Alhaqli v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Alhaqli v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2017-07-27
Neutral citation
2017 FC 728
File numbers
IMM-5045-16, IMM-5200-16
Decision Content
Date: 20170727
Dockets: IMM-5045-16
IMM-5200-16
Citation: 2017 FC 728
Ottawa, Ontario, July 27, 2017
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell
Docket: IMM-5045-16
BETWEEN:
MOHSEN MOHAMMED ALHAQLI
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
Docket: IMM-5200-16
AND BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED SALIM
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. INTRODUCTION [1] This is an application under s 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] for judicial review of two decisions of case management officers at the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada [IRB], dated November 22, 2016 and November 30, 2016 [Decisions], which cancelled the Applicants’ refugee claim hearings. Due to the factual similarities and representation by the same counsel, the applications were consolidated to be heard together.
II. BACKGROUND A. Alhaqli [2] Mr. Alhaqli is a citizen of Yemen who resided in Saudi Arabia before entering Canada on August 11, 2016. After his arrival in Canada, he made a claim for refugee protection on October 12, 2016. His refugee claim was originally scheduled to be heard on December 6, 2016 but was later rescheduled for June 22, 2017. While waiting for the outcome of his refugee claim, Mr. Alhaqli submitted applications for a study permit and work permit on February 23, 2017 and March 13, 2017, respectively. The study permit was approved on April 12, 2017 and the work permit application is still pending.
B. Salim [3] Mr. Salim is a citizen of Syria who resided in Saudi Arabia before entering Canada on October 18, 2016. On the same day of his arrival in Canada, he made a claim for refugee protection that was scheduled to be heard on December 14, 2016 and later rescheduled for December 16, 2016 at his request. While waiting for the outcome of his refugee claim, Mr. Salim submitted an application for a work permit on November 1, 2016, which was approved on November 29, 2016. He was informed that his refugee claim was selected for expedited processing on February 16, 2017 and was found to be a Convention refugee on May 4, 2017.
III. DECISION UNDER REVIEW A. Alhaqli [4] A decision sent from the RPD to Mr. Alhaqli by letter dated November 22, 2016 cancelled the hearing regarding his claim for refugee protection. Pursuant to the Instructions Governing the Management of Refugee Protection Claims Awaiting Front-End Security Screening [Instructions], the hearing was cancelled because the IRB had not received confirmation from the Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA] that his front-end security screening [FESS] had been completed. The letter informed Mr. Alhaqli that the hearing would be rescheduled upon confirmation that FESS had been completed. Alternatively, the hearing could also be rescheduled without the FESS completion if it had not been completed by April 12, 2017. In closing, the letter acknowledged that the delay in FESS completion did not reflect the merits of Mr. Alhaqli’s refugee claim.
B. Salim [5] A decision sent from the RPD to Mr. Salim by letter dated November 30, 2016 cancelled the hearing regarding his claim for refugee protection. Pursuant to the Instructions, the hearing was cancelled because the IRB had not received confirmation from the CBSA that his FESS had been completed. The letter informed Mr. Salim that the hearing would be rescheduled upon confirmation that FESS had been completed. Alternatively, the hearing could also be rescheduled without the FESS completion if it had not been completed by April 19, 2017. In closing, the letter acknowledged that the delay in FESS completion did not reflect the merits of the refugee claim.
IV. ISSUES [6] The Applicants submit that the following are at issue in these applications:
1. Are the issues raised justiciable?
Are the Instructions ultra vires insofar as they lack any legislative authority and instruct the RPD to postpone hearings in a manner that overrides the scheme set out in the IRPA and the associated Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [Regulations] and Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256 [Rules]?
3. Do the Instructions create a reasonable apprehension of institutional bias such that the Decisions are unfair and unlawful?
V. STANDARD OF REVIEW [7] The Supreme Court of Canada in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 [Dunsmuir] held that a standard of review analysis need not be conducted in every instance. Instead, where the standard of review applicable to a particular question before the court is settled in a satisfactory manner by past jurisprudence, the reviewing court may adopt that standard of review. Only where this search proves fruitless, or where the relevant precedents appear to be inconsistent with new developments in the common law principles of judicial review, must the reviewing court undertake a consideration of the four factors comprising the standard of review analysis: Agraira v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36 at para 48.
[8] True questions of jurisdiction are reviewable under the standard of correctness; however, this category is narrow and rare: Edmonton (City) v Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd, 2016 SCC 47 at paras 24, 26 [Edmonton]. In this instance, as in Edmonton, the second issue involves the IRB Chairperson’s interpretation of a home statute in the course of carrying out the mandate of hearing and deciding refugee claims. Accordingly, no true question of jurisdiction arises and the presumption of reasonableness is not rebutted.
[9] The third issue, regarding institutional bias and independence within the RPD, is a matter of procedural fairness that is reviewable under the correctness standard: Muhammad v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 448 at para 51; Mission Institute v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 79; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para 43 [Khosa].
[10] When reviewing a decision on the standard of reasonableness, the analysis will be concerned with “the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process [and also with] whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.” See Dunsmuir, above, at para 47, and Khosa, above, at para 59. Put another way, the Court should intervene only if the Decisions were unreasonable in the sense that they fall outside the “range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.”
VI. STATUTORY PROVISIONS [11] The following provisions from the IRPA are relevant in this proceeding:
Decision
Sursis pour décision
100 (2) The officer shall suspend consideration of the eligibility of the person’s claim if
(2) L’agent sursoit à l’étude de la recevabilité dans les cas suivants :
(a) a report has been referred for a determination, at an admissibility hearing, of whether the person is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality; or
a) le cas a déjà été déféré à la Section de l’immigration pour constat d’interdiction de territoire pour raison de sécurité ou pour atteinte aux droits humains ou internationaux, grande criminalité ou criminalité organisée;
…
…
Suspension
Sursis
103 (1) Proceedings of the Refugee Protection Division in respect of a claim for refugee protection are suspended on notice by an officer that
103 (1) La Section de la protection des réfugiés sursoit à l’étude de la demande d’asile sur avis de l’agent portant que :
(a) the matter has been referred to the Immigration Division to determine whether the claimant is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality; or
a) le cas a été déféré à la Section de l’immigration pour constat d’interdiction de territoire pour raison de sécurité ou pour atteinte aux droits humains ou internationaux, grande criminalité ou criminalité organisée;
(b) an officer considers it necessary to wait for a decision of a court with respect to a claimant who is charged with an offence under an Act of Parliament that may be punished by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.
b) il l’estime nécessaire, afin qu’il soit statué sur une accusation pour infraction à une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.
…
…
Chairperson
Fonctions
159(1) The Chairperson is, by virtue of holding that office, a member of each Division of the Board and is the chief executive officer of the Board. In that capacity, the Chairperson
159 (1) Le président est le premier dirigeant de la Commission ainsi que membre d’office des quatre sections; à ce titre :
…
…
(h) may issue guidelines in writing to members of the Board and identify decisions of the Board as jurisprudential guides, after consulting with the Deputy Chairpersons, to assist members in carrying out their duties; and
h) après consultation des vice-présidents et en vue d’aider les commissaires dans l’exécution de leurs fonctions, il donne des directives écrites aux commissaires et précise les décisions de la Commission qui serviront de guide jurisprudentiel;
…
…
Rules
Règles
161 (1) Subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, and in consultation with the Deputy Chairpersons, the Chairperson may make rules respecting
161 (1) Sous réserve de l’agrément du gouverneur en conseil et en consultation avec les vice-présidents, le président peut prendre des règles visant :
(a) the referral of a claim for refugee protection to the Refugee Protection Division;
a) le renvoi de la demande d’asile à la Section de la protection des réfugiés;
(a.1) the factors to be taken into account in fixing or changing the date of the hearing referred to in subsection 100(4.1);
a.1) les facteurs à prendre en compte pour fixer ou modifier la date de l’audition mentionnée au paragraphe 100(4.1);
(a.2) the activities, practice and procedure of each of the Divisions of the Board, including the periods for appeal, other than in respect of appeals of decisions of the Refugee Protection Division, the priority to be given to proceedings, the notice that is required and the period in which notice must be given;
a.2) les travaux, la procédure et la pratique des sections, et notamment les délais pour interjeter appel de leurs décisions, à l’exception des décisions de la Section de la protection des réfugiés, l’ordre de priorité pour l’étude des affaires et les préavis à donner, ainsi que les délais afférents;
(b) the conduct of persons in proceedings before the Board, as well as the consequences of, and sanctions for, the breach of those rules;
b) la conduite des personnes dans les affaires devant la Commission, ainsi que les conséquences et sanctions applicables aux manquements aux règles de conduite;
(c) the information that may be required and the manner in which, and the time within which, it must be provided with respect to a proceeding before the Board; and
c) la teneur, la forme, le délai de présentation et les modalités d’examen des renseignements à fournir dans le cadre d’une affaire dont la Commission est saisie;
(d) any other matter considered by the Chairperson to require rules.
d) toute autre mesure nécessitant, selon lui, la prise de règles.
[12] The following provisions from the Regulations are relevant in this proceeding:
Time limits for hearing
Délais — audition
159.9 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), for the purpose of subsection 100(4.1) of the Act, the date fixed for the hearing before the Refugee Protection Division must be not later than
159.9 (1) Pour l’application du paragraphe 100(4.1) de la Loi et sous réserve des paragraphes (2) et (3), la date de l’audition devant la Section de la protection des réfugiés ne peut être postérieure à l’expiration :
(a) in the case of a claimant referred to in subsection 111.1(2) of the Act,
a) dans le cas d’un demandeur visé au paragraphe 111.1(2) de la Loi :
(i) 30 days after the day on which the claim is referred to the Refugee Protection Division, if the claim is made inside Canada other than at a port of entry, and
(i) d’un délai de trente jours suivant la date à laquelle la demande est déférée à la Section, si le demandeur se trouve au Canada et demande l’asile ailleurs qu’à un point d’entrée,
(ii) 45 days after the day on which the claim is referred to the Refugee Protection Division, if the claim is made inside Canada at a port of entry; and
(ii) d’un délai de quarante-cinq jours suivant la date à laquelle la demande est déférée à la Section, si le demandeur se trouve au Canada et demande l’asile à un point d’entrée;
(b) in the case of any other claimant, 60 days after the day on which the claim is referred to the Refugee Protection Division, whether the claim is made inside Canada at a port of entry or inside Canada other than at a port of entry.
b) dans le cas de tout autre demandeur — que la demande ait été faite à un point d’entrée ou ailleurs au Canada —, d’un délai de soixante jours suivant la date à laquelle la demande est déférée à la Section.
Exclusion
Exclusion
(2) If the time limit set out in subparagraph (1)(a)(i) or (ii) or paragraph (1)(b) ends on a Saturday, that time limit is extended to the next working day.
(2) Si le délai visé au sous-alinéa (1)a)(i) ou (ii) ou à l’alinéa (1)b) expire un samedi, il est prolongé jusqu’au prochain jour ouvrable.
Exceptions
Exceptions
(3) If the hearing cannot be held within the time limit set out in subparagraph (1)(a)(i) or (ii) or paragraph (1)(b) for any of the following reasons, the hearing must be held as soon as feasible after that time limit:
(3) Si, pour l’une ou l’autre des raisons ci-après, l’audition ne peut être tenue dans le délai visé au sous-alinéa (1)a)(i) ou (ii) ou à l’alinéa (1)b), elle est tenue dès que possible après l’expiration du délai :
(a) for reasons of fairness and natural justice;
a) en raison de considérations d’équité et de justice naturelle;
(b) because of a pending investigation or inquiry relating to any of sections 34 to 37 of the Act; or
b) en raison d’une investigation ou d’une enquête en cours, effectuée dans le cadre de l’un des articles 34 à 37 de la Loi;
(c) because of operational limitations of the Refugee Protection Division.
c) en raison de restrictions d’ordre fonctionnel touchant la Section de la protection des réfugiés.
[13] The following provisions from the Rules are relevant in this proceeding:
Written application and time limit
Demande par écrit et délai
50 (1) Unless these Rules provide otherwise, an application must be made in writing, without delay, and must be received by the Division no later than 10 days before the date fixed for the next proceeding.
50 (1) Sauf indication contraire des présentes règles, toute demande est faite par écrit, sans délai, et doit être reçue par la Section au plus tard dix jours avant la date fixée pour la prochaine procédure.
Oral application
Demande faite oralement
(2) The Division must not allow a party to make an application orally at a proceeding unless the party, with reasonable effort, could not have made a written application before the proceeding.
(2) La Section ne peut autoriser que la demande soit faite oralement pendant une procédure que si la partie a été dans l’impossibilité, malgré des efforts raisonnables, de le faire par écrit avant la procédure.
Content of application
Contenu de la demande
(3) Unless these Rules provide otherwise, in a written application, the party must
(3) Dans sa demande écrite, sauf indication contraire des présentes règles, la partie :
(a) state the decision the party wants the Division to make;
a) énonce la décision recherchée;
(b) give reasons why the Division should make that decision; and
b) énonce les motifs pour lesquels la Section devrait rendre cette décision;
(c) if there is another party and the views of that party are known, state whether the other party agrees to the application.
c) indique si l’autre partie, le cas échéant, consent à la demande, dans le cas où elle connaît l’opinion de cette autre partie.
Affidavit or statutory declaration
Affidavit ou déclaration solennelle
(4) Unless these Rules provide otherwise, any evidence that the party wants the Division to consider with a written application must be given in an affidavit or statutory declaration that accompanies the application.
(4) Sauf indication contraire des présentes règles, la partie énonce dans un affidavit ou une déclaration solennelle qu’elle joint à sa demande écrite tout élément de preuve qu’elle veut soumettre à l’examen de la Section.
Providing application to other party and Division
Transmission de la demande à l’autre partie et à la Section.
(5) A party who makes a written application must provide
(5) La partie qui fait une demande par écrit transmet :
(a) to the other party, if any, a copy of the application and a copy of any affidavit or statutory declaration; and
a) à l’autre partie, le cas échéant, une copie de la demande et, selon le cas, de l’affidavit ou de la déclaration solennelle;
(b) to the Division, the original application and the original of any affidavit or statutory declaration, together with a written statement indicating how and when the party provided a copy to the other party, if any.
b) à la Section, l’original de la demande et, selon le cas, de l’affidavit ou de la déclaration solennelle, accompagnés d’une déclaration écrite indiquant à quel moment et de quelle façon la copie de ces documents a été transmise à l’autre partie, le cas échéant.
…
…
Application in writing
Demande par écrit
54 (1) Subject to subrule (5), an application to change the date or time of a proceeding must be made in accordance with rule 50, but the party is not required to give evidence in an affidavit or statutory declaration.
54 (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (5), la demande de changer la date ou l’heure d’une procédure est faite conformément à la règle 50, mais la partie n’est pas tenue d’y joindre un affidavit ou une déclaration solennelle.
Time limit and content of application
Délai et contenu de la demande
(2) The application must
(2) La demande :
(a) be made without delay;
a) est faite sans délai;
(b) be received by the Division no later than three working days before the date fixed for the proceeding, unless the application is made for medical reasons or other emergencies; and
b) est reçue par la Section au plus tard trois jours ouvrables avant la date fixée pour la procédure, à moins que la demande soit faite pour des raisons médicales ou d’autres urgences;
(c) include at least three dates and times, which are no later than 10 working days after the date originally fixed for the proceeding, on which the party is available to start or continue the proceeding.
c) inclut au moins trois dates et heures, qui sont au plus tard dix jours ouvrables après la date initialement fixée pour la procédure, auxquelles la partie est disponible pour commencer ou poursuivre la procédure.
Oral application
Demande faite oralement
(3) If it is not possible for the party to make the application in accordance with paragraph (2)(b), the party must appear on the date fixed for the proceeding and make the application orally before the time fixed for the proceeding.
(3) S’il ne lui est pas possible de faire la demande conformément à l’alinéa (2)b), la partie se présente à la date fixée pour la procédure et fait sa demande oralement avant l’heure fixée pour la procédure.
Factors
Éléments à considérer
(4) Subject to subrule (5), the Division must not allow the application unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as
(4) Sous réserve du paragraphe (5), la Section ne peut accueillir la demande, sauf en cas des circonstances exceptionnelles, notamment :
(a) the change is required to accommodate a vulnerable person; or
a) le changement est nécessaire pour accommoder une personne vulnérable;
(b) an emergency or other development outside the party’s control and the party has acted diligently.
b) dans le cas d’une urgence ou d’un autre développement hors du contrôle de la partie, lorsque celle-ci s’est conduite avec diligence.
Counsel retained or availability of counsel provided after hearing date fixed
Conseil retenu ou disponibilités du conseil transmises après la date à laquelle l’audience a été fixée
(5) If, at the time the officer fixed the hearing date under subrule 3(1), a claimant did not have counsel or was unable to provide the dates when their counsel would be available to attend a hearing, the claimant may make an application to change the date or time of the hearing. Subject to operational limitations, the Division must allow the application if
(5) Si, au moment où l’agent a fixé la date d’une audience en vertu du paragraphe 3(1), il n’avait pas de conseil ou était incapable de transmettre les dates auxquelles son conseil serait disponible pour se présenter à une audience, le demandeur d’asile peut faire une demande pour changer la date ou l’heure de l’audience. Sous ré- serve de restrictions d’ordre fonctionnel, la Section accueille la demande si, à la fois :
(a) the claimant retains counsel no later than five working days after the day on which the hearing date was fixed by the officer;
a) le demandeur d’asile retient les services d’un conseil au plus tard cinq jours ouvrables après la date à laquelle l’audience a été fixée par l’agent;
(b) the counsel retained is not available on the date fixed for the hearing;
b) le conseil n’est pas disponible à la date fixée pour l’audience;
(c) the application is made in writing;
c) la demande est faite par écrit;
(d) the application is made without delay and no later than five working days after the day on which the hearing date was fixed by the officer; and
d) la demande est faite sans délai et au plus tard cinq jours ouvrables après la date à laquelle l’audience a été fixée par l’agent;
(e) the claimant provides at least three dates and times when counsel is available, which are within the time limits set out in the Regulations for the hearing of the claim.
e) le demandeur d’asile transmet au moins trois dates et heures auxquelles le conseil est disponible, qui sont dans les délais prévus par le Règlement pour l’audience relative à la demande d’asile.
Application for medical reasons
Demande pour raisons médicales
(6) If a claimant or protected person makes the application for medical reasons, other than those related to their counsel, they must provide, together with the application, a legible, recently dated medical certificate signed by a qualified medical practitioner whose name and address are printed or stamped on the certificate. A claimant or protected person who has provided a copy of the certificate to the Division must provide the original document to the Division without delay.
(6) Si le demandeur d’asile ou la personne protégée pré- sente une demande pour des raisons médicales, à l’exception de celles ayant trait à son conseil, il transmet avec la demande un certificat médical récent, daté et lisible, signé par un médecin qualifié, et sur lequel sont imprimés ou estampillés les nom et adresse de ce dernier. Le demandeur d’asile ou la personne protégée qui a transmis une copie du certificat à la Section lui transmet sans délai le document original.
Content of certificate
Contenu du certificat
(7) The medical certificate must set out (a) the particulars of the medical condition, without specifying the diagnosis, that prevent the claimant or protected person from participating in the proceeding on the date fixed for the proceeding; and (b) the date on which the claimant or protected person is expected to be able to participate in the proceeding.
(7) Le certificat médical indique, à la fois : a) sans mentionner de diagnostic, les particularités de la situation médicale qui empêchent le demandeur d’asile ou la personne protégée de participer à la procédure à la date fixée; b) la date à laquelle le demandeur d’asile ou la personne protégée devrait être en mesure de participer à la procédure.
Failure to provide medical certificate
Défaut de transmettre un certificat médical
(8) If a claimant or protected person fails to provide a medical certificate in accordance with subrules (6) and (7), they must include in their application
(8) À défaut de transmettre un certificat médical, conformément aux paragraphes (6) et (7), le demandeur d’asile ou la personne protégée fournit avec sa demande :
(a) particulars of any efforts they made to obtain the required medical certificate, supported by corroborating evidence;
a) des précisions quant aux efforts qu’il a faits pour obtenir le certificat médical requis ainsi que des éléments de preuve à l’appui;
(b) particulars of the medical reasons for the application, supported by corroborating evidence; and
b) des précisions quant aux raisons médicales au soutien de la demande ainsi que des éléments de preuve à l’appui;
(c) an explanation of how the medical condition prevents them from participating in the proceeding on the date fixed for the proceeding.
c) une explication de la raison pour laquelle la situation médicale l’empêche de participer à la procédure à la date fixée.
Subsequent application
Demande subséquente
(9) If the party made a previous application that was denied, the Division must consider the reasons for the denial and must not allow the subsequent application unless there are exceptional circumstances supported by new evidence.
(9) Si la partie a déjà présenté une demande qui a été refusée, la Section prend en considération les motifs du refus et ne peut accueillir la demande subséquente, sauf en cas de circonstances exceptionnelles fondées sur l’existence de nouveaux éléments de preuve.
Duty to appear
Obligation de se présenter
(10) Unless a party receives a decision from the Division allowing the application, the party must appear for the proceeding at the date and time fixed and be ready to start or continue the proceeding.
(10) Sauf si elle reçoit une décision de la Section accueillant la demande, la partie est tenue de se présenter pour la procédure à la date et à l’heure fixées et d’être prête à commencer ou à poursuivre la procédure.
New date
Nouvelle date
(11) If an application for a change to the date or time of a proceeding is allowed, the new date fixed by the Division must be no later than 10 working days after the date originally fixed for the proceeding or as soon as possible after that date.
(11) Si la demande de changement de date ou d’heure d’une procédure est accueillie, la Section fixe une nouvelle date qui tombe au plus tard dix jours ouvrables après la date initialement fixée ou dès que possible après cette date.
VII. ARGUMENTS A. Applicants (1) Justiciability [14] The Applicants submit that the issues raised are justiciable.
[15] The postponements affect the Applicants’ legal rights because Canada withholds important legal rights from refugee claimants until they have been granted refugee status. Consequently, a delay in the hearing postpones access to those legal rights.
[16] Additionally, the sudden postponement of an important and life-altering event and subsequent indefinite waiting period causes stress that is prejudicial to the Applicants.
[17] Moreover, the Applicants have standing to challenge the legality of the Instructions due to the negative impact on them. Accordingly, the matter is justiciable and not merely an interlocutory step in the proceedings.
(2) Ultra Vires [18] The Applicants submit that the Decisions and Instructions are ultra vires because they allow RPD decision-makers to postpone refugee hearings ex proprio motu where FESS results are not received and are inconsistent with the procedures for the scheduling and postponement of refugee claims as provided in the IRPA, Regulations, and Rules.
a. Legislative Framework
[19] A review of the applicable legislation and Regulations demonstrates that there are specific timelines that must be adhered to in the refugee claim process. According to the IRPA, an officer has three days from receipt of the claim to refer the matter to the RPD, or the claim is deemed to be referred unless suspended or deemed ineligible. Subsection 159.9(1) of the Regulations provides that the date for the hearing of the claim must be within 30, 45, or 60 days of the claim, depending upon where the claim is made. An exception to this timeline is permissible under s 159.9(3) of the Regulations, but the hearing must be held as soon as feasible. While the IRB has flexibility to extend the timelines, the parties seeking to obtain a change of date must meet the criteria set out in ss 50 and 54 of the Rules.
[20] Subsections 100(2)(a) and 103(1) of the IRPA allow the suspension of a refugee claim pending consideration of the claimant’s potential inadmissibility. The CBSA conducts the FESS with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service [CSIS] and informs the IRB upon completion of the FESS. In the event that the FESS is not completed, the Instructions provide that the RPD should remove the hearing from the schedule and set a new date as soon as feasible upon confirmation of the FESS completion. If the FESS results are not received within six months after the claim was referred, the hearing is rescheduled and the claim is heard unless the CBSA applies and receives a change of date. If the FESS results are pending past twelve months from the date of the referral, then a conference between all parties is convened and a hearing date may be set. In other words, the CBSA is granted an automatic, ex proprio motu postponement if it delays the FESS results for up to six months.
[21] Moreover, the Instructions are mandatory and universal. Unlike the Chairperson Guideline 6: Scheduling and Changing the Date or Time of a Proceeding [Guidelines], which are non-binding, the Instructions are expressly mandatory, as indicated by the statement: “Members and other IRB personnel shall follow these Instructions in the processing of refugee protection claims before the Refugee Protection Division (RPD)” [emphasis added].
b. Legislative Authority
[22] The Applicants argue that the Instructions are not simple administrative matters; they affect the scheduling and postponement of RPD hearings, which are already governed by the IRPA, Regulations and Rules. The Instructions also allow the RPD to postpone hearings on its own initiative when FESS results are not received. Additionally, the Guidelines assume that the Instructions are mandatory, despite having no legal basis or authority to override the IRPA, Regulations, and Rules.
[23] The Applicants submit that there is no provision in the legislation that permits the Instructions to be binding. Subsections 161(1) and 161(2) of the IRPA stipulate that rules governing the procedural aspects of hearings must be approved by the Governor-in-Council and tabled before both houses of Parliament within fifteen days. The Instructions were not adopted in this manner and are therefore not issued under the authority of s 161(1), unlike the Rules, which have the force of law.
[24] The Federal Court of Appeal has confirmed that the IRPA provides the Chairperson with broad powers, including the issuance of guidelines and rules: Kozak v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FCA 124 at paras 60-61. However, s 159(1)(h) of the IRPA stipulates that guidelines must assist members in carrying out duties, but cannot fetter discretion and adjudicative discretion or override the IRPA or Regulations.
[25] The Applicants claim that the Instructions have no legislative foundation and purport to bind all decision-makers by stating that they “shall” follow the Instructions that specify the conditions upon which hearings are automatically postponed. More importantly, the Instructions are also inconsistent with the applicable legislation and Regulations. There are clear timelines and procedures that must be followed, yet the Instructions require the RPD to ignore them by obliging the RPD to change the hearing dates without applications from either party, and without fulfilment of the conditions as required by the legislation and Regulations.
[26] Consequently, the Instructions are ultra vires because they are not issued with legislative authority and override other legal instruments.
c. Inconsistency
[27] The Applicants disagree with the Respondent’s arguments that the Instructions do not require the RPD to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the IRPA or Regulations.
[28] Subsection 159.9(3) of the Regulations sets out the grounds for changing a hearing date, but not the process, which is outlined in ss 50 and 54 of the Rules. While the RPD has the authority to fix the time and place of a hearing, as well as change the date, the RPD is not authorized to ignore the provision that sets out the criteria for which a hearing can be postponed beyond the statutory deadline. The Chairperson has the power to establish guidelines that are non-binding; the Instructions, however, are binding.
[29] Moreover, the exceptions permit postponement in the event of a pending investigation or inquiry and the fact that FESS results have not been received does not necessarily constitute a pending investigation. In the present case, there has not been any evidence adduced that the unavailability of the FESS results means there is a pending investigation. And even where it is established that there is a pending investigation, the proper procedure for the suspension of the claim is governed by s 103 of the IRPA, which the Instructions effectively supersede.
(3) Institutional Bias [30] The Applicants submit that the Decisions and Instructions breach procedural fairness because they give rise to a reasonable apprehension of institutional bias by granting the Respondent a cancellation of a refugee hearing without following the procedures for the scheduling and postponement of refugee claims as provided in the IRPA, Regulations, and Rules. As a result, the Respondent is provided preferential treatment via an automatic postponement whenever the CBSA has not performed its statutory duties in accordance with the prescribed time-frames, because the Respondent neither has to establish that the legislative and regulatory criteria for a postponement have been satisfied nor move for the relief sought.
[31] While the duties of procedural fairness may vary depending on the function and nature of a tribunal, the adjudicative nature of an RPD hearing necessitates that the RPD’s independence must be viewed on the high end of the spectrum: Bell Canada v Canadian Telephone Employees Association, 2003 SCC 36 at para 21. Decisions are liable to be set aside for bias if a reasonable person would conclude, based on a balance of probabilities, that the decision-maker was not impartial: Restrepo Benitez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 461 at para 6. Institutional bias is found if such a reasonable apprehension exists in a substantial number of cases: R v Lippé, [1991] 2 SCR 114.
[32] The Applicants submit that a reasonable and well-informed person could only conclude that the IRB is not impartial because it allows the RPD to cancel hearings for refugee claims whenever the FESS results are not received, and without any written application whatsoever from the parties. The claimant must adhere to the applicable procedures governing the process of postponement, yet the Respondent is entirely exempt. The resulting disparity demonstrates an instance of institutional bias and a lack of independence on the part of the IRB.
[33] The Applicants take the position that they do not need to establish that the RPD always cancels hearings when FESS results are not received. Their hearings were cancelled on the ground that FESS results were not received and the Instructions are explicit in mandating the RPD to always cancel hearings under such circumstances. There is no evidence adduced that the RPD ignores its own Instructions.
[34] Additionally, the Applicants submit that whether or not the postponement favours the Respondent or affects the conduct or assessment of the hearing and claim is not dispositive. The Instructions require the RPD to respond automatically to the Respondent’s failure to act within the statutory timeframe while claimants are not afforded the same treatment. The Respondent is therefore given favourable procedural treatment via automatic relief from the failure to meet statutory deadlines. Accordingly, the Instructions compromise the RPD’s institutional independence due to the preferential treatment afforded to the Respondent.
B. Respondent (1) Applications are Barred [35] The Respondent submits that these applications are not properly before the Court.
[36] First, the postponements do not affect the Applicants’ legal rights, impose legal obligations, or cause prejudice subject to judicial review. The hearings will proceed and the claims will be decided. Even if the Decisions are subject to judicial review, cancellation is an interlocutory step in an ongoing proceeding, and is therefore not subject to immediate review: Air Canada v Toronto Port Authority, 2011 FCA 347 at paras 27, 32; CB Powell Limited v Canada (Border Services Agency), 2010 FCA 61 at paras 30-33 [CB Powell]. Additionally, the Applicants have had access to other recourse that they did not take, such as an application to the RPD.
[37] Second, the Applicants advanced their issues for the first time on leave and failed to raise them before the RPD, despite the vires of the Instructions and allegations of institutional bias being questions of law within the jurisdiction of the RPD.
(2) Mootness [38] With regard to Mr. Salim, the Respondent submits that the application is moot because his claim was successful.
(3) Intra Vires [39] The Respondent submits that the Instructions are intra vires. The Chairperson is empowered to issue written guidelines on any matter within his or her purview, including the procedure to be followed by the RPD in fixing the time of a hearing: ss 159(1)(h) and 159(1)(f) of the IRPA. The Instructions are also in line with how RPD hearings are scheduled and do not affect the assessment of the claim on its merits. Moreover, the Instructions are not inconsistent with the legislation, which allows exceptions to statutory deadlines where there are inquiries outstanding on potential inadmissibility. The Instructions enhance the ability to suspend RPD proceedings in such circumstances and avoid the need to nullify a RPD decision on a claim that is later found to be ineligible. Additionally, a short postponement to allow for the completion of FESS is consistent with the objectives of maintaining the integrity of the refugee protection system and protecting the security of Canadian society. The Instructions are therefore consistent with the authority of the Respondent and ensure that members work efficiently.
(4) Institutional Bias [40] The Respondent also disagrees with the Applicants’ allegations of institutional bias. There is no evidence that the RPD cancels the hearing in every case where the FESS results are not received. In fact, the Decisions refer to the fact that the hearings can be rescheduled and heard even if FESS has not been confirmed by specific dates. The Instructions govern when a hearing can be scheduled or rescheduled, depending on the status of the FESS results. The Instructions do not affect the conduct of the hearing or assessment of the claim. Accordingly, an informed person would not apprehend a real likelihood of bias.
[41] Additionally, the postponement does not automatically favour the Minister. The Minister is