Refugee Law Services
Transformation
Report on Consultation
December 2012
Refugee law services transformation objectives
• Respond to legislative change, Protecting Canada’s
Immigration System Act, December 15, 2012
• Modernize the delivery of refugee law services based on
the continuum of service
• Manage refugee law services within LAO’s budget
• Ensure quality service for refugee claimants
2
Refugee Law Services Transformation
Consultations
•
•
•
•
•
3
LAO held 13 consultation sessions with the private bar, clinics, community
agencies and legal associations from November 5 to December 10.
LAO received written submissions from
– The Refugee Lawyers Association
– Parkdale Community Legal Services
– Roma Community Centre
– private bar members
– clinic representatives
Consultations were held in the following locations
– Eight sessions in the GTA
– Two in Ottawa
– One in the Fort Erie
– Two in Hamilton
Over 114 registrants
For details of feedback, see Appendix A. For list of participants, see
Appendix B
Refugee Law Services Transformation
Consultation summary
4
Private bar
• LAO should
– Maintain or expand certificate coverage, including Refugee Appeal
Division
– Ensure the Basis of Claim as critical document is adequately funded
– Improve quality of service – get rid of “bad apples”
– Ensure legal aid access for all meritorious claims
– Ensure continuity of service provider: BOC
hearing
– Challenge Bill C-31
– Lobby for increased funding
– Co-ordinate services with clinics/RLO
– Ensure coverage decisions based on individual merit assessment not
IRB acceptance rates
– Provide coverage (BOC prep & hearing representation) for 90% & 25%
acceptance rate countries, including DCOs (“safe” countries)
– Supervise paralegals if they are to provide refugee services
5
Refugee Law Services Transformation
Clinics
• LAO should
– Be a champion for refugee rights, including the right to
counsel for refugees
– Provide funding for test case litigation, law reform efforts,
and community mobilization to address systemic issues
– Not tie funding for refugee law services to levels of
targeted funding provided by the Federal government.
– Ensure a well-functioning legal aid certificate program as
the most effective and efficient service delivery model
– Ensure that all refugee claimants whose cases meet a
minimal merit threshold obtain legal representation.
– Provide substantial new funding to legal clinics to respond
to refugee service pressures based on proposed model
6
Refugee Law Services Transformation
Community partners
• LAO should
– Develop plain language public legal information
– Develop summary legal advice, and duty counsel services
at ports-of-entry or CICs
– Collaborate more with community agencies
– Support agencies interested in holding legal clinics for
claimants to explain LAO and IRB processes
7
Refugee Law Services Transformation
Paralegals
• LAO should
– Provide opportunity for paralegals to serve refugee clients
– Develop training and ‘articling’ rotations in support of
refugee competency
– Support efforts to increase refugee law learning
opportunities at LSUC and colleges
8
Refugee Law Services Transformation
Appendix A:
Consultation – Details of stakeholder feedback
9
Stakeholder consultation feedback
Concerns re: consultation paper
– “The paper comes at a time when more, and not less, resourcing
for refugees is needed. The federal government is busy creating
a system that will make things harder for refugee claimants, and
it would be a catastrophe for LAO to cut its funding at such a
time. Yet the paper seems to be focused on cuts.”
– “The paper throws out ideas like using immigration consultants,
and allowing the Minister to dictate (based on the DCO “safe
country” list) whether a claimant will be represented by a lawyer.”
– “The paper is wrongheaded with its focus on decision-making
based on the statistical grant rate that the IRB uses. It would be
wrong for LAO to use those statistics, or the government’s own
designation of safe countries, to decide who can have a lawyer.”
10
Refugee Law Services Transformation
Stakeholder consultation feedback
Concerns re: consultation paper
– ‘Does nothing to push back against what the federal
government is doing, and never acknowledges that the
new system is a direct attack on refugees.’
– ‘Has come out at what is really the bleakest moment for
refugees …. it would not be surprising if the bar becomes
discouraged, particularly after LAO announced changes to
refugee services in August, to be effective in early
September, without prior consultation with the bar.’
– ‘Provides an opportunity for a genuine consultation
process, but there is a perception out there, because of
changes in September, that LAO has already made up its
mind.’
11
Refugee Law Services Transformation
Stakeholder consultation feedback
Summary legal advice (SLA) & Basis of Claim (BoC) services
– “Consider a summary legal advice (SLA) hotline at port-ofentry sites”
– “SLA and triaging must be performed by subject-matter
experts”
– “BoC form and front-end services are critical and should
be funded adequately”
– “It is problematic to merit-assess cases based on Refugee
Protection Division acceptance rates”
12
Refugee Law Services Transformation
Stakeholder consultation feedback
Refugee Protection Division (RPD) service levels
• “Representation at the Refugee Protection Division is
imperative where there is a 90 per cent success rate –
serious risk of harm on return to country of origin if claim
fails”
• “There should be representation for Designated Country of
Origin “safe” claimants who have a reasonable chance of
success as these cases will be contested”
13
Refugee Law Services Transformation
Stakeholder consultation feedback
Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) & federal court
representation service levels
• “Meritorious appeals (RAD) should be funded”
• “A panel of staff specialists should be created to do RAD”
• “There will be an increase in emergency federal court stay
applications that should be funded”
• “A specialized panel of lawyers should be created to
assess and proceed with meritorious judicial review
applications, without the requirement of area committee
approval’
14
Stakeholder consultation feedback
Payment options
– “Service contracts would create competition between
lawyers, a barrier to participation by new lawyers, and
sacrifice quality for cost savings”
– “Block fees may work if service is adequately costed and
funded”
15
Stakeholder consultation feedback
Unbundling of refugee services
• ‘Clients will not be well-served if there is a lack of
continuity of service as a result of unbundling, i.e., the
person funded to prepare the basis of claim should appear
with the claimant at the hearing”
• “There is a need for better communication and more plainlanguage instructions to clients about LAO processes”
16
Stakeholder consultation feedback
Alternative service providers
• “There is scope for paralegals, supervised by lawyers, to provide
some refugee services”
• “Paralegal training in college does not properly prepare
paralegals to work in this area”
• “The idea of immigration consultants providing these services is
ill advised”
• “Staff or per diem duty counsel could provide services at ports of
entry or Canadian Immigration Centers (CICs)”
17
Stakeholder consultation feedback
From clinics
– “Clinics lack the experience and capacity to take on
refugee law services, although some clinics do this work
and are interested in continuing to do it, with sufficient
resources”
– “Clinics, private bar and RLO need to work closely with
community service providers, particularly given the short
timelines”
– “The Refugee Law Office (RLO) provides a good service”
– “The RLO could provide expanded services, for example
through ‘mini-RLOs’ that could provide assistance at ports
of entry”
18
Stakeholder consultation feedback
From agencies
• “Students and volunteer services can be used in provision
of some refugee services”
• “Summary legal advice and public information in plain
language would be valuable”
• “Web-based information and case-specific research would
be valuable”
19
Refugee Law Services Transformation
Stakeholder consultation feedback
Quality services
• “LAO should remove bad panel members from the panel –
general sense that LAO is not doing enough in the area of
panel management”
• “LAO should more closely scrutinize applicants who have
family members who might be able to pay for legal fees”
• “LAO should undertake foundational work to establish the
relative cost-effectiveness of different service delivery
models”
• “The current proposed model will have an impact on
quality service and clients falling between the cracks”
20
Refugee Law Services Transformation
Stakeholder consultation feedback
Charter challenges
– “LAO should be more proactive about funding test case
litigation in the area of refugee law”
– “LAO could fund clinic efforts to fight Bill C-31”
21
Refugee Law Services Transformation
Appendix B:
Consultation participants
22
Appendix B: Consultation participants
 LAO Board Refugee Law Advisory
Committee
 Refugee Lawyers Association
 Ottawa Immigration Bar
 Hamilton Community Legal Clinic
 FCJ Hamilton House
 Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture
 St. Christopher House
 Sojourn House
 Amnesty International
 IHC
 Red Cross
 Faithful Companions of Jesus
 South Etobicoke Community Legal
Clinic
 Fort Erie community partners
 LAO Area Committee
 Hiv & Aids Legal Clinic Ontario
 Romero House
23















Mississauga Community Legal Services
Flemington Community Legal Services
Neighbourhood Legal Services
Woodgreen
Quinte United Immigrant Services
York Hispanic Centre
Ontario Council of Agencies Serving
Immigrants
TRAC
Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian
Legal Clinic
ACLCO
Roma Community Centre
Parkdale Community Legal Services
Paralegal Association
Paralegal Society
Immigration Consultants of Canada
Refugee Law Services Transformation