CBA BC Refugee Lawyers Group CLE Conference
February 8, 2013
Presentation by Peggy Lee
Associate Lawyer at Elgin, Cannon & Associates





◦ amended by
2010)
◦ amended by
Balanced Refugee Reform Act (June
Protecting Canada’s Immigration
System Act (June 2012)
(Dec. 15,
2012)
◦
◦
◦
(Dec.15, 2012)
Guideline 6 – Scheduling & Changing Date or Time
Guideline 7 – Preparation & Conduct of RPD Hearing
Guideline 8 – Vulnerable Persons before the RPD
(Dec. 2012)

DAY
1
15
30
45
60
Inland DCO Inland
All others
PoE DCO PoE
All others
BoC & Forms to CIC/CBSA
BoC & Forms to CIC/CBSA
RPD referral RPD referral
Forms to
CBSA
Forms to
CBSA
RPD referral RPD referral
BoC to RPD BoC to RPD
RPD Hearing
RPD Hearing
RPD Hearing RPD Hearing





Accepting retainers for refugee claimants
POE / Inland / Detained claimants
Completing refugee claim forms
Declarations / Extensions/ Amendments
Scheduling RPD Hearings & Applications
Time limits / Applications to Change Date
Preparation & Conduct of RPD Hearings
Disclosure / Minister’s Intervention / Procedures

1.
2.

1.
◦ If claimant is out-of-status, advise on risk of CBSA arrest before refugee eligibility is determined.
2.

1.
◦ Is there a qualified interpreter that is available immediately?
◦ Are there potential eligibility or inadmissibility issues that could complicate the case?
2.


RPD Rule 14(1): Subject to extent of limited retainer, as soon as counsel for a claimant agrees to a date for a proceeding or as soon as person becomes counsel after proceeding is fixed, the counsel becomes “counsel of record”

RPD Rule 14(2): if the claimant has notified the
Division of counsel’s limited retainer, counsel is counsel of record only to the extent of the limited retainer and ceases to be counsel as soon as those services are completed


RPD Rule 15:
◦ Counsel must provide written request first to Claimant, then if applicable to the Minister and then to the RPD no later than 3 working days before next hearing;
◦ if less than 3 working days then must appear on date fixed to make oral request to be removed as counsel;
◦ Counsel remains ‘counsel of record’ unless the request to be removed is granted

RPD Rule 16:
◦ Claimant can remove counsel as counsel of record by providing written notice to RPD and Minister if Minster is a party;
◦ Counsel ceases to be counsel of record as soon as RPD receives the notice

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Refugee Claim Document Checklist (IMM 5745)
Generic Application Form for Canada
(IMM0008)
Additional Dependants/Declaration
(IMM0008DEP)
Schedule A – Background/Declaration
(IMM5669)
Schedule 12 – Refugee Claimants Inside Canada
(IMM 0008 – Schedule 12)
Basis of Claim Form
Use of Representative (IMM 5476)


BoC Q.2(a) “Have you or your family ever been harmed, mistreated or threatened by any person or group?” If ‘YES’ explain in detail –what, when, who, why, any similarly-situated?
◦ insufficient time to draft BoC for POE & detained claimants
◦ skeletal summary of basis of claim especially if insufficient time. (eg. Yes, I fear political persecution from the state government because I am an opposition party member.)
◦ modify BoC declaration in narrative (eg. Due to insufficient time to prepare the BoC, it is not possible to declare that the information is ‘complete, true, and correct’ and an BoC amendment may be forwarded as soon as possible.)


PIF is brief recitation of claim: “The PIF is supposed to be a brief recitation of the applicant’s claim, not a documentation of his whole case.” ( at para. 20)
, 2003 FC 955

BoC Form purpose: “to gather information from a refugee claimant about their claim to help prepare and conduct the hearing properly.” (CIC Website, ‘Notice-Q&A: PCISA’)

 applicable only to POE Claimants

RPD Rule 8: BoC written extension application to RPD “no later than 3 working days” before time limit
◦ must include decision sought, supporting reasons & views of other party if known; not required to give evidence in affidavit or statutory declaration RPD Rule
50

May be better to submit skeletal BoC within time limits than seek BoC extension.


RPD Rule 8(3): Claimant must provide medical certificate by qualified medical practitioner

RPD Rule 8(4): medical certificate must set out particulars of medical condition that prevent claimant from providing completed
BoC within prescribed time limit

RPD Rule 8(5): if no medical certificate, show efforts to obtain, medical reason particulars and why prevent claimant provide BoC




RPD Rule 65(2): abandonment hearing for failure to provide BoC held within 5 working days on which BoC due; claimant must provide BoC at special hearing (unless already provided to RPD)
RPD Rule 65(4): factors to consider include explanation by claimant, any other relevant factors, fact that claimant ready to start or continue proceedings
RPD Rule 65(5): original medical certificate if claimant explanation includes medical reasons


◦ provide original and copy to RPD
◦ sign & date each page & underline changes or additions made;
◦ sign & date declaration “complete, true & correct”, understand same force & effect as if made under oath
◦ amendments no later than 10 days before hearing date


RPD Rule 27(3): RPD may notify Minister re
“integrity issues” including:… (b) a substantial change to the basis of the claim from that indicated in the Basis of Claim Form first provided to the Division; (c) information that, in support of the claim, the claimant submitted documents that may be fraudulent; or (d) other information that the claimant may be directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter.

 amendment obligations & credibility: negative credibility inference if not amend PIF with important information directly connected to claim ( at para. 4);
Prak v. Canada, 2006 FC 1516

( delayed amendments: negative credibility inference if no reasonable explanation for delayed amendments
Lahocsinsky v. Canada, 2004 FC 275 at para. 10)

( before affirmation at RPD hearing: “the Board was not incorrect, in the circumstances, to draw negative inferences from the applicants’ failure to include such information, especially after they affirmed at the beginning of the hearing that the PIFs were complete and true.”
Delthalawe v. Canada (MCI) , 2011 FC 1188 at para. 17)




RPD Rule 3(2): officer must select date closest to last day of applicable time limit, unless claimant agrees to earlier date
RPD Rule 3(3): officer must consider counsel’s availability if the client has retained counsel at time of referral and officer informed counsel available to attend a hearing on one of the dates provided by RPD
Practice Note: Counsel should submit available dates & times within 5 days of 30/45/60-day limits to CIC/CBSA/RPD (together with BoC &
Forms)





IRB CG6, 3.3.1: scheduling based on operational & legislative requirements & principles of natural justice
IRB CG6, 3.3.3: except in RPD hearings set by
CIC/CBSA, IRB endeavors to contact counsel for available dates
IRB CG6, 3.3.4: IRB attempts to accommodate counsel’s calendar but is not bound by counsel’s availability
IRB CG6, 3.3.6: IRB may schedule when counsel is not available



◦ (a) application must be made without delay
◦ (b) received by RPD no later than 3 working days before date fixed for proceeding
◦ (c) include 3 dates and times no later than 10 working days of originally fixed date
◦ oral application if less than 3 working days before proceeding


◦
 (a) change required to accommodate vulnerable person or
 (b) an emergency or other development outside the party’s control and the party has acted diligently

◦ RPD Rule 54(5): RPD must allow change of date application if
 (a) claimant retains counsel no later than 5 working days after hearing date fixed
 (b) counsel retained not available on date fixed for the hearing
 (c) application made in writing
 (d) application made without delay & no later than 5 working days after hearing date fixed
 (e) claimant provides at least 3 dates & times when counsel is available


 right to counsel: right to counsel before RPD is a procedural fairness issue
( Bryndza v. Canada (MCI), 2012 FC
1250 at para. 3;
58)
Cervenakova v. Canada (MCI), 2012 FC 525 at para. procedural fairness factors: RPD must consider
Siloch factors
[ Bryndza v. Canada (MCI), 2012 FC 1250 at para.11 citing: Siloch v. Canada (MCI) (1993), 151 NR 76 (FCA) at para. 7]:
(1) whether the applicant has done everything in her power to be represented by counsel; (2) the number of previous adjournments granted; (3) the length of time for which the adjournment is being sought; (4) the effect on the immigration system; (5) would the adjournment needlessly delay, impede or paralyse the conduct of the inquiry; (6) the fault or blame to be placed on the applicant for not being ready; (7) were any previous adjournments granted on a peremptory basis; (8) any other relevant factors .




IRB CG6, 7.8: the RPD may administratively postpone certain proceedings when confirmation from CBSA on front-end security screening of a claimant has not been received
If RPD has not received confirmation of approved security screening 5 days before the hearing, it will be postponed.


◦


Rule 26: RPD must notify the Minister without delay before the hearing if there is a possibility of exclusion under Section E or F of the Refugee Convention; RPD may notify
Minister during hearing

Rule 28: RPD must notify the Minister in writing without delay of possible inadmissibility or ineligibility;



Rule 27: RPD must notify the Minister without delay before the hearing if there is a possibility of “issues relating to the integrity of the Canadian refugee protection system” ; RPD may notify Minister during hearing
Rule 27(3): “integrity issues” include: (a) information that the claim may have been made under a false identity in whole or in part; (b) a substantial change to the basis of the claim from that indicated in the
Basis of Claim Form first provided to the Division; (c) information that, in support of the claim, the claimant submitted documents that may be fraudulent; or (d) other information that the claimant may be directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter.




RPD Rule 10: rules explicitly set down reverse order questioning at RPD
◦ Rule 10(1): if Minister not a party, RPD first then claimant’s counsel
◦ Rule 10(2): if Minister intervene on exclusion, Minister first, then RPD, then claimant’s counsel
◦ Rule 10(3): if Minister intervene non-exclusion, RPD first, then Minister, then claimant’s counsel
RPD 10(7): representations must be made orally at the end of the hearing unless RPD orders otherwise
RPD 10(8): RPD member must render oral decision & reasons at end of hearing unless it is not practicable to do so



Procedural fairness at RPD Hearings: DPF requires that Claimants be allowed “adequate opportunity to tell their story in full, to adduce evidence in support of their claim, and to make submissions relevant to it” ( Han v. Canada (MCI), citing
2013 FC 42 at para. 11;
Thamotharen v. Canada (MCI), 2007 FCA 198 at para. 39)
Procedural fairness 5-factors: (1) the nature of the decision being made and the procedures followed in making it; (2) the nature of the statutory scheme; (3) the importance of the decision to the individual affected; (4) the legitimate expectation of the individual challenging the decision; and (5) the choices of procedure made by the agency. ( Baker v.
Canada (MCI), [1999] SCJ No 39 at paras. 21-28).








RPD referral before Dec. 15, 2012 will continue to use Personal Information Form (Basis of
Claim Form is not needed) legacy claims not subject to regulatory time limits of new cases hearing date will be fixed by IRB official rather than
CIC/CBSA referring officer
RPD hearing before either Governor in Council (GIC) appointed RPD Members whose mandate has not expired and authorized by Chairperson to hear legacy claims; OR by public servant RPD member updated Chairperson’s Guidelines apply to Legacy Claims
Legacy claims subject to Judicial Review before Federal
Court (CIC states no access to RAD and error in legislation not specifically bar legacy claims from RAD access)


◦ replaced Professional Conduct Handbook
◦ based on Federation of Law Society of Canada’s
“Model Code of Professional Conduct”
◦ harmonizes BC legal ethics regulation with national regulations
◦ enables interprovincial mobility of lawyers

◦ Chp.3.1-1 “competent lawyer” means a lawyer who has an applied relevant knowledge, skills and attributes in a manner undertaken on behalf of a client and nature and terms of the lawyer’s engagement, including:
 (a) knowing general legal principles and procedure and the substantive law and procedure for the areas of law in which the lawyer practices;
 (h) recognizing limitations in one’s ability to handle a matter or some aspect of it and taking steps accordingly to ensure the client is appropriately served;
 (i) managing one’s practice effectively



Scenario 1: You are retained to represent an inland DCO refugee claimant (30 days). You provided your available dates to CIC but the officer scheduled the hearing on a date you are not available. What can you do?
Scenario 2: You are retained to represent a detained POE refugee claimant who must complete the BoC within the next 5 days.
There is no interpreter available. What can you do?


Singh v. Canada (MEI) [1985] 1 SCR 177 at para.
70: “Certainly the guarantees of the Charter would be illusory if they could be ignored because it was administratively convenient to do so….The principles of natural justice and procedural fairness which have long been espoused by our courts, and the constitutional entrenchment of the principles of fundamental justice in s.7, implicitly recognize that a balance of administrative convenience does not override the need to adhere to these principles.”