14.
Percentage of (no-hearing) designated country of origin (DCO) cases finalized within 30 days 90% These performance indicators reflect BRRA provisions on refugee appeal processing that did not come into force. Following the Royal Assent of the PCISA in June 2012, new indicators have been developed and will be reported against in the 2013-14 reporting period.
Percentage of (no-hearing) non-DCO cases finalized within 120 days 90%
Average cost per case finalized $3,100
Number of finalized appeals 9,800

Performance Analysis and Lessons Learned

Reform timelines. Appeals can be processed by the RAD only after refugee protection claims are decided by the RPD. Given that the new refugee determination system did not come into force until December 2012, very few appeals to the RAD were filed before the end of the reporting period.

Preparation for implementation. During 2012-13, efforts were focused primarily on the development and implementation of the new division. These efforts included the following:

  • Newly established positions were staffed. This included the assignment of decision-makers and RAD senior managers appointed by the GIC, as well as the appointment of public servants in adjudicative support roles.
  • Following consultations with stakeholders, rules for the conduct of refugee appeals were finalized.
  • Policies, procedures and processes for the conduct of refugee appeals were developed and implemented.
  • Program requirements were established.
  • A training program was developed and delivered to decision-makers and support personnel.

Since implementation. In the final quarter of 2012-13, staff and decision-makers were progressively integrated into the Division. The RAD intensified its preparation and consolidated its operations to ensure that it would be ready to respond to the first appeals filed. Activities included the following:

  • Extensive training was given to decision-makers and staff in order to efficiently respond to the upcoming workload.
  • Statistical tools and systems were established and refined in order to monitor operations and measure performance.
  • Forms and documentation were finalized, as were the Appellant's Guide and the Respondent's Guide, which were made available on the IRB Web site. In addition, Important Instructions About Your Appeal from the Refugee Protection Division Decision That Rejected Your Claim, a document summarizing how the refugee appeal process works, was made available in 18 languages.
  • Some decisions were made on appeals filed before the end of the fiscal year.

Program 3: Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews

Description

The Immigration Division (ID) delivers the Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews program. It holds hearings for foreign nationals or permanent residents who, under the provisions of the IRPA, are alleged to be inadmissible to Canada or are detained. Detainees must be seen by the ID within 48 hours after their detention or without delay thereafter, and subsequent reviews must be conducted within specific statutory time frames. The Minister of Public Safety can also designate certain foreign nationals, who are then subject to different time frames. Decision-makers must balance the right to individual liberty with the security interests of Canadians.

Additional information on the ID is available at
http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/eng/detention/pages/idsi.aspx.

2012-13 Highlights

  • 2,600 admissibility hearings finalized
  • 18,300 detention reviews carried out
  • Referrals remained high in comparison with historical levels

2012–13 Financial Resources ($ Millions)
Total Budgetary Expenditures (Main Estimates) Planned Spending Total Authorities
(Available for Use)
Actual Spending
(Authorities Used)
Difference (Planned vs. Actual Spending)
8.6 8.6 11.9 11.1 (2.5)

2012–13 Human Resources (FTEs)
Planned Actual Difference
65 79 (14)

Performance Results

Expected Result: Quality decisions rendered and cases resolved in a timely manner regarding admissibility hearings and detention reviews

Performance Results
Performance Indicators Targets Actual results
Clarity, completeness, conciseness and timeliness of decisions Target is "Meet Expectations" on a scale of 1 to 3 where 2 represents "Meet Expectations." This program exceeded the target of 2.0 and scored 2.2.
Percentage of detention review cases concluded within statutory time frame 96%Note 6 98.5%
Percentage of admissibility hearings concluded within six months of referral 86%Note 7 93.0%
Average cost per detention review case $800 $750
Average cost per admissibility hearing case $1,000 $1,000
Number of finalized detention review cases 16,500 18,300
Number of finalized admissibility hearing cases 2,700 2,600

Notes

Note 6

Factors outside the IRB's control, such as prison lockdowns, impede the achievement of 100 percent compliance.

Return to note 6 referrer

Note 7

Detention reviews take priority over admissibility hearings due to legislative time requirements. The average processing time is also affected by the number of referrals from the CBSA.

Return to note 7 referrer

Performance Analysis and Lessons Learned

Sustained and more complex workload. During 2012-13, the ID finalized approximately 18,300 detention reviews, three percent more than in the previous year. Requests for detention reviews remain high in comparison with historical levels. The ID prioritized detention reviews and ensured that legislative requirements and fundamental rights were respected.

The number of cases concluded by the ID depends largely on the number of cases referred by the CBSA. During 2012-13, the ID experienced a 14-percent decrease in referrals for admissibility hearings. The ID continued to keep pace with referrals, finalizing 2,600 admissibility hearings, which was more than the number referred. The total number of admissibility hearings finalized decreased nine percent as a result of the decrease in referrals. Admissibility hearings represented 12 percent of the ID's total intake during the reporting period.

The environment in which the ID operates and the cases it adjudicates have become increasingly complex and have required greater coordination efforts. The ID remained committed to maintaining a high level of productivity and rendering quality decisions in a timely manner.

Effective case management. The ID continued to monitor all scheduling activities, including postponements and adjournments, rescheduling activities and processing times. The ID processed its cases as efficiently as possible, ensuring that established productivity targets were met and that detention reviews were concluded within the legislated time frames. While the majority of hearings were conducted in person, some were conducted via videoconference where appropriate. The Division maintained effective coordination with the registry to ensure that cases were processed in a timely fashion in accordance with the law and the requirements of procedural fairness.

The ID continued to implement effective case management practices, enhance hearing readiness efforts, develop adjudicative tools and maximize the number of admissibility hearings finalized within six months of referral. The ID increased communication between ID staff and registry personnel and continued to promote consistency in decision-making, including by fostering a sustained learning environment for its decision-makers.

Detention Reviews 

[Alternate format]

The image illustrates a bar chart.

For each of the last four fiscal years, it shows the following:

Cost per Detention Review
Released (change of conditions)
Ordered released (no terms and conditions)
Released (on terms and conditions)
Detained

The following are the numbers by fiscal year (Note: The totals may not be exactly 100% due to rounding):

For the fiscal year 2009–10 the cost per Detention Review is $800. 16,500 Detention Reviews were finalized. They are broken down into the following percentages: 3% were released (change of conditions), 4% were ordered released (no terms and conditions), 15% were released (on terms and conditions) and 78% were detained.

For the fiscal year 2010–10 the cost per Detention Review is $800. 18,500 Detention Reviews were finalized. They are broken down into the following percentages: 1% were released (change of conditions), 6% were ordered released (no terms and conditions), 13% were released (on terms and conditions) and 80% were detained.

For the fiscal year 2011–12 the cost per Detention Review is $800. 17,800 Detention Reviews were finalized. They are broken down into the following percentages: 1% were released (change of conditions), 6% were ordered released (no terms and conditions), 12% were released (on terms and conditions) and 81% were detained.

For the fiscal year 2012–13 the cost per Detention Review is $750. 18,300 Detention Reviews were finalized. They are broken down into the following percentages: 1% were released (change of conditions), 6% were ordered released (no terms and conditions), 11% were released (on terms and conditions) and 82% were detained.

Admissibility Hearings 

[Alternate format]

The image illustrates a bar chart.

For each of the last four fiscal years, it shows the following:

Cost per Admissibility Hearing
Permission to enter/remain
Withdrawn
Failed to appear
Removal order

The following are the numbers by fiscal year (Note: The totals may not be exactly 100% due to rounding):

For the fiscal year 2009–10 the cost per Admissibility Hearing is $1,035. 3,150 Admissibility Hearings were finalized. They are broken down into the following percentages: 3% for Permission to enter/remain, 7% for Withdrawn, 18% for Failed to appear and 71% for Removal order.

For the fiscal year 2010–11 the cost per Admissibility Hearing is $1,000. 2,800 Admissibility Hearings were finalized. They are broken down into the following percentages: 4% for Permission to enter/remain, 6% for Withdrawn, 15% for Failed to appear and 73% for Removal order.

For the fiscal year 2011–12 the cost per Admissibility Hearing is $900. 2,900 Admissibility Hearings were finalized. They are broken down into the following percentages: 4% for Permission to enter/remain, 7% for Withdrawn, 16% for Failed to appear and 71% for Removal order.

For the fiscal year 2012–13 the cost per Admissibility Hearing is $1,000. 2,600 Admissibility Hearings were finalized. They are broken down into the following percentages: 4% for Permission to enter/remain, 6% for Withdrawn, 15% for Failed to appear and 75% for Removal order.

Program 4: Immigration Appeal

Description

The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) delivers the Immigration Appeal program. It hears immigration appeals from Canadian citizens and permanent residents whose applications to sponsor close family members to Canada have been refused. Other key functions include hearing appeals from permanent residents, foreign nationals with a permanent resident visa, and protected persons who have been ordered removed from Canada. It also hears appeals from permanent residents outside Canada who are alleged to have not fulfilled their residency obligation, and finally, appeals filed by the Minister from decisions rendered by the Immigration Division at admissibility proceedings.

Additional information on the IAD is available at
http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/eng/immapp/pages/iadsai.aspx.

2012-13 Highlights

  • 6,200 new immigration appeals files
  • 5,900 immigration appeals finalized and 600 stays issued
  • Case inventory remained stable at 11,800
  • Average processing time increased approximately 20% from 11.4 to 13.8 months

2012–13 Financial Resources ($ Millions)
Total Budgetary Expenditures (Main Estimates) Planned Spending Total Authorities
(Available for Use)
Actual Spending
(Authorities Used)
Difference (Planned vs. Actual Spending)
17.9 17.9 17.8 14.5 3.4

2012–13 Human Resources (FTEs)
Planned Actual Difference
118 113 5

Performance Results

Expected Result: Quality decisions rendered and cases resolved in a timely manner regarding immigration appeals

Performance Results
Performance Indicators Targets Actual results
Clarity, completeness, conciseness and timeliness of decisions Target is "Meet Expectations" on a scale of 1 to 3 where 2 represents "Meet Expectations." This program exceeded the target of 2.0 and scored 2.9.
Average case processing time 11.7 months 13.8 months
Average cost per case $3,100 $3,300
Number of appeals finalized 6,500 5,900

Performance Analysis and Lessons Learned

Appeal finalizations. Immigration Appeal is a complex adversarial program that includes both mediation and adjudicative activities. The mediation process is managed by specialist public servants, and the adjudicative process is managed by the IAD's trained decision-makers. There was a nine-percent decrease in appeal finalizations (6,500 projected vs. 5,900 actual, excluding 600 stayed appeals) as a result of both the reduced decision-maker complement and the marked reduction in the IAD's mediation program. The latter reduction was linked to resourcing pressures faced by the CBSA and to refugee reform transitional issues, including public service staffing activities made necessary by the new legislation.

Inventory. In 2012-13, 6,200 appeals were filed with the IAD, which is fewer than the 7,000 appeals forecast. Given this modest reduction, the number of cases pending at the end of the reporting period, originally forecast to be approximately 12,300, was 11,800. Of these, 1,770 were stayed removal order appeals. An increase in the average processing time (from 11.4 to 13.8 months) was seen in 2012-13 and is attributable to both the reduced decision-maker complement throughout the reporting period and the marked reduction in the IAD's mediation program, particularly in the second half of the period.

Case management. The IAD increasingly used early resolution strategies to manage its appeal inventory throughout the reporting period. In addition, counsel for the Minister participated by way of written submissions only in select hearing processes for certain types of appeals. Internal consultation activities, including business improvement processes, were undertaken with a view to increasing registry efficiency. Finally, IAD senior managers continued to meet with external stakeholder groups to identify new opportunities and work collaboratively toward effective program implementation so as to maintain the IAD's high productivity levels and ensure that decision-makers render quality decisions in a timely manner.

Portfolio linkages. The IAD continued to work with the CBSA to develop initiatives aimed at the early resolution of appeals and other process-related strategies to address inventory challenges. The IAD encouraged the CBSA's continued participation in the IAD's mediation program. During the transition to the new refugee determination system, the number of IAD-dedicated CBSA officers declined in all regions. However, the IAD continued to meet with CBSA senior managers in all regions to encourage the CBSA to return to normal resourcing levels so as to meet IAD program needs. Work undertaken with the CBSA on case management strategies continues, as always, to respect the adjudicative independence of IAD decision-makers.

Immigration Appeal 

[Alternate format]

The image illustrates a bar chart.

For each of the last four fiscal years, it shows the following:

Cost per Appeal
Average Processing Time
Appeals Filed
Appeals Finalized
Appeals Waiting

Appeals that were finalized fall into the following four categories:

Stayed
Allowed
Withdrawn/Abandoned
Dismissed

Appeals waiting are broken down into the following time periods:

0-6 months
7-12 months
13-24 months
more than 2 years

The following are the numbers by fiscal year (Note: The totals may not be exactly 100% due to rounding):

For the fiscal year 2009–10 the cost per appeal is $3,075 and the average processing time is 11.6 months. 6,900 appeals were filed, 6,400 appeals were finalized, 800 appeals were stayed and 11,000 were waiting.

Finalized appeals are broken down into the following percentages: 39% were allowed, 33% were withdrawn/abandoned and 28% were dismissed.

Appeals waiting are broken down into the following percentages: 31% for 0 to 6 months, 26 % for 7 to 12 months, 27% for 13 to 24 months and 15% for more than 2 years.

For the fiscal year 2010–11 the cost per appeal is $3,100 and the average processing time is 11.4 months. 7,600 appeals were filed, 7,100 appeals were finalized, 600 appeals were stayed and 11,400 were waiting.

Finalized appeals are broken down into the following percentages: 35% were allowed, 32% were withdrawn/abandoned and 33% were dismissed.

Appeals waiting are broken down into the following percentages: 33% for 0 to 6 months, 25% for 7 to 12 months, 26% for 13 to 24 months and 16% for more than 2 years.

For the fiscal year 2011–12 the cost per appeal is $3,100 and the average processing time is 11.4 months. 6,700 appeals were filed, 6,700 appeals were finalized, 660 appeals were stayed and 11,400 were waiting.

Finalized appeals are broken down into the following percentages: 34% were allowed, 31% were withdrawn/abandoned and 34% were dismissed.

Appeals waiting are broken down into the following percentages: 26% for 0 to 6 months, 25% for 7 to 12 months, 29% for 13 to 24 months and 20% for more than 2 years.

For the fiscal year 2012–13 the cost per appeal is $3,300 and the average processing time is 13.8 months. 6,200 appeals were filed, 5,900 appeals were finalized, 600 appeals were stayed and 11,800 were waiting.

Finalized appeals are broken down into the following percentages: 34% were allowed, 30% were withdrawn/abandoned and 36% were dismissed.

Appeals waiting are broken down into the following percentages: 26% for 0 to 6 months, 23% for 7 to 12 months, 28% for 13 to 24 months and 23% for more than 2 years.

Program 5: Internal Services

Description

Internal Services are groups of related activities and resources required to support the needs of all four tribunal programs and other corporate obligations of the IRB. These services are: Management and Oversight; Communications; Legal; Human Resources Management; Financial Management; Information Management; Information Technology; Procurement and Assets Management; Internal Audit and Evaluation; and other administrative services. Internal Services include only those activities and resources that apply across the organization and not those provided to a specific program.

2012-13 Highlights

  • New organizational structure designed
  • Required personnel hired and training delivered
  • New rules developed
  • IT systems ready for CIF

2012–13 Financial Resources ($ Millions)
Total Budgetary Expenditures (Main Estimates) Planned Spending Total Authorities
(Available for Use)
Actual Spending
(Authorities Used)
Difference (Planned vs. Actual Spending)
29.8 29.8 35.3 35.1 (5.3)

2012–13 Human Resources (FTEs)
Planned Actual Difference
265 258 7

Performance Analysis and Lessons Learned

Management and oversight. During this reporting period, two new branches were created as part of the IRB's internal restructuring: the Registry and Regional Support Services Branch to provide a cohesive, integrated approach to corporate registry operations; and the Policy, Planning and Research Branch to promote synergy among existing functions and resources. Adjustments to program policies and to case management and case-monitoring tools were made to support the implementation of the changes to the refugee determination system. The IRB has also engaged in lean transformation initiatives in order to be well-positioned for the changes required by the new system. Lean initiatives have resulted in detailed value stream maps of the regional operations, as well as ongoing improvement activities.

Communications. The IRB fulfilled its commitment to provide accurate and timely information to its partners, stakeholders and the public through its communications program and international engagement. During 2012-13, the Board supported the implementation of the BRRA and the PCISA by providing updated, accurate information on the implementation process to stakeholders and partners through communiqués, its external Web site, and information and consultation sessions. In addition, the IRB engaged its key audiences by delivering presentations at many stakeholder events. IRB participation at these events helped to further stakeholders' understanding of the IRB's mandate and priorities, and it assisted in communicating the operational changes resulting from the new legislation. Finally, the IRB trained regional spokespersons to accurately explain the legislative changes to the media and the public.

Legal. Legal Services focused its activities during the 2012-13 year on the development of new rules and legal reference and training materials for the RPD and RAD processes, as well as on the ongoing provision of advice, support and guidance related to the implementation of the new legislation. In addition, Legal Services provided extensive training and support to newly appointed decision-makers and offered advice, including risk analyses regarding innovative adjudicative strategies. Legal Services also provided advice and support on a wide range of corporate matters, including procurement, litigation coordination, information sharing and HR issues related to the staffing of new positions as a result of the implementation of the new refugee determination system. Continued legal advice and support was also provided in relation to complex cases involving classified information related to national security or criminal intelligence.

Human resources management. Over the past year, HR management priorities were to support the IRB in successfully transitioning to its new organizational structure and to continue implementation of the HR service-modernization and cost-reduction initiatives being carried out throughout the public service. To this end, a new organizational structure was designed, and approximately 200 new positions were created; all positions were staffed on schedule through either large-scale staffing processes or the realignment of personnel. Extensive training was delivered to decision-makers and staff, and transition support was provided to employees affected by workforce adjustment measures. In December 2012, approximately 50 percent of IRB personnel either were appointed to new positions or changed reporting relationships. Additionally, in response to a reduced funding envelope, the IRB began a review of its HR services delivery model with the objective of ensuring continuity of high-quality HR services that meet the IRB's program needs.

Financial management. During 2012-13, the IRB realigned its resources in accordance with the changes made to the refugee determination system. Available resources were maximized to reduce the inventory of unresolved refugee protection claims prior to the CIF date of the new legislation. The IRB also implemented the first year of the Budget 2012 savings measures.

Information management. During 2012-13, the IRB continued to focus on the alignment of its business with the Government's new service model for the outsourcing of document storage and retrieval services. A fit-gap analysis project was initiated to assess the IRB's recordkeeping practices and determine whether they are in line with the TBS Directive on Recordkeeping. This project will provide an initial assessment of the state of business readiness for adopting a solution for the management of electronic documents and records at the IRB.

Information technology. During the reporting period, the IRB focused a significant portion of its IT resources on the modernization of existing legacy applications. To support the implementation of the new legislation, release 2 of the NOVA electronic case tracking system was deployed on time and within budget. The Hearing Booking Tool—which facilitates collaboration between the IRB and portfolio agencies in the coordination and communication of initial hearing dates, times and locations—was also developed. Furthermore, modernized IT solutions designed to provide easily searchable national documentation packages for all countries came online during 2012-13. The operation of the PeopleSoft leave tracking system was transferred to the Central Agency Cluster hosted by TBS. The Board also continued to address new and emerging business priorities as well as system and infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. In addition, the IRB continued to collaborate with SSC to ensure the delivery of high-quality IT services in such areas as email, data centres and network services.


Section III: Supplementary Information

Financial Statements Highlights

Condensed Statement of Operations and Organizational Net Financial Position

Condensed Statement of Operations and Organizational Net Financial Position (Unaudited) - $ Millions
For the period ending March 31, 2013

Condensed Statement of Operations and Organizational Net Financial Position (Unaudited)
2012-13 Planned Results 2012-13 Actual 2011-12 Actual $ Change
(2012-13 Planned vs. Actual)
$ Change
(2012-13 Actual vs. 2011-12 Actual)
Total expenses 165.5 153.9 150.8 11.6 3.1
Total revenues 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Net cost of operations before Government funding and transfers 165.5 153.9 150.8 11.6 3.1
Organizational net financial position n/a 6.4 (0.2) n/a 6.6

The $3.1-million increase in total expenses is mainly due to the beginning of operations of the RAD, to salary increases resulting from the settlement of collective agreements and to an increased expense related to the amortization of software applications.

Condensed Statement of Financial Position

Condensed Statement of Financial Position (Unaudited) - $ Millions
For the period ending March 31, 201

Condensed Statement of Financial Position (Unaudited)
2012-13 2011-12 $ Change
Total net liabilities 24.4 22.9 1.5
Total net financial assets 11.9 7.9 4.0
Organizational net debt 12.5 15.0 (2.5)
Total non-financial assets 18.9 14.8 4.1
Organizational net financial position 6.4 (0.2) 6.6

The $4-million increase in net financial assets is caused by increases in the amount due from the Consolidated Revenue Fund as well as in accounts receivable and advances.

The $4.1-million increase in non-financial assets is due to capitalizing software. The $1.5-million increase in total liabilities is due to an increase in the year-end accounts payable and accrued liabilities.

Financial Highlights Chart

During 2012-13, the IRB's total actual expenditures amounted to $134.3 million. A large majority of these resources were allocated to deliver efficient administrative justice in accordance with the law for cases referred to the Board. A smaller allocation was dedicated to planning for the implementation of the new legislation, to support services and to compliance with Government policies and regulations in order to ensure responsible stewardship of the IRB's programs.

Actual Spending by Program

With the resources available, the IRB resolved 54,000 cases during 2012-13. Further details are outlined in the diagram below.

Actual Spending by Program 

[Alternate format]

The image illustrates a pie chart.

It shows actual spending for the following five programs:

The first Program is Refugee Protection for $69.8 million (52%) with 26,000 refugee protection claims finalized.

The second Program is Refugee Appeal for $3.8 million (3%) - Implementation planning continued.

The third Program is Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews for $11.1 million (8%) with 2,600 admissibility hearings and 18,300 detention reviews finalized.

The fourth Program is Immigration Appeal for $14.5 million (11%) with 6,500 appeals resolved; 5,900 finalized and 600 stayed.

The fifth Program is Internal Services for $35.1 million (26%).

Financial Statements

The financial statements can be found on the IRB's Web site.

Supplementary Information Tables

As part of the IRB's 2012-13 DPR, the following supplementary information tables are provided in electronic format only:

  • Greening Government Operations
  • Internal Audits and Evaluations
  • Status Report on Projects Operating with Specific Treasury Board Approval

These electronic supplementary information tables can be found on the IRB's Web site.

Tax Expenditures and Evaluations Report

The tax system can be used to achieve public policy objectives through the application of special measures such as low tax rates, exemptions, deductions,rals and credits. The Department of Finance Canada publishes cost estimates and projections for these measures annually in the Tax Expenditures and Evaluations publication. The tax measures presented in the Tax Expenditures and Evaluations publication are the sole responsibility of the Minister of Finance.


Section IV: Other Items of Interest

Organizational Contact Information

For more information, visit the IRB Web site at http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca, email the IRB's Communications Directorate at contact@irb-cisr.gc.ca, or contact one of the IRB offices listed below.

National Headquarters
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Minto Place—Canada Building
344 Slater Street, 12th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K1

Eastern Region
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Guy-Favreau Complex
200 René-Lévesque Boulevard West
East Tower, Room 102
Montréal, Québec H2Z 1X4
Tel: 514-283-7733  Fax: 514-283-0164

Central Region
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
74 Victoria Street, Suite 400
Toronto, Ontario M5C 3C7
Tel: 416-954-1000  Fax: 416-954-1165

Western Region
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
300 West Georgia Street, Suite 1600
Vancouver, British Columbia V6B 6C9
Tel: 604-666-5946  Fax: 604-666-3043

Additional Information

IRB Processes

Visit these links to find out how the IRB processes its cases: