Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 27th, 2018

[Greg Kipling]

Sure. It's a initiative that's been in place for several years. As Mr. Aterman indicated, we do it cyclically on each of the divisions of the IRB, looking at essentially breaking down the process into three parts—pre-proceeding, the proceeding itself, and then post-proceeding—to examine whether the decision was well rendered in a sense that it was easy to understand, whether the files were well prepared in advance of the hearing, etc.

It's looking at systemic issues; it's not looking at individual performance. In a number of cases it has identified specific areas where we can improve. We've acted in several cases on different issues that have been identified.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Then is there a feedback loop into the appointment process, so as you become more aware of challenges or whatever, you feed that back into the appointment process and the training process?

[Paul Aterman]

I'll give you a specific example. You can look at the report that was prepared on the refugee appeal division. There were comments in there from an external third party who was saying that the reasons given are too long and complicated and are difficult to understand. That was one of the criticisms.

Our training subsequent to that has been focusing on simplifying the way the reasons are written. That's a concrete example of where that feedback loop actually operates. That's not on an individual level. This is on a systemic level. Individual decision-makers are having their performance assessed, but we do look at how the system works too.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Perfect.

And then if I could go—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I am afraid I need to end you there, sorry.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

To follow up on the question that Mr. Tilson asked with respect to the breakdown of the budget, I wonder if you could table that information for the committee so we can take a careful look at that.

In terms of the audit you just referenced, Mr. Aterman, could we have a copy of that audit? Can we take a look at it?

[Paul Aterman]

It's not complete yet.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

It's not complete. When do you anticipate it will be completed?

[Paul Aterman]

I think it will be completed in June.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

In June.

[Paul Aterman]

I can advise you that it will be made public.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay, great.

[Paul Aterman]

There is an obvious concern there, and the organization has to respond to it.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Just to get back to the issue around the complaints process, when a member is found to have a valid complaint against him or her, is there a follow-up process after the sanctions have been levied? In the case of Mr. Sterlin, it sounds like he was made to go through some training. What steps are taken after that training to ensure that in fact the training has been effective?

[Paul Aterman]

The annual performance appraisal is the vehicle whereby that is assessed. Essentially, that person's manager would have been aware of what training they had to undergo, and that person's manager would have been on the lookout for whether or not that training was effective.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

So that's done through an annual review at the end of...?

[Paul Aterman]

Yes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay.

On the judicial review issue, I know that in the complaint process or within the IRB you want to ensure that the members operate independently, and I'm not questioning that. You mentioned the process that people can go through if they feel that a decision is wrong, for whatever reason, but if a decision is found to be based on no credibility, the courts can overturn that, because they do not look at that question.

I want to table that because that's just a statement of fact. I want to then ask a series of questions, because I think these things are interlinked.

Did I hear correctly that the IRB does not keep statistics on the acceptance rate for each board member?

[Paul Aterman]

That information is available to us, but we don't track it. No, we don't. We don't look at member X and say that they have an 80% acceptance rate while member Y has a 40% acceptance rate. We don't do that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

But that information is available to you...?

[Paul Aterman]

It's available because it exists in the database, but just because the information exists doesn't mean that we track it. It would be inappropriate for us to do that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Do you take a look at the information...? Or do you look at the information on the basis of those cases that are rejected, which then go to the Federal Court and are overturned by it? Do you track that information?

[Paul Aterman]

We certainly use the return rate from the Federal Court as an indicator of whether or not there should be some concern about a member's performance. It's an important distinction, because we will look at the member's performance.... I'll take information from any source, but I will make an independent determination as to whether or not the member is performing.

They may have had their case overturned by the Federal Court, and it may be because they dealt with a novel point of law and there was nothing wrong with their decision. Or they may have gotten hammered by the Federal Court. If they got hammered by the Federal Court, I'll read those reasons, and I may have my concerns about those.

The integrity of the process depends upon the individual manager making their own determination about whether or not the member is performing appropriately.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I think this is related to the other information on appointments that would be useful, and so on. For example, suppose you have a member who consistently rejects a claimant's application—they refuse that application. It goes to the Federal Court and consistently gets overturned, or a substantive number of those get overturned, then I think there is some relevance.

If you couple that with an individual who may well have a series of complaints against them for misconduct, and those misconducts are found to be valid, then there is a correlation between these numbers.

It would be very useful for us, as we do the study, to have that information, to get a sense of what that looks like. Can you provide that information to us?

[Paul Aterman]

First of all, I would agree with you. If a member keeps making the same mistake and doesn't get the message, and if the court is telling them that, then, yes, there's a problem that needs to be addressed.

However, there's a question of looking at why the member's decision was overturned in any given instance. If there's a pattern there, then that's something that is obviously of concern.

I'm not sure what information you would want from the board in that regard.