Quality Performance in the Refugee Protection Division 2025

​On this page

• Overview
• Assessment methodology
• Limitations
• Results
• Summary of results
• Pre-proceeding readiness
• Fair and respectful proceedings
• Focused and robust proceedings
• Reasons state conclusions on all relevant determinative issues
• Decisions provide findings and analysis necessary to justify conclusions
• Reasons are transparent and intelligible
• Recommendations
• Management Response and Action Plan
• Annex A – RPD indicator list

Overview

This report describes the results of the measurement of quality in decision-making in the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB). This report aims to provide a perspective to improve the Division's overall performance.^{Footnote 1}

To ensure neutrality, quality, and consistency in the assessment, a third-party reviewer, Paul Daly, was selected based on his in-depth knowledge of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), refugee and immigration matters, and administrative law. Paul Daly is the Research Chair in Administrative Law and Governance at the University of Ottawa and a leading commentator on Canadian administrative law. He is also an expert in decision-making in the administrative state, with research cited by courts and tribunals across Canada, including the Supreme Court.

The Audit and Evaluation Team of the Strategic Planning, Accountability, and Reporting Directorate (SPAR) provided the statistics found in the table accompanying each result section as well as the information in 1.0 “Context” and 2.0 “Summary of results”. However, the findings in this report, including all strengths, areas for improvement and recommendations, are solely those of the third-party reviewer.

Assessment methodology

The study reviewed 70 randomly selected claims that were decided on their merits and finalized between April 1, 2024, and June 30, 2024. The cases were balanced in proportion to region, language, and outcome. Hearings between 1.5 and 4 hours were included. The average hearing length was 2.5 hours. Members with less than 6 months experience were excluded from the sample.

The reviewers examined all evidentiary and administrative materials on file; listened to the complete audio recordings and reviewed the written decision; and assessed these against qualitative indicators in an assessment tool developed by the Strategic Planning, Accountability and Reporting (SPAR) Directorate and approved by the Deputy Chairperson of the RPD (see Annex A). The assessment tool assesses 24 indicators across six performance categories. Fourteen of the indicators are mandatory for assessment, and ten are assessed only when applicable.

1. Pre-proceeding readiness
2. Fair and respectful proceedings
3. Focused and robust proceedings
4. Reasons state conclusions on all relevant determinative issues
5. Decisions provide findings and analysis necessary to justify conclusions
6. Reasons are transparent and intelligible

Each indicator is assessed on a 1-to-3 rating scale. The 1-to-3 rating scale is as follows:

1 = Does not meet expectations: The quality requirement was not met. The evidence showed one or more key instances where the proceeding or reasons would have markedly benefited had this requirement been met. There may have been an effort to apply the requirement, but the level of achievement fell short of expectations.

2 = Meets expectations: This is a level of acceptable achievement. On balance, the member satisfied this quality requirement though there is margin for minor improvement.

3 = Exceeds expectations: This is a level of consistent, above-average achievement. The evidence shows a grasp of the quality requirement and an understanding of its importance to a​ quality proceeding or decision, as the case may be.

Results are also expressed as a percentage of cases that meet expectations. A hearing is considered to meet the quality standard when 80% or more of the indicators for that hearing score a 2 or higher.

In support of Gender Based Analysis Plus (GBA+), the assessment tool includes items which directly address matters of accommodations, self-represented persons, intersectionality, and where applicable, other aspects of the Chairperson's Guidelines.

Limitations

The goal of the study was not to generate statistics but to identify areas of strength, areas for improvement, and patterns in decision-making quality. To mitigate the inherent limitations of qualitative research, detailed performance indicators and guidance were provided to the assessor to help focus the assessment. Moreover, the assessor was provided with orientation by the Division, and data was checked for quality by the Audit and Evaluation Team.

A small sample size limits the inferences that may be made about the broader caseload. Where sample sizes are too small for 'if applicable' indicators, observations or recommendations may still have been provided but these are not based on representative findings. 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.

Results

Summary of results

The primary performance target for this assessment balances realism with aspiration. It aims for 80% of cases within the sample to meet the quality standard. A case meets the quality standard when 80% or more of the indicators for that case score a 2 or higher. This target was achieved with 91% of cases (64 out of 70) meeting or exceeding the expectation. Where an indicator had many cases that did not meet the target, it is addressed in the reviewer's observations following the table (“What we can improve”).

Percentage of cases that met or exceeded expectations

What we did well

• Members are invariably well prepared for hearings, with a firm grasp of the factual material and relevant legal questions.
  
• Members introduce hearings to claimants and counsel very well, using standard templates to avoid confusion and to ensure consistency.
  
• Members pursue relevant lines of questioning in a non-confrontational, trauma-informed way to elicit relevant information from claimants.
  
• Members write concise reasons that address the determinative issues and generally meet standards of best practice in contemporary administrative tribunals.
  

What we can improve

• While members do a good job introducing hearings to claimants, scripts could be further improved by incorporating plain language explanations of the hearing.
  
• Members should take breaks to defuse tension in difficult hearings.
  
• Members should provide brief summaries of their conclusions at the outset of their decisions.
  
• Members should ensure that they deal with all relevant issues in positive determinations, especially the issue of subjective fear.
  

Pre-proceeding readiness

Why measure this

The groundwork for quality is set before the hearing when the member prepares for the proceeding and understands the facts and key issues of the case. Indicator 1 of this study assesses this principle.

Considerations

Indicator 1 applies to all cases.

Overall result

General observations

Members were always extremely well prepared, in that they had reviewed the documents in the file and could accordingly identify relevant issues for determination.

What we did well

The Board's document management system generally functions effectively in ensuring that members have access to relevant information in advance of a hearing.

Members took the necessary time pre-hearing to familiarize themselves with relevant documentation, facilitating more efficient and expeditious hearings.

What we can improve

In some cases, claimants and counsel said they had submitted certain documents to the Registry, but they were not made available to the member prior to the hearing. In these cases, the member dealt with the submissions and arranged time to review them. This slows down the hearing process and causes unnecessary stress to claimants. More robust and effective records management would improve hearing quality.

Recommendation

The Board should exercise due diligence in records management to ensure that all relevant documentation is available in its document management system for the member's review prior to a hearing.

Fair and respectful proceedings

Why measure this

Individuals appearing before the IRB expect that they will be treated with respect. Any shortcoming in this regard potentially undermines tribunal integrity and public confidence. Indicators 2 to 10 of this study apply these principles in the context of IRB decision-making.

Considerations

Indicators 2, 4, and 10 are considered universal—they apply to all cases. Indicators 3 and 5 to 9 are assessed as applicable.

Overall result

General observations

Members were almost always courteous and respectful in addressing claimants and counsel, which ensured that hearings generally ran effectively.

Members generally intervened where necessary to address issues affecting the quality of the proceeding, such as inadequate interpretation or audio-visual problems.

What we did well

Members use templates/scripts to deal effectively with issues that are common to all hearings, such as ensuring that claimants are alone in the room from which they are testifying.

Members are generally proactive in dealing with issues relating to interpretation, such as claimants offering too much information in one go or interpreters embellishing claimants' testimony (ex. Non-maliciously adding context or details).

What we can improve

In all cases, members should deliver a plain-language explanation of the hearing process to all claimants. Doing so would improve the claimant's perception of hearing quality, even in cases where the claimant is represented by counsel as counsel may not have explained the hearing process in plain language.

In all cases, members should set expectations clearly for interpreters and claimants at the outset of hearings by describing, in plain language, best practices for interpretation. Doing so would improve the efficiency of hearings by reducing the need for intervention to correct deviations from best practices.

Recommendations

The division should engage members to develop revised templates or scripts on plain language explanations of the hearing process and best practices for interpretation. This will improve accessibility and facilitate more efficient hearings such as by minimizing delays or issues stemming from misunderstandings.

• Hearing process script: Should cover the inquisitorial nature of the hearing; the order of questioning and its purpose; the meaning of determinative issues; the distinction between claims treated under s. 96 and s. 97; and any other matters likely to be covered in a hearing.
  
• Interpretation best practices script: Should cover the obligation of the claimant to speak slowly and in quantities that are manageable for the interpretation; the obligation of the interpreter to communicate the claimant's answers faithfully; and any other relevant best practices.
  

Focused and robust proceedings

Why measure this

Proceedings that are efficient and well managed create favourable conditions for quality outcomes to emerge and support the IRB's efforts to make the most effective use of its resources. Indicators 11 to 16 of this study apply these principles in the context of IRB decision-making.

Considerations

Indicators 11 to 13 and 15 apply to all cases. Indicators 14 and 16 are assessed as applicable.

Overall result

General observations

Members generally handle hearings extremely well, asking relevant questions, ensuring that they have all necessary information to render a decision, respecting the principles of trauma-informed questioning and managing difficult situations when they arise.

Members' handling of hearings generally results in quality outcomes, as members generate factual information that facilitates the preparation of concise and convincing reasons.

Members sometimes have difficulty in managing hearings when conflict arises, especially where there is a point of disagreement between the member and counsel or claimant.

What we did well

Members ask relevant questions by virtue of their preparation through reviewing the documentary record and experience as adjudicators.

Members use questions as tools to ensure that claimants provide all of the information that is relevant for the making of a fully informed decision.

Members are generally respectful of claimants who have suffered trauma and do not insist that claimants relive traumatic events.

What we can improve

Members should be more proactive in taking breaks when a hearing is becoming difficult, such as when counsel or a claimant becomes argumentative. This allows space for tempers to cool and the hearing to resume in a calm manner.

Recommendations

The division should engage members to identify red flags that indicate a hearing may become difficult to support members in proactively responding to and mitigating potential conflict.

The division should encourage members to spot these red flags and take breaks pre-emptively to ensure that hearings run expeditiously.

Reasons state conclusions on all relevant determinative issues

Why measure this

The Supreme Court of Canada set the requirement for justifiability, intelligibility and transparency of the decisions of an administrative tribunal. Through indicators 17 to 24, this study applies the Court's requirement in the context of IRB decision-making.

Considerations

Indicators 17 and 18 apply to all cases.

Overall result

General observations

Members generally address all parts of the legal test for refugee status.

Members almost invariably base their decision on the issues and evidence put before them by the claimant.

What we did well

Members are excellent at identifying determinative issues for negative determinations.

Members generally are comprehensive in dealing with all parts of the legal test for positive determinations.

Members ensure that their decisions are based on the issues and evidence in the proceeding, contributing to the acceptability of their decisions in the eyes of claimants.

What we can improve

In cases where members make positive determinations, members could be more careful to address all parts of the legal test for refugee status. In particular, members should carefully ensure they reach conclusions on the issue of subjective fear of persecution. Doing so would enhance the quality of decisions.

Recommendations

The division should remind members to cover all parts of the legal test for refugee status and address the issue of subjective fear explicitly when making positive determinations to improve the comprehensibility of positive decisions and contribute to accessibility.

Decisions provide findings and analysis necessary to justify conclusions

Why measure this

The Supreme Court of Canada set the requirement for justifiability, intelligibility, and transparency in a decision of an administrative tribunal. Through indicators 17 to 24, this study applies the Court's requirement in the context of IRB decision-making.

Considerations

Indicators 19 to 21 apply to all cases. Indicator 22 is only assessed if applicable.

Overall result

General observations

Members generally meet the requirements of justification, intelligibility and transparency demanded by the courts.

Most members ensure that they make clear findings of fact, based in clearly identified evidence and sensitive to cultural context, that support their legal conclusions.

What we did well

Members' cultural awareness is excellent, and they almost invariably display appropriate sensitivity in dealing with credibility issues arising with claimants from diverse backgrounds.

Members generally make clear findings of fact and base their decisions on credible evidence.

Members mostly support factual findings with probative evidence, though there is room for improvement.

What we can improve

In cases where members identify evidence as credible and probative, but do not link the evidence to findings of fact, decision quality is negatively affected. Taking care to link credible, probative evidence to findings of fact would improve decision quality by making decisions more justified, transparent and intelligible.

In cases where members are addressing credibility issues, members should write in a 'point first' manner (i.e. stating the conclusion on credibility first and subsequently supporting the conclusion by reference to findings of fact based on credible, probative evidence). Doing so would improve decision quality by providing clearer justification for members' decisions.

In all cases, members should engage in issues-based analysis, grouping their analysis of the evidence under themes or “issues” that relate to the legal conclusions members must reach to make determinations about refugee status. Doing so would improve decision quality by making decisions more intelligible and transparent.

Recommendations

The division should provide members with regular training on point-first writing and issues-based analysis to improve decision quality by enhancing the justification, transparency and intelligibility of decisions.

The division should identify RPD decisions that are particularly effective examples of point-first writing and issues-based analysis and provide these to members with a view to improve decision quality.

Reasons are transparent and intelligible

Why measure this

The Supreme Court of Canada set the requirement for justifiability, intelligibility, and transparency in a decision of an administrative tribunal. Through indicators 17 to 24, this study applies the Court's requirement in the context of IRB decision-making.

Considerations

All indicators apply to all cases.

Overall result

General observations

Members generally write reasons that are concise, clear and easy to follow.

What we did well

Members are excellent at producing concise reasons that are comprehensive and explain the outcome.

Members are very good at using templates to ensure organization and structure in their reasons.

What we can improve

In all cases, members should provide summaries of their decisions at the outset, briefly summarizing their overall determination and key bases to support it. Decision summaries are not currently a requirement but are a best practice to support more accessible reasons and facilitate claimant comprehension.

Recommendations

The division should provide members with regular training on summary writing in order to improve the accessibility of reasons and facilitate claimant comprehension.

The division should identify RPD decisions that do a particularly good job of summarizing the conclusions at the outset and communicate these to members in order to improve the accessibility of reasons and facilitate claimant comprehension.

Recommendations

Hearing preparation

1. The Board should exercise due diligence in records management to ensure that all relevant documentation is available in its document management system for the member's review prior to a hearing.
   
2. The division should engage members to develop revised templates or scripts on plain language explanations of the hearing process and best practices for interpretation. This will improve accessibility and facilitate more efficient hearings such as by minimizing delays or issues stemming from misunderstandings.
   
1. Hearing process script: Should cover the inquisitorial nature of the hearing; the order of questioning and its purpose; the meaning of determinative issues; the distinction between claims treated under s. 96 and s. 97; and any other matters likely to be covered in a hearing.
   
2. Interpretation best practices script: Should cover the obligation of the claimant to speak slowly and in quantities that are manageable for the interpretation; the obligation of the interpreter to communicate the claimant's answers faithfully; and any other relevant best practices.
   

Hearing management

3. The division should engage members to identify red flags that indicate a hearing may become difficult to support members in proactively responding to and mitigating potential conflict. Members should be encouraged to spot these red flags and take breaks pre-emptively to ensure that hearings run expeditiously.
   

Decision-making quality

4. Reminders on positive decision criteria: The division should remind members to cover all parts of the legal test for refugee status and address the issue of subjective fear explicitly when making positive determinations to improve the comprehensibility of positive decisions and contribute to accessibility.
   
5. Training: The division should provide members with regular training on point-first writing, issues-based analysis, and summary writing to ensure decisions are justified, transparent, and intelligible.
   
6. Adjudicative tools: The division should identify decisions that are particularly effective examples of point-first writing, issues-based analysis, and summarizing conclusions at the outset of a determination. This will support ongoing implementation of best practices for decision writing​.​
   

Management Response and Action Plan

Recommendation 1

The Board should exercise due diligence in records management to ensure that all relevant documentation is available in its document management system for the member's review prior to a hearing.

Management response

The IRB accepts this recommendation.

In the fall of 2025, the Board issued a revised Practice Notice on Procedural Issues that included instructions on late disclosure to ensure that parties submit evidence on time to allow all relevant documentation to be available for members ahead of hearings. In addition, the Board has started to review its internal processes to ensure last-minute disclosures are presented to members in a timely and efficient way.

Management action plan

The Registry will review its processes regarding late disclosure.

• Lead responsible: TSB
• Completion date: Q1 2026-2027
  

Recommendation 2

The division should engage members to develop revised templates or scripts on plain language explanations of the hearing process and best practices for interpretation. This will improve accessibility and facilitate more efficient hearings such as by minimizing delays or issues stemming from misunderstandings.

Recommendation 2a

Hearing process script: Should cover the inquisitorial nature of the hearing; the order of questioning and its purpose; the meaning of determinative issues; the distinction between claims treated under s. 96 and s. 97; and any other matters likely to be covered in a hearing.

Management response

The IRB accepts this recommendation.

In Fall 2024, the RPD introduced new hearings scripts incorporating elements addressed in the recommendation.

Management action plan

In Fall 2025, the RPD reviewed its member scripts to ensure elements of the recommendation were addressed to support members to facilitate fair, accessible and efficient hearings.

• Lead responsible: RPD
• Completion date: Q3 2025-2026
  

Recommendation 2b

Interpretation best practices script: Should cover the obligation of the claimant to speak slowly and in quantities that are manageable for the interpretation; the obligation of the interpreter to communicate the claimant's answers faithfully; and any other relevant best practices.

Management response

The IRB accepts this recommendation.

Board interpreters receive a plain-language script designed to guide claimants, emphasizing clear instructions such as speaking slowly and using short sentences. Additionally, the Registry implements a quality assurance process. In Fall 2024, the RPD introduced new hearings scripts, including plain-language instruction on interpretation.

Management action plan

Both the RPD and Registry reviewed their scripts which included plain-language instructions for interpreters and members.

• Lead responsible: RPD, TSB
• Completion date: Q3 2025-2026

Recommendation 3

The division should engage members to identify red flags that indicate a hearing may become difficult to support members in proactively responding to and mitigating potential conflict. Members should be encouraged to spot these red flags and take breaks pre-emptively to ensure that hearings run expeditiously.

Management response

The IRB partially accepts this recommendation.

The RPD provides all members with training on how to manage difficult situations in the hearing room through new member training and ongoing through professional development sessions. In Fall 2024, the RPD delivered mandatory training on effective hearing room management, including proactive steps to mitigate potential conflicts.

Members use a variety of methods to deescalate conflict that may be employed before taking a non-routine break, as referenced in Chairperson's Guideline 8: Accessibility to IRB Proceedings — Procedural Accommodations and Substantive Considerations. A balanced approach must be taken, given that a regular hearing is three hours, and a break could result in a continuation to another date, adversely impacting expeditious access to justice.

Management action plan

In Summer 2025, the RPD worked with Legal Services to provide members with information on best practices for managing difficult situations that commonly arise in hearings. In addition, in Fall 2025, the RPD provided all members with training on the tools that exist to manage difficult situations in the hearing room, including best practices on how to mitigate potential conflicts.

• Lead responsible: RPD
• Completion date: Q3 2025-2026
  

Recommendation 4

Reminders on positive decision criteria: The division should remind members to cover all parts of the legal test for refugee status and address the issue of subjective fear explicitly when making positive determinations to improve the comprehensibility of positive decisions and contribute to accessibility.

Management response

The IRB accepts this recommendation.

The RPD provides regular support and training to members to ensure they cover all parts of legal tests, make explicit findings, and write comprehensible decisions through new member training and through ongoing professional development sessions.

Training was and will be provided again this year to all members on making credibility findings and adequacy.

Management action plan

The RPD will offer additional training sessions on making credibility findings and adequacy.

• Lead responsible: RPD
• Completion date: Q4 2025-2026

Recommendation 5

Training: The division should provide members with regular training on point-first writing, issues-based analysis, and summary writing to ensure decisions are justified, transparent, and intelligible.

Management response

The IRB accepts this recommendation.

In February 2025, all RPD members were trained on the principles of point-first writing and issues-based analysis. Also, in 2025, RPD added these principles to the New Member Training program.

Management action plan

RPD templates will also be reviewed to reflect point-first writing, issues-based analysis, and summary writing.

• Lead responsible: RPD
• Completion date: Q4 2025-2026

Recommendation 6

Adjudicative tools: The division should identify decisions that are particularly effective examples of point-first writing, issues-based analysis, and summarizing conclusions at the outset of a determination. This will support ongoing implementation of best practices for decision writing.

Management response

The IRB accepts this recommendation.

The RPD will share examples of concise, quality decisions with its members that demonstrate effective point-first writing, issues-based analysis, and include summarized conclusions stated ahead of analysis.

Management action plan

Before the end of the fiscal year, RPD will select and share effective examples of recent decisions demonstrating the use of point-first writing, issues-based analysis and with summary conclusions.

• Lead responsible: RPD
• Completion date: Q4 2025-2026
  

Annex A – RPD indicator list