Contracted Designated Representative Quality Assurance Framework

​​On this page

  1. Context
  2. Application
  3. Scope
  4. Administration
  5. Definitions
  6. Components of the quality assurance framework
  7. Complaint process about designated representative conduct and quality of their services
  8. Internal evaluation process about designated representative conduct and quality of their services
  9. Noncompliance with the Code of Conduct for Designated Representatives

1. Context

1.1 The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) is dedicated to providing professional, ethical and competent contracted designated representatives (DRs). DRs are appointed to represent subjects of proceedings who are under 18 years of age or unable to understand the nature of the proceedings before the IRB.

1.2 As part of the Contracted Designated Representative Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) to prevent, detect and correct issues related to DR conduct and quality of their services, the IRB adopted the Code of Conduct for Designated Representatives (code).

1.3 To ensure that DRs comply with the code, the IRB has developed the complaint process and the evaluation process for the conduct and quality of their services. Upon conclusions of noncompliance with the code, the QAF provides for follow-up actions to assist DRs.

2. Application

This QAF applies only to DRs who provide services under contract with the IRB.

3. Scope

3.1DRs are bound by the terms of their contract with the IRB.

3.2 The code, referenced in the contract, establishes the standards of conduct and other obligations that govern responsibilities of DRs at the IRB. They must perform their work at a standard that ensures the fairness of IRB proceedings for the subjects they represent and the integrity of the administration of justice.

4. Administration

4.1 The Executive Director of the IRB is responsible for the administration of the DR program. This responsibility includes the application of the code and any matters regarding its interpretation.

4.2 The DR program is managed on a day-to-day basis by the IRB project authority identified in the DR contract.

5. Definitions

An investigation is the process by which the IRBenquires about a complaint concerning the DR conduct and quality of their services made by:

  • a person (including counsel)
  • a party to IRB proceedings
  • IRB personnel
  • an organization
  • the public

This process leads to determining whether the DR has complied or not with the code.

An internal evaluation is the process by which the IRB determines whether or not a DR complies with the code for monitoring purposes or other reasons. The IRB may undertake an internal evaluation of the DR conduct and quality of their services in the absence of a complaint.

6. Components of the quality assurance framework

The following components are part of the QAF:

  • the code
  • the complaint process about the DR conduct and quality of their services (including the investigation process conducted by the IRB)
  • the internal evaluation process of the DR conduct and quality of their services
  • follow-up action taken by the IRB to assist DRs upon a conclusion of noncompliance

7. Complaint process about designated representative conduct and quality of their services

7.1 A complaint can be made by:

  • a person (including counsel)
  • a party to IRB proceedings
  • IRB personnel
  • an organization
  • the public

If they believe that a DR has breached the standards of conduct and other obligations that govern their responsibilities as set out in the code, they may make a complaint about the DR conduct and quality of their services. A complaint can be made by completing the complaint form or writing a letter or an email to the IRB.

7.2 The IRB receives and deals with complaints about DRs in accordance with the general principles of fairness, impartiality and good faith. Complaints are processed as quickly as thoroughness permits.

7.3 If the DR who is the subject of a complaint participates in an ongoing case or has active designations in divisions, the IRB will determine, without delay, the impact of the complaint on that case and those designations. By taking immediate action, the IRB ensures that the interests of the subject of the proceedings and the fairness in proceedings are protected.

7.4 The IRB does not accept anonymous complaints. Should the author of a complaint not identify themselves, the complaint may be closed. Where the complaints received are admissible and the author is identified, the concerned DR will only receive a summary of the allegations contained in the complaint.

7.5 The DR who is the subject of the complaint will have an opportunity to respond through the internal investigation process before any final conclusions are made by the IRB.

7.6 The person who made the complaint and the DR who is the subject of the complaint will be kept informed by the IRB throughout the internal investigation about the complaint, as appropriate.

7.7 Investigations into complaints about DRs generally follow these steps. The IRB:

  1. receives and reviews the complaint
  2. notifies the DR who is the subject of the complaint and provides a summary of the allegations contained in the complaint
  3. determines the impact of the complaint on the subject of the proceedings and the case where the DR participates in an ongoing case or has active designations in IRB divisions. This may lead to the IRB suspending the contract with the DR and active designations until the investigation is completed
  4. investigates the complaint. This may include, among others, conducting separate interviews with the author of the complaint and the DR and, if applicable, opportunities for each to review and clarify their answers
  5. draws preliminary findings about the DR compliance with the code
  6. communicates findings of noncompliance to the DR who is the subject of the complaint for response before making final conclusions
  7. communicates the conclusions about the DR compliance with the code, including follow-up action to be taken

8. Internal evaluation process about designated representative conduct and quality of their services

8.1 The IRB may conduct evaluations about the DRs conduct and quality of their services, at any time. This process is to ascertain that DRs comply with the code, for example:

  • to monitor the DR conduct and quality of their services that have previously been the subject of a complaint and follow-up action taken by the IRB
  • on the advice of an IRB member
  • on the Executive Director’s initiative (for example, before renewal of a DR contract as needed, or as part of evaluations conducted randomly)

8.2 The IRB conducts evaluations about DRs in accordance with the general principles of fairness, impartiality and good faith.

8.3 The DR who is the subject of an evaluation will have an opportunity to respond to any preliminary findings of noncompliance with the code before the IRB makes any final conclusions.

8.4 The conduct of evaluations of DRs generally follow these steps. The IRB:

  1. contacts the selected DR to inform them that their conduct and the quality of their services will be evaluated
  2. evaluates the DR conduct and quality of their services (for example, by conducting interviews with the presiding member of a case in which the DR participates, by attending hearings in which the DR participates)
  3. draws preliminary findings about the DR compliance with the code
  4. communicates findings of noncompliance to the DR for response before making final conclusions
  5. communicates the conclusions about the DR compliance with the code, including follow-up action to be taken by the IRB

9. Noncompliance with the Code of Conduct for Designated Representatives

9.1 If the IRB concludes that the DR does not comply with the code following an investigation into a complaint or an internal evaluation of the DR conduct and quality of their services, follow-up action will be taken by the IRB foremost to assist the DR in improving or eliminating issues with their conduct and the quality of their services.

9.2 However, depending on the nature and severity of the noncompliance, the IRB may suspend (that is, suspend or stop the DR work) and/or terminate the contract with the DR. This could translate into IRB applicable divisions de-designating the DR in cases and possibly designating a new DR and/or rehearing cases on their merits.


​