Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 3rd, 2011

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Our job is to look at what happens before; you just tell us that middle section of the appeal.

Finally, do you find that judicial review is a nuisance or a bother in your work?

[Hazelyn Ross]

No.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

The minister has been clear that he is finding judges are in the way of processing applications. The minister has been clear that judges are a huge problem. I don't know whether you're a problem as well. How do you feel about the role of the courts? Is there a role for the courts in immigration?

[Hazelyn Ross]

I believe that the courts are helpful in delimiting for the IAD its boundaries, its jurisdiction. It gives us guidance on the case law, it helps our jurisprudence, and it helps the way we develop and function as a quasi-judicial tribunal.

I wanted to mention something else. Mr. Oliphant, you asked a question about the type of information that the visa office uses to make its determination; I hope you understand that the onus is on the applicant to provide the visa officer with sufficient information.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

Mr. St-Cyr, you have seven minutes.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you.

I listened to your presentation, and I was very much interested in the part relating to alternate measures allowing for an accelerated processing of appeals: the alternative dispute resolution mechanism, the rapid and informal resolution and procedures based on facts which, if I am not mistaken, can work something in the way of conciliation.

Could you tell the committee what percentage of disputes go through this process initially, and what the success rate is, in other words the percentage of disputes that do not go beyond this stage?

Furthermore, you mentioned that even if the dispute is not resolved through these means, the resolution of the appeal through a hearing could nevertheless be accelerated. Could you illustrate this acceleration with some numbers?

[Simon Coakeley]

Yes. Please forgive me, but I do not have here with me the numbers with regard to the percentage of cases that are channelled towards alternative dispute resolution.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Is the proportion marginal? Would it be half or the majority of cases? What do the numbers look like?

[Simon Coakeley]

I would ask my colleagues to respond to that question.

[Hazelyn Ross]

In terms of the ADR procedure, I would say that roughly 30% of sponsorship appeals that are filed do go through an ADR process.

I'm sorry, you'll have to repeat the remaining questions because I was having trouble—

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Of these 30% of cases that go through the ADR process, how many of them are successful? In other words, in how many cases is there no need to move on to the next step, either because the minister allowed the appeal or the appellant withdrew it?

[Hazelyn Ross]

Roughly 44% of all appeals that go through ADR are successful. Success, though, in terms of the IAD, includes those consented to by the minister and those in which the appellant withdraws the appeal. I can't give you more of a breakdown than that. That's how we measure success; we do it globally, unfortunately, but we can get the breakdown for you.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Yes, I would like to know the success rate.

Also, when this process does not work, when it is unfruitful, it appears to me that it nevertheless speeds up the processing time through a hearing. To what extent is that true, and could you illustrate the situation with numbers?

[Hazelyn Ross]

Yes, we do. We do it in hard numbers.

I'm sorry; if I had known you would want this information, I'd have brought it with me.

We do get the hard numbers of how many were withdrawn successfully or how many were consented to by the minister. I can say that for this fiscal year so far, we have roughly 567 cases being resolved in ADR, and that includes our minister's consents and people who have withdrawn their appeals because the appeals are weak.

[Simon Coakeley]

I would like to add that if the alternative dispute resolution hits a snag or is not successful, a hearing is always possible in the end. At least the parties will have had the opportunity, and that stage, to hear the information from both sides. This can be helpful, in circumscribing the problem, when the appellant is allowed a full hearing in the appropriate format. We are of the view that even if the parties do not agree at the alternative dispute resolution process level, even in such circumstances, this helps us to resolve the case more effectively.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

What allows one to follow the alternative dispute resolution path?

[Simon Coakeley]

It is the Board that calls the parties to a meeting...

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

You therefore carry out a summary examination of the application and judge whether or not the players can agree without having to go through the process.

[Simon Coakeley]

Indeed. It is the evaluation done by an official from the Board that determines if the case could be resolved through alternative dispute resolution measures. In such situations, the different parties are called in and it is the official who presides, and not a member of the division. The parties exchange information and the appellant decides if he or she wishes to withdraw the appeal, when it is weak, or else, as Ms. Ross stated, the minister may consent to the appeal.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

You have therefore most certainly determined that the effort involved in doing this triage is greatly inferior to what you save...

[Simon Coakeley]

It is much less, it costs an awful lot less. Indeed, we do not take up the time of a division member, but that of an official who earns a little less than a division member.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

This is very interesting.

With regard to these fast track methods, you also talked about appeals being resolved "in Chambers". If I am not mistaken, there is no need for a hearing in such cases. The commissioner studies the written arguments and submissions. What is gained here? What takes time? Is it the hearing or the waiting period in order to get a hearing that we are trying to avoid?

[Hazelyn Ross]

The IAD is trying to reduce the backlog and work more efficiently, and the way we can do that.... You see, sometimes a single issue is just one legal question--

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I understand that. I want to know what the situation is with regard to time saved, because a hearing does not necessarily last very long.

[Hazelyn Ross]

It is both.