The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) is Canada’s largest administrative tribunal, charged with resolving immigration and refugee cases fairly, efficiently and in accordance with the law. Established by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the IRB operates at arms-length from the Government of Canada.

The IRB is composed of four divisions representing both determination and appeal hearings of refugee and immigration cases. While the board is independent in its decision-making function, engagement and collaboration with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada allows for the delivery of many of Canada’s immigration and refugee objectives. Despite challenges, including increasing numbers of refugee claims, Canada’s refugee determination system, within which the IRB plays the leading role, has earned an excellent international reputation.

Decision-makers at the IRB are expected to produce fair decisions quickly. They are also subject to codes of conduct that obliges them to act professionally, fairly and with integrity. Recently, cases have surfaced of board members violating these behavioural guidelines. Along with violations, there have been allegations of insensitivity of members and a complaint process that has been reported to be lacking consistency and transparency. For these reasons, on 6 February 2018, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration adopted a motion to study the processes for appointing and training decision-makers, as well as for handling complaints against them at the IRB.

This report sets out a number of recommendations based on the issues heard during the course of the Committee’s study. Among these, the Committee would like to highlight that the current processes of hiring public servants and of appointing Governor in Council candidates as decision-makers at the IRB be maintained and that the government consider reviewing both processes within three years.

The Committee also recommends that the IRB commit to a process for continuous improvement of members’ continuing education. Specifically, the committee urges improvement in the areas of sensitivity training, trauma-informed investigation techniques and credibility assessment. The Committee further recommends that the IRB review, on a periodic basis, the effectiveness of the board’s training guidelines as education and training tools.

Finally, with respect to the IRB complaint procedures, the Committee recommends that the government establish a task force with representation from all departments whose portfolios involve the oversight of federal administrative tribunals to review the need for an independent review board for complaints brought forward by the public. The Committee further recommends that the government consider whether complaints processes against public service positions and Governor in Council appointments within the federal administrative tribunal framework should be subject to different levels or avenues of review.