TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary
   1. Introduction
      1. Background
      2. Evaluation objectives
      3. Evaluation scope
   2. Overview of the Current IRB Case Scheduling Process
      1. Legal framework for case scheduling
      2. Initial scheduling of hearings
      3. Decisions to postpone or adjourn hearings
   3. Attributes of an Effective Case Management System
      1. Introduction
      2. Critical success factors in case management and scheduling
      3. Key lessons from the research on the attributes of effective case management processes
   4. Key Findings
      1. Managing the scheduling of hearings
      2. Accountabilities and responsibilities for scheduling
      3. Ensuring both files and parties to cases are ready for hearings
      4. Reasons for postponements and adjournments
      5. Impacts of postponements and adjournments on case progression
      6. Collection and reporting of postponement/adjournment data
      7. Management responses to the causes of postponements and adjournments
   5. Conclusions and Recommendations
      1. Causes of postponements and adjournments
      2. Key conclusions and recommended actions
2. Appendix A: Sources of Information on Best Practices in Caseflow Management
3. Appendix B: Participants – Interviewing Program
4. Appendix C: Management Response to Recommendations

Executive Summary

1.  Objectives of, and approach to, the evaluation of IRB's case scheduling

KPMG LLP (KPMG) was engaged by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (the IRB or the Board) in December 2007 to identify the likely causes of adjournments and postponements and the impact both have on timely case finalization, and to establish ways and the means by which the volume of adjournments and postponements may be reduced.

The IRB is the largest administrative tribunal in Canada, with over 40,000 case dispositions per year across three Divisions: Refugee Protection Division (RPD), Immigration Division (ID), and Immigration Appeal Division (IAD). All three Divisions hear cases in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal on an ongoing basis and a small number of hearings are conducted in other major centres, such as Ottawa and Calgary, and various itinerant locations across Canada. On a Board-wide basis, approximately two thirds of IRB's caseload is processed and heard in the Central Region, 25 percent in the Eastern Region and 10 percent in the Western Region. In scheduling cases for hearing, the RPD, IAD and, to a lesser extent, the ID have encountered challenges in responding to the volume of postponed or adjourned cases in recent years.

Information for the evaluation was collected through multiple lines of enquiry. These lines spanned: a combination of interviews with Board members and adjudicative support personnel, a review of IRB documentation; an online search to identify best practices in caseflow management and scheduling; a review of a sample of files for cases that required postponements and/or adjournments; and, a limited number of interviews with selected immigration lawyers and consultants and Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) representatives.

Readers should note that, in conducting the analysis, KPMG was asked to look at case scheduling performance across the IRB while being sensitive to differences in the situations and performance of each of the Divisions. The higher incidence rates of postponements and adjournments in RPD and IAD also meant that our analysis focused more on these two Divisions. In addition to having a lower incidence of postponements and adjournments, the ID's scheduling process differs from the RPD and IAD to accommodate detention reviews, which have statutory time standards, and differing availability of decision-makers, who are members of the public service.

2.  Scope of case scheduling in the IRB

Case scheduling in the IRB is the process whereby hearing dates and times for hearings and other oral proceedings such as pre-hearing conferences and ADR conferences are assigned to cases deemed to be ready for hearing and the assignment of members to hear these cases. The output from this process is a master calendar listing the planned hearings, which is usually three to four months in the IRB, and the member assigned to each hearing.

Section 162 (2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the IRPA or the Act) requires each Division of the IRB to deal with all proceedings before it as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit. The supporting sets of Rules for the operation of the RPD, ID and IAD, which form part of the related regulations to the IRPA, set parameters for scheduling hearings and decisions by IRB decision-makers to postpone or adjourn hearings. In addition, the Chairperson has issued a guideline for scheduling and changing the date or time of a proceeding in the RPD¹ pursuant to section 159(1)(h) of the Act.

Setting a hearing date and time depends on inputs from various combinations of participants in the hearing process, mainly from the member managers and Registry staff, to ensure that all participants to the hearing will be available on the assigned date. The participants to the hearing are the member, the Minister's counsel, the immigration counsel, the claimant, the appellant or concerned person, the interpreter and the tribunal officer in some cases. This is a dynamic process in which hearing dates and times are constantly subject to change, to accommodate changes in the availability of participants to each hearing and the impacts of postponements and adjournments of other cases. The coordination effort demands a lot of time, mainly on the part of member managers and Registry staff, and thus increases the cost to hear and finalize cases.

Changes to the dates and times of scheduled hearings result in postponements or adjournments. In the RPD and IAD 'postponements' are changes to the scheduled hearing dates and times prior to the presentation and hearing of any evidence by the decision-maker. A postponed hearing may be allocated to any of the members in the applicable Division when it is rescheduled. Decisions to postpone may occur prior to a hearing, on receipt and granting of an application to change the hearing date and time, or on the day of a hearing. 'Adjournments' occur when a hearing stops after the presentation of evidence has commenced and must resume at a later date and time. In these situations the member is 'seized' (that is, has commenced hearing evidence) and will stay with the case through to its disposition. The ID differs in that an adjournment is a decision by a member to schedule a hearing at another date whether or not evidence has been presented to the member, which means that a postponement occurs when a hearing date and time is changed prior to the hearing date.²

3.  Major causes of postponements and adjournments in the IRB case scheduling process

The most common reasons for postponements and adjournments are subject to varying degrees of control or influence by the Board. The IRB's degree of control spans:

• Factors controlled by the Board, such as the management and oversight of interpreters,³ and the management of scheduling and overbooking to minimize⁴ the number of hearing postponements.
• Factors partially controllable, such as member availability for hearings.
• Factors that can be influenced through the way the Board manages its caseflow, such as, the manner in which members manage individual hearings and assess applications for postponements and adjournments, and the way the Board reaches out to persons and counsel to ensure that hearings do proceed as scheduled.

Approximately 30-40 percent of requests for postponements by persons/counsel are made prior to hearings. Member managers review these written applications to provide a consistent basis for decision making within each Division or team. However, it is not clear how consistent decisions on these applications are from one office to another or one team to another, and it is difficult to discern the relative rates of acceptance of applications from the information contained within case files. Administrative postponements also take place close to the time of hearings as a function of such things as member illness and unplanned unavailability, which requires member managers and case schedulers to postpone current cases to match the number of hearings to the available member capacity while finding hearing slots for adjourned cases and rescheduling hearings that cannot be heard as planned.

The remaining postponements are made on the day of hearings and most commonly occur as a result of:

•      Unavailability of either the member, person concerned, their counsel or (to a lesser extent) the Refugee Protection Officer or Minister's counsel.
•      Person/counsel being unready to proceed.
•      Incomplete disclosure; and
•      Problems with support arrangements for hearings (such as, interpreter availability or applicability, technical problems with equipment).

The most commonly cited reason for adjournments is lack of time for the member to complete hearings. In addition, a certain proportion of hearings continue beyond their allotted times to permit the member to finish and render a decision, which in turn, requires another scheduled hearing to be postponed. Other common reasons for adjournments include to obtain for written submissions, to obtain additional documents/expertise, and abandonment. Adjournments for written submissions need to be looked at differently from other adjournments because they do not require hearing resumptions and thus do not require further work by scheduling personnel.

Our review of a sample of completed case files found that, on average, as the number of scheduled hearings per case increased (that is, the number of times a hearing was scheduled but postponed or adjourned plus the final hearing) so too did the average elapsed time. Statistical analysis of the relationship between the number of scheduled hearings per case and the elapsed time from initial referral to IRB to the final hearing suggests that, all other things being equal, every time a hearing is postponed or adjourned the elapsed time to final hearing is increased by about three months.

Additionally, a high rate of postponements and adjournments does not necessarily facilitate the achievement of a high level of dispositions. In fact, an increase in the percentage of hearings that are postponed or adjourned hearings will cause a proportionately greater increase in the number of hearings per case. In other words, 'delay breeds more delay'.

4.  Weaknesses in control processes for case scheduling

At a high level, the Act, the Divisional Rules and the Chairperson's Guideline 6 for RPD provide the principal control framework for the operation of the IRB's case scheduling process. This high-level framework has not been effectively applied, in terms of providing the basis for consistent interpretation and application of the Rules to ensure timely progression and resolution of cases, thus leading to weaknesses in the Board's processes for managing case scheduling, and minimizing the incidence of postponements and hearings.

4.1  Limited control procedures

Current approaches to controlling postponements and adjournments focus on:

• Case readiness prior to hearing, by checking that all necessary documents are in the file and any supporting requirements for the hearing are arranged, such as interpretation.
• Hearing readiness, by using contacts with persons and counsel to maximise the likelihood that they will appear and be ready to proceed at the scheduled time.
• Consistency within Divisions, within each regional office and within teams within the regional offices in reviewing applications for postponements prior to hearings by assigning Assistant Deputy Chairpersons and Coordinating Members (ADCs/CMs) and ID Directors the task of reviewing such applications. (Note, however, that the assessments of these applications may not be consistent between regional offices.

However, the IRB has neither a policy nor a set of standards for its case scheduling processes, including key steps and procedures, nor a policy or standards regarding the management of postponement and adjournment incidence rates by its Divisions. Guideline 6 provides general guidance only on scheduling and changing the date or time of a hearing in the RPD and this guidance does not appear to be applied consistently (and recognizing that members do have discretion in the way they apply the guidelines). According to participants in our interviews, this results in a high degree of uncertainty that hearings will take place as scheduled and the development of a credibility gap for those Divisions with high rates of postponements and adjournments.

4.2  Ad hoc approach to performance measurement

Development of performance measures and reports to monitor scheduling and caseflow performance is largely ad hoc, outside of the IRB Key Indicators report, which has limited applicability to the identification and analysis of caseflow management issues. Approaches to the structuring, recording and reporting of reasons have evolved independently in each of the regional offices without attention to the development of a consistent basis for reporting breakdowns of postponement and adjournment outcomes across all three regions. The reliability of input data for the current reports may also be suspect given the current steps involved in compiling, interpreting and entering postponement and adjournment information.

In using the data generated, most attention is directed to the hearing-by-hearing breakdowns with only limited attention to the aggregate flow of cases, identification of and responses to systemic issues, and assessment of performance against targets or standards.

4.3  Informal risk management

IRB's senior members, managers and schedulers invest a lot of time and effort in juggling hearing schedules to maximise the volume of hearings and re-schedule postponed and adjourned hearings at the first available opportunities. In other words, tribunal managers are managing the risks of individual hearings not taking place as planned. However, attention to the aggregate flow of cases, identification and responses to systemic issues and assessment of performance against targets or standards appears to be piecemeal, at best.

5.  Recommendations

Exercising effective leadership

I.  Introduction

KPMG LLP (KPMG) was engaged by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (the IRB or the Board) in December, 2007, to evaluate the Board's case scheduling process, with a focus on the causes of postponements and adjournments of tribunal hearings. This report presents the findings from KPMG's work and related conclusions and recommendations. This chapter summarizes the circumstances that gave rise to IRB's decision to commission this work, the objectives and scope of the evaluation, and the methodology used, including its limitations.

A.  Background

The IRB is an independent administrative tribunal that reports to Parliament through the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, with a mandate to resolve immigration and refugee cases efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law. The IRB is the largest administrative tribunal in Canada, with over 40,000 case dispositions per year across three divisions:

• Refugee Protection Division (RPD) – Hears refugee protection claims, and applications for vacation or cessation of refugee protection.
• Immigration Division (ID) – Conducts admissibility hearings for foreign nationals or permanent entrants who seek entry into Canada or who are already in Canada and are alleged to be inadmissible, and detention reviews for foreign nationals or permanent residents who are detained for immigration reasons.
• Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) – Hears appeals:
  • By sponsors whose applications to bring family members to Canada have been refused by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC).
  • Of removal orders made against permanent residents, Convention refugees and other protected persons.
  • By permanent residents where a CIC officer outside of Canada has decided that residency obligations have not been fulfilled.
  • By the Minister of decisions on admissibility made by the Immigration Division.

All three Divisions hold their proceedings in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal on an ongoing basis while a small number of hearings are conducted in other major centres, such as Ottawa, Calgary and various itinerant locations across Canada. On a Board-wide basis, approximately two thirds of IRB's caseload is processed and heard in the Central Region, 25 percent in the Eastern Region and 10 percent in the Western Region.

As of June, 2008, the IRB employed 114 Governor in Council (GIC) appointed decision-makers at the RPD and IAD, and an additional 30 public service decision-makers at the ID. These decision-makers are supported by case managers, tribunal support officers and management personnel. In total, the IRB employs approximately 1,000 people (full-time equivalents) in its three regional offices and at National Headquarters.

In scheduling cases for hearing, the RPD, IAD and, to a lesser extent, the ID have encountered challenges in responding to the volume of postponed or adjourned cases in recent years. To enhance its tribunal management performance, the IRB commissioned KPMG to identify the likely causes of adjournments and postponements and the impact both have on timely case finalization, and to establish ways and the means by which the volume of adjournments and postponements may be reduced. Case processing times and costs are also expected to be reduced if the incidence of postponements and adjournments are reduced.

B.  Evaluation objectives

The objectives of the evaluation were to:

• Identify the factors outside the IRB's control which are the likely causes of adjournments and postponements of proceedings.
• Identify the factors within the IRB's control that cause adjournments and postponements of proceedings.
• Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the scheduling process in case processing.
• Assess the efficiency of compliance to time schedules of proceedings.
• Establish how risk management procedures are used to mitigate the impact of adjournments and postponements on caseload.
• Assess the efficiency of the monitoring and performance measurement process which is used to identify the causes and impacts of adjournments and postponements.
• Evaluate how tribunal administration is addressing the challenges and issues associated with adjournments and postponements.

In general terms, an efficient and effective scheduling process is one that supports, and enables, the achievement of IRB's mandate and mission whilst operating within the parameters set by the Divisional Rules Guideline 6 with respect to the RPD and the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

C.  Evaluation scope

1.  Methodology

The methodology for the evaluation involved multiple lines of enquiry:

• A review of IRB documents and information relating to planning for, and performance of, IRB hearings and the incidence of postponements and adjournments.
• Exploratory interviews with Deputy Chairs and their advisors, and the Directors General of Immigration Division and Operations.
• An online search to identify best practices in case management and scheduling in courts and tribunals. Appendix A contains a list of the most relevant documents identified and reviewed.
• Visits to each of the Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver offices to interview Assistant Deputy Chairs (ADCs), Coordinating Members (CMs), Regional Directors, ID Directors, Registrars and schedulers.
• Reviews of samples of files involving postponements and/or adjournments in each of the three regional offices, and spanning all three Divisions.
• A limited program of interviews with immigration lawyers and consultants in each of the three regions and Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) representatives.

Data collection and analysis was conducted over the period from January to April, 2008. Appendix B contains a list of who was interviewed within the IRB and the participants in the external stakeholder interviews.

2.  Limitations

Readers should note that the present evaluation was primarily qualitative and, as such, drew upon the knowledge and observations of GIC members and IRB staff who are directly involved in the scheduling and management of hearings, with limited recourse to quantitative breakdowns of supporting quantitative data relating to the progression of hearings and reasons for the postponements and adjournments. In many ways this approach reflected the current approach to case scheduling, where decisions are based on immediate demands and workloads with limited recourse to data on trends in, and factors influencing, the IRB's ability to complete hearings as planned.

Readers should note that, in conducting the analysis, KPMG was asked to look at case scheduling performance across the IRB while being sensitive to differences in the situations and performance of each of the Divisions. The higher incidence rates of postponements and adjournments in RPD and IAD also meant that our analysis focused more on these two Divisions. In addition to having a lower incidence of postponements and adjournments, the ID's scheduling process differs from the RPD and IAD to accommodate detention reviews, which have statutory time standards, and differing availability of decision-makers, who are members of the public service. Other differences in the ID's approach to case scheduling are highlighted in the text, where appropriate.

As part of the process of conducting the site visits and interviews it was possible to conduct only a limited amount of cross-validation of findings within and between each of the regional locations, supplemented by the file review, which provided an indicative profile of the issues encountered in scheduling initial and postponed/adjourned hearings. Additional, in-depth research will likely be needed as a first step in responding to and implementing the recommendations. We have highlighted areas where further work may be needed in our conclusions and recommendations.

II.  Overview of the Current IRB Case Scheduling Process

This chapter of our report presents a brief overview of the current case flow and scheduling process within IRB. In doing so, it focuses on the key decision points and events in case scheduling, and the management of postponements and adjournments. Differences between each of the Divisions are also highlighted.

A.  Legal framework for case scheduling

The context for the management and scheduling of hearings by the IRB is defined by the IRPA, the Rules of the three Divisions and their Commentaries, and Guideline 6 in the case of RPD.

Section 162 (2) of IRPA requires the Board to deal with all proceedings before it as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit. Each set of Rules includes sections that establish the parameters for scheduling hearings or have a bearing on decisions to postpone or adjourn hearings. These Rules relate to.

• Fixing the date and time of a hearing, and issuance of a formal Notice to Appear to the parties to a hearing (RPD Rules 21 and 22, ID Rules 21 and 22, IAD Rules 22 and 23).
• Timeframes for disclosure and exchange of documents between the parties to a hearing and their submission to IRB prior to the date of a hearing (RPD Rule 29, ID Rule 26, IAD Rule 30).
• The process to be followed if a party applies to change the date or time of their hearing, and the factors to be considered by the applicable Division when deciding these applications (RPD Rule 48, ID Rule 43, IAD Rule 48). Applications are expected to include at least six alternative dates on which they would be prepared to proceed. Factors to be considered in reviewing these applications are presented in Section C, below, of this chapter. Applicants seeking a change of date or time are expected to be prepared to appear and proceed at the time originally scheduled, that is, should not suspend their preparation on the presumption that their application will be accepted.
• Conditions under which a refugee claim may be declared abandoned and requirement for a special hearing to enable the claimant to explain why their claim should not be abandoned (RPD Rule 58).

Statutory requirements for detention reviews, which account for over 80 percent of the hearings conducted by the Immigration Division (with the balance being admissibility hearings), include specific time standards for the scheduling of these hearings. These requirements are found in Division 6, Section 57 of IRPA, and require the IRB to conduct an initial hearing within 48 hours of detention or without delay thereafter, a second hearing within seven days thereafter if the person concerned is not released, and further hearings every 30 days to review the reasons for the continued detention. For admissibility hearings where the person concerned is detained by Immigration, cases are often scheduled to coincide with the next detention review. At that date, if the case is not ready to proceed, the ID will proceed with the detention review and re-schedule the admissibility hearing for the next detention review in expectation that CBSA will obtain the necessary documents that allow the admissibility hearing to proceed. RPD and IAD hearings, and admissibility hearings conducted by the ID, do not have statutory time standards for scheduling hearings.

The IRB has also prepared a set of commentaries on each set of Rules that provide additional guidance on the interpretation and application of key rules. In the case of the RPD and IAD, this includes commentaries on the Rules relating to setting hearing dates and notifying parties, and applications to change the date and time of hearings. For example, the Commentary on RPD Rule 22, Notice to Appear, describes the types of information that may be contained in a Notice to Appear, identifies that the Minister will also receive a copy of the notice (in addition to the claimant), and notes that Notice may be provided orally prior to issuance of a written Notice.

The RPD and IAD Commentary on applications to change the date or time of a hearing includes a number of points that specifically relate to the postponement or adjournment of hearings. In the case of the RPD, these include statements to the effect that.

• The Division may allow an application but set a peremptory date for the re-scheduled hearing (that is, an absolute and unconditional date) in order to meet the IRB's statutory obligation to deal with its proceedings fairly and quickly.
• The Division may set a new date without the agreement of the parties to the hearing, and provide the parties with at least three weeks notice.
• When a hearing is initially scheduled (usually in consultation with the parties to that hearing) it is on the basis that the parties will be able to appear and be prepared to proceed. In other words, a change of date or time should be due to exceptional circumstances and not at the convenience of the parties or their counsel.
• In situations where a counsel accepts a case after the date of the hearing has been set they are expected to appear on that date, prepared to proceed, or if they are unable to appear, to make diligent efforts to arrange for a replacement.

Guideline 6 describes the RPD's general approach to scheduling hearings and changing the date and time of a proceeding as well as expectations of participants. Key elements of the Guideline relate to.

• The Division attempts to accommodate the availability of counsel for claimants but is not bound to do so.
• As a general principle, applications to change the date or time of a proceeding will be granted only in exceptional circumstances and where such a change is justified.
• Allowances will be made for unrepresented claimants and vulnerable claimants.
• The Claimant is responsible for making sure that their counsel is available on the scheduled date if they have retained counsel after the RPD has scheduled the proceeding.
• In reviewing applications for schedule changes, the RPD takes into account its obligation to deal with proceedings as quickly as possible, if the parties have been given notice of the date and time of the proceeding, and if they have had reasonable time to prepare. ('Reasonable time' and 'reasonable notice of the date and time of a hearing' is not defined in the Guideline, however.
• If a claimant is ill, the fact should be supported by a medical certificate wherever possible.
• If the RPD believes that a party is trying without valid reason to delay the proceeding, the RPD may set a peremptory hearing date.

Other IRB instruments that define the context for the management and scheduling of hearings are.

• Guideline 2 – Guidelines on Detention: summarize factors to consider when ordering the detention or continued detention of a person, or considering the release of a person held in detention.
• Guideline 3 – Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues: the Guideline provides that “Before the panel, RCO⁵ and interpreter are assigned, consideration should be given to their experience in dealing with the claims of children”.
• Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: In some cases it will be appropriate to consider whether claimants should have the option of providing their testimony outside the hearing room by affidavit or by videotape, or in front of members and refugee claims officers specifically trained in dealing with violence against women or of a particular gender.
• Guideline 8: Guideline on Procedures with Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB: The IRB makes procedural accommodations for vulnerable persons that may include providing a panel and an interpreter of a particular gender or holding the hearing in a different, less formal, room.
• Instructions Governing the Management of Refugee Protection Claims Awaiting Front-end Security Screening: The RPD will generally not hear a claim unless the RPD receives confirmation from the CBSA that front-end security screening of the claimant has been completed.
• Instructions for the Acquisition and Disclosure of Information for Proceedings in the Refugee Protection Division: the RPD may postpone a case until information is received.
• Policy on Court-Ordered Rehearings: When there is a court-ordered rehearing in the RPD or the IAD, certain decision-makers need to be selected to rehear the case.
• Policy on Designation of Three-Member Panels, RPD Approach: Three-member panels are made up of certain decision-makers.
• Protocol for High Profile Cases: High Profile Cases are heard by certain decision-makers.

B.  Initial scheduling of hearings

Case scheduling is the process whereby hearing dates and times are assigned to cases deemed to be ready for hearing and members assigned to hear these cases. The output from this process is a master calendar that lists the hearings scheduled for the scheduling cycle (period over which cases in the pending inventory are assigned dates and times, which is usually three to four months in the IRB, and assignment of members and tribunal officers (in a proportion of cases) to these hearings.

Exhibit II-1 presents a schematic overview of the generic steps in the flow of IRB cases from initial referral through to disposition. Readers should note that this exhibit describes the case flow and scheduling process in general terms and each Division and regional office is likely to have variations in their approaches. Readers should also note that the exhibit primarily relates to the work of RPD and IAD, and the conduct of admissibility hearings by the ID. As noted in the previous section, detention reviews conducted by the ID are governed by statutory time standards set in Division 6, Section 57 of the IRPA.

Setting a hearing date and time depends on inputs from various combinations of participants in the hearing process, such as member managers, members, Minister's counsel and counsel for claimants (RPD), appellants (IAD) and concerned persons (ID), to ensure that the key parties will be available on the assigned date.⁶ This is a dynamic process in which hearing dates and times are constantly subject to change, as a result of both changes to the availability of parties for each hearing and needs to accommodate postponements and adjournments of other cases. The coordination effort demands a lot of time, mainly on the part of case schedulers, and thus increases the cost to hear and finalize cases.

The following sections describe the key steps in the IRB's case scheduling process in more detail.

1.  Initial triage

Following receipt of the minimum information required to assess the merits of a claim or appeal the case file is reviewed by IRB adjudicative support personnel to confirm that the necessary information has been received and is ready for hearing. For a refugee protection claim a completed Personal Information Form (PIF) must be received before a hearing can be scheduled. This triage process is used to determine if the case can be resolved without going to a full hearing, using either.

• An expedited process (for refugee protection cases) – using a fast-tracked expedited process or a fast-track hearing. In the expedited process a tribunal officer interviews the claimant and makes a recommendation regarding acceptance, or otherwise, of the claim. If the claim is recommended for acceptance it is then reviewed by a member. If the claim is not granted it is referred for a formal hearing. Fast track hearings are conducted by members and are used for claims that appear to hinge on one or two issues.
• A streamed process (for immigration appeal cases -sponsorship appeals, removal order appeals, residency obligation appeals and Minister's appeals) – using paper hearings, where the case is assessed on the basis of written submissions; early resolution by informal methods, such as phone calls, letters to the parties obtaining further documentation, obtaining agreed statements of facts; or, using a less formal alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process.

Cases are generally categorized on the basis of early estimates of expected hearing complexity and thus, the time it will take to hear the evidence and the member to reach a decision. At present, the established screening categories at the RPD are simple hearings (two hours), regular (three and a half hours) and complex (one or more days). In practice, however, there appears to be – apart from the expedited interview category – four categories of hearing duration.

• Short – up to one hour, which can allow for six to eight hearings per day by a member
• Medium – two to two and a half hours, allowing three hearings per day
• Full – three to four hours, allowing two hearings per day
• Complex – one day or more. If a hearing is scheduled for more than one day it is adjourned at the end of each day and resumes the next day.

Practices in the ID differ by region. The Central Region has a triage officer who triages admissibility hearings; in the Eastern Region triage activity is done in a summary court proceedings room, equivalent to a roll call; and, in the Western Region, members conduct the triage activity.

The IRB has sought to divert a higher proportion of cases to expedited hearings (for RPD) as well as ADR (for IAD). This use of expedited and streaming strategies represents an application of a best practice in caseflow management, namely that of practising differentiated caseflow management, and provides a way of accommodating a higher volume of cases without commensurate increases in the number of members.

2.  Scheduling of hearings

Normally, if the triage process determines that a case should go to a formal hearing, a date and time to hear and receive evidence and possibly for the sitting member to render an oral decision at the end of the hearing is scheduled. The IRB may consult with parties when it schedules the hearing to confirm their availability but is not required to do so. A formal Notice to Appear is sent to participants notifying them of the scheduled date and time. Participants are expected to use the time between the scheduling of the hearing and its conduct to prepare their cases, which includes such steps as examining the issues that are likely to be dealt with at the hearing, obtaining supporting documentation and disclosing additional evidence within the time limits set in Divisional Rules.

The Divisional Rules and Guidelines cited in Section A, above, identify a range of considerations in prioritizing and scheduling proceedings:

• Unaccompanied minors;
• Persons detained under the IRPA;
• Persons considered to represent a danger to public health or safety, or who would cause excessive demands on health or prescribed social services;
• Persons who are serving a sentence for a criminal offence;
• Persons identified by the Division as requiring priority processing;
• Adjourned hearings; and
• Persons identified as vulnerable for the purpose of procedural accommodations.⁷

The output from this process is a master calendar that lists the hearings scheduled for the scheduling cycle (period over which cases in the pending inventory are assigned dates and times, which is usually three to four months) and the member assigned to each hearing. This is a complex and dynamic process. Scheduling personnel must work with such information as:

• Case hearing priorities.
• Estimates of the daily availability of each member over the length of the scheduling cycle.
• Availability of counsel, tribunal users and Minister's counsel.
• Parameters for the assignment of members to particular types of cases, for example, the Toronto office of the RPD assigns members to hear the cases of claimants from particular geographic regions of the world such that some members predominantly hear cases concerning refugee claimants from Africa, others hear cases from Central America, etc.
• Requirements for and the availability of interpreters, supporting technical equipment or facilities (for example, where a case may be heard using video conferencing), and the availability of hearing rooms.
• The ongoing flow of requests from member managers and members for changes to the schedule to accommodate postponements and adjournments.

Member managers are responsible for obtaining information regarding the availability of their assigned members and passing it on to scheduling personnel as early as possible. Inevitably, when working with a scheduling cycle that extends up to four months into the future, unplanned and unanticipated changes to member availability reduces the capacity to hear cases and necessitates last minute changes to the master schedule.

Differences occur between the Divisions and among regional offices with regard to the use of methods to increase the likelihood that hearings will proceed and be concluded when scheduled. Three methods are applied, to varying degrees.

The first of these are scheduling conferences or assignment courts, for example, where the person or tribunal user is required to participate in a proceeding normally presided over by a member or tribunal officer to confirm details of the hearing process and be informed of the need to prepare for and appear at the agreed date and time. The second method is a case file readiness check, where the case file is reviewed by a tribunal officer prior to the hearing (usually 30 or 21 days before the hearing, and close to the deadline for disclosure) and the parties are contacted to confirm they will be available and ready to proceed. The third method is a variant of the case file readiness check, where the person is sent a letter of readiness confirmation that must be signed and returned within a fixed period. Persons who do not appear for a scheduling conference or assignment court, or do not sign and return their letter of readiness, may then be subject to a show cause hearing to abandon the case.

C.  Decisions to postpone or adjourn hearings

Changes to the dates and times of scheduled hearings result in postponements or adjournments. The analysis in this report defines postponements as changes to the scheduled start dates of hearings prior to the presentation and hearing of any evidence by the decision-maker. A postponed hearing may be allocated to any of the members in the applicable Division when it is rescheduled. Adjournments occur when a hearing stops after the presentation of evidence has commenced and must resume at a later date and time. In these situations the member is 'seized' (that is, has commenced hearing evidence) and will stay with the case through to its disposition. Decisions to postpone or adjourn hearings may occur at three points in the case scheduling process.

The ID differs in that an adjournment is a decision by a member to schedule a hearing at another date whether or not evidence has been presented to the member, which means that a postponement occurs when a hearing date and time is changed prior to the hearing date. According to the Division, this anomaly (compared to the RPD and IAD) is due to limitations in the design and operation of the Division's case recording system, ATS.

1.  Postponements prior to a hearing

Decisions to postpone a hearing prior to the scheduled date arise for two principal reasons:

1.1  Applications by parties to change the hearing date and time

Parties to a case may apply to change the date and time of a hearing setting out the reasons for the application and proposing at least six alternative dates, within the period specified by the Division, on which the party is available to start or continue the proceeding. Applications are made in writing and usually considered by a member manager, such as an ADC or CM, in the case of RPD and IAD, or the ID Director. According to the respective RPD, IAD and ID Rules, the review of such applications is to consider.

1. In the case of a date and time that was fixed after the Division consulted or tried to consult the party, any exceptional circumstances for allowing the application.
2. When the party made the application.
3. The time the party has had to prepare for the proceeding.
4. The efforts made by the party to be ready to start or continue the proceeding.
5. In the case of a party who wants more time to obtain information in support of the party's arguments, the ability of the Division to proceed in the absence of that information without causing an injustice.
6. Whether the party has counsel.
7. The knowledge and experience of any counsel who represents the party.
8. Any previous delays and the reasons for them.
9. Whether the date and time fixed were peremptory.
10. Whether allowing the application would unreasonably delay the proceedings or likely cause an injustice.
11. The nature and complexity of the matter to be heard.⁸

1.2  Decisions by the Division to postpone a scheduled hearing

Decisions may be made internally to the IRB to postpone scheduled hearings. These 'administrative postponements', which mostly apply to the scheduling of RPD and IAD hearings, occur if.

1. Members are not available to hear a case or are overbooked, that is, the number of cases to be heard exceeds the capacity of the Division's members to hear all the assigned cases.
2. If a member decides to replace a scheduled hearing of a new case with the continuation of an adjourned case.
3. A tribunal officer or interpreter is not available.

2.  Postponements on the day of a hearing

In the event that the person and their counsel do not receive a response from the IRB prior to the scheduled hearing or if the application is made two working days or less before the hearing, they are expected to appear for the hearing and be ready to proceed. The member hearing the case may choose to proceed or grant a postponement. Members may also postpone hearings for other reasons on the day of hearing. Absence or non-appearance of the person or their counsel and not being prepared to proceed are common reasons for these types of postponements.

3.  Adjournments after a hearing commences and the member is seized

Members may adjourn a hearing for resumption at a later date and time for such reasons as:

• Insufficient time to hear and review all evidence and make a decision in the time allotted. Insufficient time may be due to the case being more complex than first anticipated, additional time required for interpretation, the pace at which the member managed the proceedings, or the quality and completeness of the case file.
• To obtain copies of additional documents required to support or validate the assertions made during a hearing, or because a party to the hearing is awaiting receipt of a needed document.
• Delays in obtaining security clearances for RPD claimants. The IRB Chairperson has instructed that only one adjournment be made where a claimant's security clearance is not forthcoming.
• To show cause why a case should not be abandoned, when a person fails to appear and the Board is required to give them an opportunity to explain why their case should not be abandoned.
• To obtain written submissions from the parties for consideration by the member prior to decision-making. These adjournments differ from the others in that, while a disposition has not been made, it is not necessary for the Board's case schedulers to set a date to resume the hearing as the member reviews the submissions as part of their reading and preparation time and issues a written decision.

III.  Attributes of an Effective Case Management System

A.  Introduction

Case management has developed into a distinct area of competence in managing the flow of cases through courts and tribunals, with a goal of improving the timeliness of case progression without limiting participants' access to fair treatment and natural justice. Case management is defined and characterized in such terms as the following.

• Caseflow management is the court supervision of the case progress of all cases filed in that court. It includes management of the time and events necessary to move a case from the point of initiation (filing, date of contest, or arrest) through disposition, regardless of the type of disposition. Caseflow management is an administrative process; therefore, it does not directly impact the adjudication of substantive legal or procedural issues.⁹
• The aim must be to set a framework which is as simple, proportionate and flexible as possible. Speed on its own is not a desirable end – it follows from the others. But cases must be handled in a purposeful way. Rules should set time limits to show what the expected programme for individual cases will be. ... Either party should be able to apply, on notice, for a change of hearing date. Extensions should be discouraged, but tribunals should recognize the problems of appellants, particularly those who are unrepresented.¹⁰

The goal of effective caseflow management is to manage the flow and disposition of cases in such a way that the overall system is predictable to all participants. In such a system, the expectation is that hearings will take place as scheduled. Increasing this 'hearing certainty' should result in counsel being prepared, less need for adjournments, and enhanced ability to effectively allocate staff and judicial resources.¹¹ To this we would add checking/ensuring cases are ready for hearing prior to the date of the hearing, that the amount of time allocated to hear a case is commensurate to its complexity, and ensuring (to the maximum extent possible) that members are available to hear scheduled cases.

The following section summarises the nature of the critical elements in an effective case management system, as described in a range of commonly cited studies and reports from the U.S., U.K., and Australia. We have used the key lessons identified in these studies as the basis for evaluating the IRB's current approach to case scheduling and to inform the development of our recommendations. These key lessons are listed in the final section of this chapter.

B.  Critical success factors in case management and scheduling

Active and consistent management of scheduling and the incidence of postponements and adjournments is at the heart of case management. Published studies and guides to case management highlight a small number of critical success factors that influence the degree of certainty:

• Exercising effective leadership.
• Developing and meeting appropriate time expectations.
• Exercising early and continuous control of case progress.
• Providing firm and credible dates for hearings and other key events.
• Monitoring and information systems to inform strategic and tactical management of case progression.¹²

These factors and associated best practices are summarized in the following sections.

1.  Exercising effective leadership

Tribunal and court leaders – such as the Chairperson, Deputy Chairpersons, Director General of the Immigration division and member managers in the IRB – play a key role by articulating the vision and expectations of their organizations' approaches to case management, and reinforcing commitment to and consistent application of case flow management principles. This is not a simple task; they must act as advocates and build buy-in, not just among tribunal members and staff but also the broader community within which the organization operates, especially immigration lawyers and consultants, and Minister's counsel.

A second key aspect of leadership (in the context of the IRB, but common to all tribunals and courts) is the relationship between the senior members – ADCs and CMs – and the administrative staff responsible for tribunal operations and support. In this regard, successful court or tribunal operation is generally recognized as being dependent on the senior court judges or tribunal members and their court managers/registrars working together as a team in which each side has a distinct and mutually supportive role to play. The goal of both senior members and registrars should be to have the evidence assembled, the issues identified, and attempts at settlement exhausted before the hearing.¹³

2.  Developing and meeting appropriate time expectations

Two types of time standards are needed to manage and account for performance in achieving timely disposition of cases. The first type relates to the overall period from initiation to disposition of cases (for example, to finalize 90 percent of cases within 'x' months, 95 percent within 'y' months, and 100 percent within 'z' months). The second type, which enables the status and rate of progression of the caseload to be continuously monitored, are standards for progress from one intermediate decision point or event to the next.

3.  Exercising early and continuous control of case progress

Effective caseflow management requires 'active management' of case progress by a court or tribunal, as opposed to letting the parties to the hearing dictate the rate of progress, with the aim of achieving disposition of cases as early as possible. This approach to supervising and guiding case progression involves the following:

To adequately control cases, the court must monitor case initiation, screen cases, achieve event certainty through the control of schedules and adjournments, and manage trials.¹⁴

The respective roles of members or judges and registrars in the control of case progress depend on the volume and nature of cases heard by a particular tribunal or court, and the incentives present (or absent) for persons to seek timely disposition. For example, the Australian Law Reform Commission's report, Managing Justice, noted:

The Commission's recommendations are directed to secure some more strategic involvement of judges and members. Judges and members can be brought in as required for particular, difficult or intractable cases. This requires more careful case management, effective computer monitoring of individual cases and close communication between judges or members and registrars and other staff.¹⁵

Control of case progress is also necessary at the micro level of individual hearings as well as the overall (macro) oversight and management of total case load. At the macro level, control relates to the extent to which a member or judge consistently applies the Rules relating to postponements and adjournments, expects parties/counsel to be ready to proceed at scheduled times, and focuses hearings on the critical issues in the case.

4.  Providing firm and credible dates for hearings and other key events

Increasing the likelihood that cases will be heard when first scheduled plays a major role in reducing delays in case progression and the associated costs of tribunal management. A related maxim here is that if the parties to a case believe there's a high likelihood that a case will not proceed as planned then it is also likely they will not be prepared. Increasing the certainty of a hearing proceeding should also mean that participants are more likely to be prepared, the incidence of postponements and adjournments is reduced, and the allocation and utilization of tribunal resources enhanced. Processes for increasing the certainty that hearings will proceed on the date scheduled include:¹⁶

• Maximizing alternative means of resolving cases prior to hearing. IRB already applies methods to stream simpler cases into alternative decision making approaches, such as, expedited hearings, informal methods and ADR.
• Optimizing case scheduling processes to take expected levels of postponements and resumptions of adjourned cases into account when filling members' schedules. A certain level of overbooking is both practical and needed to optimize overall throughput but the actual level of overbooking needs to be based on past experience plus the consistent application of case management principles and rules. In doing so, it is necessary to pay close attention to the management and estimation of member availability and thereby ensure that the tribunal can meet its own scheduling commitments.
• Firm and consistent application of policies on continuances (postponements and adjournments). Processes and criteria for receiving, reviewing and granting applications for scheduling changes need to be consistently applied (over time and across all members) to increase the certainty of tribunal schedules. To not do so creates a risk of a recurring negative cycle – if too many cases are scheduled for hearing and then have to be postponed, disclosure is likely to be delayed or incomplete, parties are less likely to be prepared, and hearings that do commence are then likely to be postponed. Schedules then have to be continually adjusted to accommodate postponements and adjournments, leading to further postponements. In other words, if the tribunal or court is perceived to have a lenient approach to postponements, and the level of overbooking is too high, the effects of postponements ripple through the schedule and increase demands on scheduling staff and members.
• Backup capacity to provide for last minute adjustments to schedules. In the case of the IRB, member managers provide a measure of back-up capacity to the sitting members. Some additional back-up capacity is also achieved by re-assigning hearings to members who may become free due to postponements of their previously assigned cases.

Management of postponements and adjournments may also be facilitated by the application of supporting tools. These tools include the provision of information to members on trends in postponement and adjournment rates for individual cases and in aggregate, ongoing adjustment of scheduling rates to minimize the rate of administrative postponements, and monitoring of the rate of applications to change hearing dates and times, and analysis of the outcomes from these applications.

5.  Monitoring and information systems to inform strategic and tactical management of case progression

The ability to monitor case progress is essential to inform tribunal management and enable improvements to case management and progression. Monitoring of progress should work at several levels.

1. Monitoring and coordinating the progression of individual cases.
2. Managing the aggregate flow of cases to identify and resolve systemic problems.
3. Identifying and highlighting exceptions to standards.

By extension, good performance measurement systems depend on the selection of an appropriate and concise set of performance indicators aligned to key decision points in case progression and associated performance standards. Effective performance measurement and monitoring systems are:

• Integral to the operations of the court and tribunal and developed by judicial or tribunal officers, managers and users who understand its purpose and can use it for further organisational development.
• Relevant to the core values of courts and tribunals, so that it makes available information about the most important of the court's and tribunal's activities.
• Capable of collecting data relevant to goals and values and which is explicit and unambiguous.
• Developed in such a way as to avoid detracting from the core operation's central goals by siphoning off resources.¹⁷

While the exact specifications of performance monitoring systems need to be tailored to the priorities and needs of individual tribunals and courts, these systems typically focus on:

• The state of the case inventory – a snapshot of all pending cases, broken down by numbers of cases at each process stage. Examples of categories include:
  • Clearance rate, that is, the number of dispositions versus number of new cases added to the inventory.
  • Cases pending at each major decision point in the progression of cases from initiation to disposition.
  • Changes in each category (decision point) since the last reporting period, including identification of inactive cases in the caseflow.
  • Numbers of cases that exceed case processing time standards or other exception thresholds.
• Measures of delays – information on the age of the pending caseload and time to disposition. Delay reports can be used as a management tool to identify case types where delays are most likely to occur and help to assess and forecast resource requirements.
• Activity measures – aggregations of activity at key decision points/events. In the case of postponements and adjournments this could include breakdowns of the incidence and distribution of postponements and adjournments across the case inventory, and the reasons for such outcomes.
• Case scheduling measures – indicators of event certainty (that is, the likelihood that cases are heard and disposed as planned) such as:
  • Numbers of cases scheduled for a particular period.
  • Number and percentages of cases postponed prior to hearing.
  • Number and percentages of cases postponed on day of hearing.
  • Number and percentages of cases that were heard and a decision made or reserved.
  • Number and percentages of cases adjourned.

Reports on these measures on aggregate performance would normally be complemented by access to data on individual cases, relating to such aspects as: current status (point in caseflow), age, last activity (decision point), next activity planned and its timing, and number of postponements and adjournments and reasons.

C.  Key lessons from the research on the attributes of effective case management processes

The findings from the research into the attributes of effective case management processes suggest the following key lessons for managing case scheduling in the IRB, and controlling the rate of postponements and adjournments:

• Exercising effective leadership:
  • Accountabilities of senior members should include oversight of case progression from initiation to disposition. This may mean that, in addition to playing a major role in the scheduling of hearings, they would be more actively involved in ensuring the cases are ready for hearing and that hearings proceed as scheduled.
  • Engagement with key stakeholders, such as administrative staff and the immigration law/consulting community, to build commitment to and support for increased certainty of hearings proceeding as scheduled, and to consider their suggestions and concerns regarding ways to improve this certainty.
• Developing and meeting appropriate time expectations:
  • Standards and goals are management tools that need to be integrated into the case progression process, and include expectations regarding critical intermediate determinants of overall performance.
• Exercising early and continuous control of case progress:
  • Case progress should be managed as the sequence of interdependent events/decisions concerning each case, not the management of each event/decision in isolation.
  • Members and administration need to work together to manage case progression.
• Providing firm and credible dates for hearings and other key events:
  • Achieving event date certainty should be a primary goal of the scheduling system. Unless all participants believe that events will occur as scheduled, their timely preparation or compliance becomes problematic.
  • IRB must minimize the incidence of administrative postponements to build the credibility and certainty of its scheduling. Decisions to approve or reject applications for postponements should be based on consistent interpretation of the IRB Rules for changes to hearing dates and times consistent with the guidance in the Commentary on the Rules and Guideline 6 (in RPD): exceptional circumstances must be shown to justify a change of time or date of a proceeding that was scheduled after the parties were consulted.
  • To the extent possible, the IRB should ensure that not only are case files ready for hearings but so too are the parties to the hearings prepared and ready to proceed.
• Monitoring and information systems to inform strategic and tactical management of case progression:
  • Systems to monitor performance results against associated standards are essential to sustain effective management of case flow.
  • Focus for monitoring should go beyond identifying and responding to individual caseflow events, such as postponements, and look from the perspective of facilitating timely progress to disposition.
  • Effective monitoring depends on consistent and reliable performance information.
  • A case management system should be used to: (i) monitor case progress; (ii) measure inventory, delays, activities, and scheduling practices; and (iii) measure compliance with time standards.

IV.  Key Findings

Case scheduling in the IRB is quite complex, due to the combination of a large number of cases and the wide breadth and depth of these cases and attendant hearings. As such, the efficiency and effectiveness of the scheduling process is determined by a wide range of activities and the interplay between the IRB's members and staff; and between the IRB, parties to hearings, their counsel and Minister's counsel.

The analysis of scheduling performance, and identification of potential opportunities to reduce postponement and adjournment rates, must be sensitive to this complexity, and the interdependencies in the process. Equally, there are unlikely to be any 'silver bullets' to improve performance; rather, improvements are most likely to come about through the accumulation of impacts from various incremental improvements to performance and sustained attention to the application of these improvements to the point where they are ingrained in the way the IRB works.

This chapter presents the findings from our analysis of factors that influence the IRB's case scheduling performance and determine the rate of postponements and adjournments. Seven aspects of the management of case scheduling and determinants of postponements and adjournments are covered:

• Managing the scheduling of hearings.
• Accountabilities and responsibilities for scheduling.
• Ensuring both files and parties to cases are ready for hearings.
• Reasons for postponements and adjournments.
• Impacts of postponements and adjournments on case progression.
• Collection and reporting of postponement/adjournment data.
• Management responses to the causes of postponements and adjournments.

Our conclusions regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of the IRB's management of case scheduling that flow from these findings are presented in the following chapter, in conjunction with our recommended actions.

A.  Managing the scheduling of hearings

Each of the IRB Divisions and locations operate with rolling schedules, typically (but not always) covering a three to four month period. Schedulers see their role as being to fill the schedule from the outset of the cycle unless otherwise instructed by a Divisional ADC or CM. In some instances, Members may be overbooked in the expectation that postponements and adjournments will bring the schedule into balance. In other instances, postponed and adjourned cases are added to the schedule and progressively move the schedule into an overbooked position.

Assessments of the expected amount of time required for a hearing are made during the triage process when the minimum information requirements have been received and judged to be complete. Cases going to full hearings go into the pending inventory and are subsequently scheduled when they move to the front of the queue. Establishment of a hearing date and issuance of a Notice to Appear is expected to act as a trigger point to prompt persons/counsel to commence preparations for their hearings. In turn, they make decisions about disclosure and needs for witnesses that have an influence on the likely complexity and length of each hearing. However, there appears to be no further review of the file especially by the assigned member or a tribunal officer to re-assess the likely hearing length/complexity prior to the hearing and make appropriate adjustments or contingency arrangements.

Participants in our interviews, particularly members, felt that investing more time and effort into improving the estimation of hearing lengths would have a limited return compared to action in other areas. While a second check of the expected hearing length may be beneficial at the time a hearing readiness review is performed, they believed that, in order to be reliable, the check would need to be performed by an experienced member or tribunal officer able to quickly identify the key issues and translate this understanding into a likely time requirement. The availability of such a member, particularly at a time when member complement is below approved levels, could have a significant opportunity cost. Similarly, concerns were expressed about the availability of suitably experienced tribunal officers to perform the required review tasks (compared to a basic check for file completeness) versus their assignment to assisting members hearing complex cases.

Interviewees also identified a range of other reasons why hearing lengths may differ from what was anticipated during the triage process, principally RPD and IAD hearings.¹⁸ A major factor identified by many of the interviewees, including external participants, was the experience and ability of the member to manage, or control, proceedings in the hearing room to identify and focus on the key issues and to ensure hearings progress in a timely manner. The ability to master this skill is a function of training, experience and the styles or approaches of each member. Many of the interviewees felt that more attention should be given to developing and strengthening members' skills in actively managing cases in the hearing room rather than, or in addition to, improving the estimation of hearing length during triage and file preparation.

In addition, schedulers and member managers are also able to 'build-in' some contingency time in some instances, by scheduling cases that are more likely to need extra time in the morning and combining them with an afternoon hearing for a case that is less likely to require the full amount of time allocated. Other factors that affect the length of hearings and that are less subject to IRB control include the extent to which persons/counsel may wish to call witnesses, interpretation issues/demands, and problems with technical equipment such as video conference and teleconference set-up and operation. This is not to say that overbooking should be avoided. A certain level of overbooking is both desirable and necessary to make the best use of the time allocated to members for hearings. However, getting the right level of overbooking appears to be something of an art and depends on a sound understanding of the types of cases being heard, the likelihood that they will be completed within (or ahead of) the hearing time allocated, and the underlying or 'natural' level of postponements and adjournments.¹⁹.

The potential decision making capacity of each Division is a function of the total number of members and the amount of time allocated to hearings (versus other activities, such as, training, vacations, administrative meetings, preparation time and decision writing time). Schedulers make every effort to schedule hearings in alignment with the known availability of members. However, the reliability of the resulting schedules is only as good as the guidance on availability they are provided and issues such as absences to due to illness and other unplanned events, changes to availability on short notice, or insufficient notice to scheduling of changes in availability all contribute to the uncertainty around hearing schedules.

According to data provided by IRB's Standards, Analysis and Monitoring group, 33% of scheduled RPD hearings in 2007-08 were postponed and another 17% were adjourned. Rates of postponements plus adjournments for the regional offices were 46% in Eastern, 52% in Central and 42% in the Western Region. In the IAD, 15% of hearings were postponed in 2007-08 and another 7% were adjourned. On a regional basis, the rates of postponed and adjourned hearings were 26% in Eastern, 19% in Central and 23% in Western Region. As we discuss later in this section, this should not be considered to be an appropriate 'natural' level. Alternative approaches to the assignment of cases for hearings should be investigated and tested to find an optimal balance between:

• Filling a proportion of the slots at the outset of each new month, rather than automatically assigning cases to fill 100 percent or more of the slots. For example, if it is April and schedulers are booking hearings for July (the new month added to the rolling four month cycle) they may keep 20 percent of the time slots open.
• Progressively adding adjourned and postponed cases such that by the time the hearings are being conducted the schedule is filled to the 100 percent level or the overbooking level deemed to be acceptable.

ID's scheduling process operates differently from that of the RPD and IAD. Time has to be left open on the schedule for anticipated numbers of new detention reviews coming in on short notice and members kept available to hear these cases. Other detention reviews (which are required at seven day and 30 day intervals) are then quite predictable. Admissibility reviews account for less than 20 percent of the ID's hearings and can be accommodated around the times allocated for detention reviews. Additionally, the ID conducts hearings five days per week and the ID members, who are not GIC decision-makers but public servants, appear to have greater flexibility in terms of their availability for hearings compared to their counterparts at the RPD and IAD.

B.  Accountabilities and responsibilities for scheduling

Overall accountability for case scheduling, and by extension, case progression, does not appear to be clear. Responsibilities for scheduling activities are split between the registrars/schedulers and ADCs/CMs for the RPD and IAD, and Directors in ID. Registrars/schedulers described their principal scheduling responsibility as being to fill the calendar, and keep it full. ADCs/CMs are responsible for providing, or ensuring that information on the availability of members for hearings during scheduling cycles is provided to the registrars/schedulers, providing guidance on the allocation of members to cases as well as flagging cases with special circumstances that need to be considered when selecting and assigning suitable members²⁰. They also establish and apply expectations regarding the average numbers of cases to be heard by members and the target numbers of dispositions per member.

The weakness in this approach, we believe, is that case scheduling is looked at in isolation from the overall flow and management of cases through the hearings process to the point where the major scheduling issue for the Board's senior managers is the rate of postponed and adjourned hearings. If scheduling was looked at, and monitored, from a process flow perspective the respective responsibilities could be modified or re-defined to focus on the timely progression of cases as well as the rate at which decisions are made in hearings. Key indicators of performance should then be in terms of how many cases (not hearings) involved postponements and/or adjournments, the reasons, and impacts on timeliness.

Taking a process view of case flow also raises questions about the accountability for ensuring that cases and the persons involved appear and are ready to proceed when hearings occur. At present time, members first see case files shortly before hearings occur. The best practices research cited in Chapter III suggests that senior tribunal members should have some earlier involvement in the preparation and progression of cases, primarily to ensure that case files are ready for hearing, persons and their counsel are committed to proceeding at the scheduled time, and the time allocated in the hearing schedule reflects the complexity of the case as it has evolved.

A number of the external stakeholders interviewed for the study (albeit from a very small convenience sample) also commented on the need for actions to increase the certainty of hearings through such measures as making greater use of assignment courts and paying closer attention to estimating expected hearing durations.

C.  Ensuring both files and parties to cases are ready for hearings

Ensuring that cases files are ready – that is, all required documents are obtained and translated if necessary, status of legal representation is known, disclosure is completed and requirements for support in the hearing room are confirmed (e.g., need for interpreter), whether witnesses will be called, etc. – is a necessary step in facilitating decision-making by members. Of equal importance with respect to postponements is the readiness of persons and their counsel (as applicable) to proceed. In addition, the notion of readiness for a proactive hearing requires pre-hearing work on a file that goes beyond mere file readiness. A proactive hearing works best if the parties have tried to identify key issues and areas of agreement in the evidence, facts or law prior to the case.

A variety of methods are used, or have been used in the recent past, to improve the readiness of persons spanning:

• Assignment courts, where a member meets with the persons or their counsel to set a hearing date, confirm that the requirements of the hearing process are understood, and reinforce the need to be ready. Failure to appear at assignment court can be used as a trigger for a show cause hearing or to abandon the case.
• Readiness conferences, which are similar to assignment courts except that the role of the member is delegated to a tribunal officer. These conferences are used to confirm that persons and their counsel are ready for their hearings.
• Hearing readiness checks or confirmation of readiness letters that involve follow-up contacts by IRB staff with persons or their counsel to confirm completion of disclosure, readiness to proceed, and requirements for interpretation and technical support in the hearing. These events take place after scheduling has occurred and, ideally, prior to the cut-off time for disclosure. Confirmation of readiness letters may also be used as a trigger for a show cause hearing if they are not signed and returned.

Assignment courts or scheduling conferences are used most frequently with unrepresented persons and serve to educate these tribunal users on the hearing process as well as setting hearing dates and times. Subsequent to such events, the persons may retain counsel who, in turn, may seek a postponement to enable their preparation (or avoid a conflict in their schedule, even though such conflicts are not meant to be used as grounds for a postponement). From a scheduling perspective, an earlier written application for postponement is preferable to a postponement on the day of the hearing. The principal benefits of assignment courts and scheduling conferences are that they increase understanding of the Board's process for conducting hearings and reaching decisions, and increase the likelihood of persons appearing for their hearing and being ready to proceed. They do not, in and of themselves, generate postponements although tribunal users may take actions as a result of an assignment court or scheduling conference that result in applications for postponements.

Confirmations of hearing readiness checks do not carry the same 'clout' as assignment courts or scheduling conferences but do have the advantage that they take place closer to the actual hearing date and serve as a reminder to be prepared. They also provide an opportunity, assuming the check is conducted by a suitably experienced officer, to review the expected time required for the hearing and plan any scheduling contingencies, as necessary.

While most people interviewed for the evaluation were supportive of the use of assignment courts, scheduling conferences and hearing readiness checks, they also underlined the importance of such success factors as:

• The skill and experience of the member or tribunal office who leads these sessions, particularly as a basis for identifying or confirming the specific issues at the heart of a case and determining how much time will likely be required for the hearing.
• Buy-in from members, in terms of their willingness to hold persons to the commitments made in the assignment court or scheduling conference when a postponement application is made at the subsequent hearing.
• Ability of the Board to meet its commitments to the hearing dates and avoid administrative postponements.
• Timing relative to cut-offs for disclosure, in the case of readiness confirmations/checks, given that these checks often serve to trigger retention of counsel and/or hearing preparation. Ideally, readiness checks should allow time for any further disclosure and/or for persons to retain a counsel who is available on the scheduled hearing date if they are to increase the certainty of a hearing proceeding.

D.  Reasons for postponements and adjournments

The incidence of and reasons for postponement and adjournments need to be disaggregated and analyzed in three distinct categories to provide meaningful management information:

• Postponements prior to hearings, where written applications from persons or counsel are assessed by the ADCs/CMs or ID Directors. Applicants have to provide six alternate dates as part of their applications. Persons/counsel are expected to be ready to proceed with the hearing if their request is denied or if IRB is unable to respond to the request.
• Postponements on the day of hearings, which are assessed by members in the hearing rooms, prior to the member being seized.
• Adjournments to hearings that have commenced, where decisions regarding continuation at a new time are made by the seized member.

Major causes of RPD and IAD hearing postponements and adjournments identified by participants in our IRB interviews are summarized in Exhibit IV-2. Some of the factors can be directly managed by the Board while others are outside its direct control but can be influenced by the way members exercise their powers and establish expectations of persons and counsel. From this perspective, IRB's degree of control spans:

• Those determinants of postponements and adjournments that are internal to, and able to be controlled by, the Board, such as the management and oversight of interpreters,²¹ and the management of scheduling and overbooking to optimize the number of hearing postponements.
• Those that are partially controllable, such as the number of members available for hearings.
• Those that can be influenced, but not directly controlled, through the way the Board manages caseflow and undertakes outreach and communications to persons and counsel, and members manage individual hearings and assess applications for postponements and adjournments. These factors include persons failing to appear for hearings, counsel/persons not being prepared to proceed, late disclosure, needs for additional documents becoming apparent during hearings.

According to data provided by IRB, approximately 30-40 percent of requests for postponements by persons/counsel are made prior to hearings.²² Having ADCs/CMs and ID Directors review these written applications provides for consistency within each Division or team. However, it is not clear how consistent decisions on these applications are from one office to another or one team to another, and it is difficult to discern what the relative rates are from the information contained within case files. Administrative postponements also take place close to the time of hearings as a function of such things as member illness/unavailability and schedulers and ADCs/CMs having to juggle the scheduling of new hearings with the resumption of adjourned cases (which have higher relative priority).

Postponements on the day of hearings most commonly occur as a result of:

• Unavailability of either the member, person concerned, their counsel or (to a lesser extent) the Refugee Protection Officer or Minister's counsel.
• Person/counsel being unready to proceed.
• Incomplete disclosure; an.
• Problems with support arrangements for hearings (such as, interpreter availability or applicability, technical problems with equipment).

Lack of time to complete hearings was the most frequent reason for adjournments. In addition, a certain proportion of cases continue beyond their allotted times to permit the member to finish and render a decision, which in turn, result in another scheduled hearing being postponed. Other common reasons for adjournments include to obtain written submissions (outside of Montreal), to obtain additional documents/expertise, and abandonment. Adjournments for written submissions need to be looked at differently from other adjournments because they do not require hearing resumptions and thus do not require further work by scheduling personnel (but do require further work by members to reach a decision).

ID has a low incidence of postponements and adjournments, and the information system used to manage case files (ATS) has limited capacity to record reasons (more so than STAR). Additionally, many initial hearings of admissibility reviews at ID hearings are effectively limited length assignment courts, but generate postponements in the systems. Major reasons for postponements and adjournments cited by interviewees were: for person to retain counsel, counsel or person availability/absence, counsel not ready to proceed, minister not ready to proceed, lack of time in hearing, and administrative (member ill/not available, interpreter).

Exhibit IV-1

Common reasons for postponements and adjournments

Category	RPD	IAD
Postponements prior to hearing	Internal to IRB: Member unavailable – illness Insufficient members available to cover scheduled cases RPO unavailable Counsel not available/double-booked Other Reasons: Person/counsel not available Newly appointed counsel in need of time to prepare	Internal to IRB: Member unavailable – illness Insufficient members available to cover scheduled cases Counsel double-booked Other Reasons: Person/counsel not available Newly appointed counsel in need of time to prepare Minister's counsel unavailable Minister's counsel not ready
Postponements on day of hearing	Internal to IRB: Member unavailable on day – illness, emergency RPO unavailableInterpreter not available, wrong language/dialect Scheduling errors, miscommunications IT/telecommunications/video problems To allow another hearing to be completed Other Reasons: Person/counsel – not ready to proceed Person/counsel – absence or illness Minister's counsel – absence or illness Lack of proper disclosure Lack of security clearance	Internal to IRB: Member unavailable on day – illness, emergencyInterpreter not available, wrong language/dialect Scheduling errors, miscommunications IT/telecommunications/video problems To allow another hearing to be completed Other Reasons: Person/counsel not ready to proceed Person/counsel absence or illness Person/counsel or Minister – waiting for documents To permit appellant to retain counsel
Adjournments after member seized	Insufficient time to complete hearing Documents/expertise required for case to progress Adjourn for abandonment Adjourn for written submissions Person/counsel/member/minister – illness or other unavoidable absence	Insufficient time to complete hearing Adjourn for written submissions* Awaiting documents Adjourn for abandonment Person/counsel/member/minister – illness or other unavoidable absence

(* Not all Divisions include adjournments for written submissions in their adjournment counts, in recognition of the fact that these adjournments require no further scheduling activity.)

E.  Impacts of postponements and adjournments on case progression

As part of our work we also reviewed a sample of completed case files that involved postponements and/or adjournments to better understand the impact these delays have on the progression of cases from initial referral to final hearing/disposition.

This analysis used random samples of finalized cases that incurred postponements and/or adjournments. The sample sizes for each Regional office and division were relatively small; 73 finalized cases from the RPD, 22 from IAD and 27 from ID.²³ As such, the estimates of case progression times derived from these samples should be viewed as indicative only. We also used data from the Key Indicators Report to make comparisons, where applicable, to average times for all cases finalized (that is, including elapsed times for cases that had no postponements or adjournments).

1.  Impact of postponements and adjournments on time to disposition

The analysis of data from the sample files show that cases that incur postponements or adjournments take longer to progress from initial referral to final decision, and that the impact of postponements and/on adjournments on elapsed time is much greater in the Central Region than the Eastern and Western Regions. These impacts are further elaborated in the following sections.

1.1  RPD files

Average elapsed times for the sample of RPD files (from initial referral to IRB to final hearing) are shown below and compared to the average processing times for all full hearing cases decided in 2005/06 and 2006/07 (which also included the time between the final hearing and issuance of decision).

RPD	Central Region	Eastern Region	Western Region
File Review – average time from referral to final hearing	21.8 months	13.3 months	15.7 months
Key Indicators Report – average processing time for full hearing cases 2005/06* 2006/07*	13.1 months 13.2 months	11.7 months 11.9 months	16.0 months 15.3 months

(*  RPD, Key Indicators, December 31, 2007.

This information shows that elapsed times for cases incurring postponements and/or adjournments were significantly higher than the overall average elapsed times in the Central Region – a difference of almost nine months (21.8 months versus 13.2 months in 2006/07) – and approximately two months greater in Eastern Region. The average time for the sample files in the Western Region was in line with overall averages.

1.2  IAD files

Comparisons of the average elapsed times for the sample of IAD files (and note that these were based on very small samples) to the average elapsed times for all cases decided (from the Key Indicators Report) showed a similar pattern to the RPD files in the Central and Eastern Regions. The average elapsed times for the sample cases, all of which incurred postponements and adjournments, were of the order of 12 months higher in the Central Region and about two months higher in Eastern. Average elapsed times for the sample files from the Western Region were about six months higher than the overall averages.

iad	Central Region	Eastern Region	Western Region
File Review – average time from referral to final hearing	22.0 months	11.6 months	14.8 months
Key Indicators Report – average processing time 2006* 2007*	10.0 months 11.2 months	10.0 months 9.2 months	8.6 months 8.2 months

(*  IAD, Key Indicators, December 31, 2007.

1.3  ID Files

Average times from initial referral to the day of final hearing for the sample of ID files are shown below and, like the IAD estimates above, are based on very small samples. Average times in the Central Region appear to be significantly higher in the Central Region compared to the averages for the samples from the Eastern and Western Regions, of the order of nine months.²⁴

ID	Central Region	Eastern Region	Western Region
File Review – average time from referral to final hearing	11.3 months	2.8 months	2.0 months

2.  Average numbers of postponements and adjournments per case

The second aspect of interest from the files review is the incidence of hearing postponements and adjournments per case, and the relationship to elapsed times to disposition. Exhibit IV-2 summarises the average numbers of scheduled hearings per case in our samples from each Division. By scheduled hearings we mean hearings where a date and time were set but the hearing was postponed or adjourned plus hearings that did proceed and the member made a final decision.

The information in Exhibit IV-2 shows that, on average, as the number of scheduled hearings per case increased (that is, the number of times a hearing was scheduled but postponed or adjourned plus the final hearing) so too did the average elapsed time. This relationship was true across all three divisions.

Exhibit IV-2

File review – average and median elapsed times from case referral to final hearing

Division/Region	Average Number of Hearings per Case*	Range (# of Scheduled Hearings per Finalized Case)	Sample Size
Refugee Protection Division
Central Region Eastern Region Western Region	3.8 3.0 2.4	1 – 7 1 – 6 1 – 5	(29) (24) (20)
All Regions	3.1	1 - 7	(73)
Immigration Appeal Division
All Regions	2.4	1-4	(22)
Immigration Division
All Regions	4.0	1-4	(27)

(*  Includes hearings where a date and time were set but the hearing was postponed or adjourned plus hearings that did proceed and the member made a final decision, and hearings that were ultimately abandoned or withdrawn.)

The sample of RPD cases featured:

• An average number of scheduled hearings per case of 2.4 in Western Region, 3.0 in the Eastern Region and 3.8 in the Central Region, with an average across all regions of 3.1.
• Two-thirds of the cases in the sample of RPD cases involved three or less hearings and produced 47 percent of the total number of scheduled hearings for the cases in our sample. The remaining one-third of the cases in the sample, which each had four or more scheduled hearings, accounted for 53 percent of the total number of scheduled hearings.
• On a regional basis, 55 percent of the Central Region cases in our sample had three or less scheduled hearings and accounted for 36 percent of the total number of scheduled hearings for the Central Region cases. The equivalent figures for the Eastern Region were 67 percent of cases and 49 percent of the scheduled hearings, and 85 percent of cases and 71 percent of the scheduled hearings in the Western Region.

A similar pattern was also found for the IAD and ID sample cases:

• In the IAD sample, the average number of scheduled hearings per case was 2.4 with 64 percent of the cases requiring two or less scheduled hearings, which accounted for 52 percent of the total number of scheduled hearings. Another 32 percent of the cases required three scheduled hearings and accounted for 40 percent of the scheduled hearings.²⁵
• In the ID sample, the average number of scheduled hearings per case was 4.0 with 63 percent of the sample cases requiring three or less scheduled hearings, which accounted for 33 percent of the total number of scheduled hearings.

The relationship between the number of scheduled hearings and the elapsed time for initial referral to final hearing can be best seen graphically, as shown in Exhibit IV-3. The vertical scale of this graph shows the elapsed number of days from referral to final hearing for each of the RPD cases in our sample. The horizontal scale shows the number of scheduled hearings (postponements and adjournments plus final hearings) per case. Each of the diamonds plotted on the chart is one case from our sample.

The various combinations of elapsed times per case and numbers of scheduled hearings show a tendency for the time required for finalisation to increase as the number of scheduled hearings increases, although this relationship did not hold for every case in our sample. The straight line on the graph is a 'line of best fit' and shows the average rate at which elapsed time increases as scheduled hearings per case increases. In general terms, Exhibit IV-2 shows that every time a hearing is postponed or adjourned the elapsed time to final hearing increases by about three months.²⁶

3.  Relationship between rates of postponements/adjournments and hearings per case

A clear lesson from the analysis of rates of postponements and adjournments per sample case is that a high rate of postponements and adjournments does not facilitate the achievement of a high level of dispositions. In fact, an increase in the percentage of hearings that are postponed or adjourned will cause a proportionately greater increase in the number of hearings per case. In other words, 'delay breeds more delay'.

This non-linear relationship is demonstrated in Exhibit IV-4. For example, if the percentage of hearings being postponed or adjourned increases by 10 percent, from 30 percent to 40 percent (the horizontal scale of Exhibit IV-4) the number of scheduled hearings per case (vertical scale) will go from 1.43 to 1.67, which is an increase of 17 percent whereas an increase in the incidence of postponements and adjournments from 40% to 50% produces a 19% increase (from 1.67 to 2.00).

F.  Collection and reporting of postponement/adjournment data

Data on postponements and adjournments extracted from the STAR system is used to produce tracking reports to support the day-to-day management and operation of the Board's Divisions. Reporting takes place at two levels. High level, summary information on the rate of postponement/adjournment of hearings is reported in the Board's formal Key Indicators Report and each of the RPD and IAD locations generate short-term week-to-week breakdowns of the numbers of, and reasons for, postponements and adjournments.

Approaches to the structuring, recording and reporting of week-to-week breakdowns of hearing outcomes have evolved independently in each of the regional offices. As a result, there are no standard suites of reports that summarize the composition of and trends in postponements and adjournments on a regular basis for each Division. Instead, each of the regional offices and Divisions produce their own weekly and monthly summaries of postponements and adjournments. Typically, these reports consist of line item summaries of outcomes for each hearing during the most recent week and aggregated counts of reasons for postponements and adjournments for the most recent week or month. Most attention is directed to the hearing-by-hearing breakdowns with only limited, or occasional, examination of trends over time or against prior periods.

However, recording, compiling and extracting data on the reasons for postponements and adjournments poses a number of challenges for the RPD and IAD Divisions. Some members and staff interviewed also questioned the reliability of the breakdowns of reasons, given the limited capacity in STAR to store information on reasons and the reliance on manual entry of information on hearing disposition forms and other records which is then handed off for input to the STAR system. In doing so, information may have to be abbreviated to satisfy the limits of the STAR system and reasons may not be accurately interpreted. Concerns were also expressed about the consistency of coding outcomes as either postponements or adjournments (and we also noticed some such anomalies in our file review). This may be due to a lack of a clear differentiation between postponements and adjournments in most reporting on hearing outcomes and a lack of a clear understanding among Registry and adjudicative support personnel as to the definition of postponements versus adjournments. Summary information on the number and composition of, and trends in, postponements and adjournments can only be extracted from the STAR system using a macro formula written to take data from the DOS-based system and transfer it to Excel spreadsheets.

Tribunal managers recognize that the collection of data is prone to errors and identified a need for better collection methods in spite of their significant efforts to find ways of expeditiously working around the limitations of STAR. They also indicated that responsibilities for collecting and verifying data at the regional level is not clear and it is not unusual to find Divisional and Registry management undertaking parallel data collection and compilation activities. Both groups agreed that responsibilities for data collection and reporting need to be clarified.

The case reporting system for ID, ATS, also has very limited capacity to record information on the numbers of, and reasons for, postponements and adjournments. ID locations typically do not extract data and monitor the incidence and reasons for such events although the Central regional office of the ID has recently initiated efforts to extract and compile data on postponements and adjournments despite this limitation.

With regard to the quantitative data on rates of postponements and adjournments, some adjournments are of lesser significance than others from a scheduling perspective. Specifically, hearings that are adjourned to receive written submissions do not require a further hearing to be scheduled and, as such, pose no further demands on the scheduling function. In the ID, many initial hearings of admissibility reviews are effectively assignment courts but are counted as hearings that result in postponements.

G.  Management responses to the causes of postponements and adjournments

The IRB's members and adjudicative support personnel who were interviewed were all highly aware of the significance of postponements and adjournments in the mix of hearings across the Board's Divisions and locations. The ability of the IRB's management to respond to the challenges posed by postponements and adjournments is shaped by a combination of common factors, such as the availability of members, as well as differences in the volumes of cases in each location and Division and the associated ease or difficulty of coordinating workflows and communications.

Postponement and adjournment issues are a function of both the number of members on the Board – 114 GIC appointed members in RPD and IAD (versus an approved strength of 164) plus an additional 30 public service decision-makers at the ID – and the establishment and operation of case flow and hearing management practices. The number of members is below the approved strength and insufficient to maintain or reduce the level of pending cases, and is an issue that falls outside the defined scope of our evaluation. Additionally, a new case management system, ICMS, was to be phased in during 2007 but, in its initial deployment, ICMS encountered operational and functional problems and its roll-out has been suspended.

Our interpretation of interviewees' comments regarding approaches to the planning and management of scheduling is that limited attention is paid to the strategic management of the scheduling process. Individual ADCs, CMs, and their registrars and schedulers, have developed various approaches to the day-to-day management of case scheduling but no one is consistently looking at the 'big picture' on case progression. Performance data is generated and used to monitor the status of hearings for individual cases and to identify case-specific issues that could point to needs to tighten or improve the day-to-day management of hearings but attention to the aggregate flow of cases, identification and responses to systemic issues, and assessment of performance against targets or standards appears to be performed on a piecemeal basis, at best.

Two approaches have been applied to improve IRB's control over the likelihood of hearings proceeding.

The first is the use of quality control checks of case file readiness prior to hearings to ensure all necessary documents are in the file and any supporting requirements for the hearing are arranged, such as interpretation. This is a relatively passive process in that it is designed to ensure the physical file is ready and supporting arrangements for hearings are identified and put in place.

A second approach to postponement control is the use of hearing readiness, such as, the use of letters of readiness confirmation, which are used by some divisional offices to encourage hearing preparation by tribunal users as well as providing a means of managing their pending inventory. This approach verifies if tribunal users are ready to proceed at the hearing date and time set by the Board. If the tribunal users fail to respond the Board can then initiate abandonment proceedings.

In some instances, Divisions may use assignment courts, scheduling conferences or hearing readiness conferences as methods to improve control over the hearing certainty, usually for more complex cases or where a person is unrepresented. These events require the tribunal users to appear and provide a venue to formally inform these users about the necessity to appear at their hearings and to be ready to proceed. They also enable the Board to initiate abandonment proceedings if tribunal users fail to appear, similar to readiness checks.

The Board's approaches to limiting or controlling the incidence of postponements and adjournments could be strengthened if they were supported by the application of a consistent, Board-wide policy on limiting the incidence of postponements and adjournments, including standards for rescheduling postponed hearings and resuming adjourned hearings.

V.  Conclusions and Recommendations

The objectives set for this evaluation by the IRB directed us to evaluate the Board's case scheduling process, with a focus on the causes of postponements and adjournments of tribunal hearings. The conclusions and recommendations for improving the planning and management of case scheduling use the characteristics of an effective system for caseflow management that were defined in Chapter III to assess the Board's scheduling performance against established best practices. The first section summarises the key causes of postponements and adjournments as context for the conclusions and recommendations.

Moreover, the key message in this evaluation is that the IRB's caseflow, from case initiation to hearing and then to disposition, should be managed in such a way that it is predictable to all parties and that hearing certainty – that is, the expectation that hearings will take place as scheduled –should be an overriding goal.

A.  Causes of postponements and adjournments

There are several factors causing postponements and adjournments that can either be directly managed by the Board or influenced by the way members establish expectations regarding commitment of persons and counsel to proceed with a hearing, as listed below.

• Factors controlled by the Board, such as the management and oversight of interpreters, and the management of scheduling and overbooking to optimize the number of hearing postponements.
• Factors partially controllable, such as member availability for hearings.
• Factors that can be influenced, but not directly controlled, in the way the Board manages its caseflow, such as the manner in which members manage individual hearings and assess applications for postponements and adjournments, and the way the Board reaches out to persons and counsel to ensure that hearings do proceed as scheduled.

In addition, weaknesses in a number of aspects of managing the case scheduling and caseflow progress also contribute to the incidence of postponements and hearings, as described below.

1.  Limited control procedures

At a high level, the IRPA, the Divisional Rules and the Guideline 6 for RPD provide the principal control framework for the operation of the IRB's case scheduling process. This high-level framework has not been effectively applied, in terms of providing a basis for consistent interpretation and application of the Rules and Guideline to ensure timely progression and resolution of cases, thus leading to weaknesses in the Board's processes for managing case scheduling and minimizing the incidence of postponements and hearings.

• Case readiness prior to hearing, by checking that all necessary documents are in the file and any supporting requirements for the hearing are arranged, such as interpretation.
• Hearing readiness, by using contacts with persons and counsel to maximise the likelihood that they will appear and be ready to proceed at the scheduled time.
• Consistency within Divisions and within each regional office in reviewing applications for postponements prior to hearings by assigning ADCs/CMs and ID Directors the task of reviewing such applications. (Note, however, that the assessments of these applications may not be consistent between the regions.

However, the IRB has neither a policy nor a set of standards for its case scheduling processes, including key steps and procedures, nor a policy or standards regarding the management of postponement and adjournment incidence rates by its Divisions. Guideline 6 provides general guidance only on scheduling and changing the date or time of a hearing in the RPD and this guidance does not appear to be applied consistently (and recognizing that members do have discretion in the way they apply the guidelines). According to participants in our interviews, this results in a high degree of uncertainty that hearings will take place as scheduled and the development of a credibility gap for those Divisions with high rates of postponements and adjournments.

2.  Ad hoc approach to performance measurement

Development of performance measures and reports to monitor scheduling and caseflow performance is largely ad hoc, outside of the IRB Key Indicators report, which has limited applicability to the identification and analysis of caseflow management issues. Approaches to the structuring, recording and reporting of reasons have evolved independently in each of the regional offices without attention to the development of a consistent basis for reporting breakdowns of postponement and adjournment outcomes across all three regions. The reliability of input data for the current reports may also be suspect given the current steps involved in compiling, interpreting and entering postponement and adjournment information.

Reports that are produced in each of the regional offices typically consist of line item summaries of outcomes for each hearing during the most recent week and aggregated counts of reasons for postponements and adjournments for the most recent week or month. Most attention is directed to the hearing-by-hearing breakdowns with only limited attention to the aggregate flow of cases, identification of and responses to systemic issues, and assessment of performance against targets or standards.

3.  Informal risk management

IRB's senior members, managers and schedulers invest a lot of time and effort in juggling hearing schedules to maximise the volume of hearings and re-schedule postponed and adjourned hearings at the first available opportunities. In other words, tribunal managers are managing the risks of individual hearings not taking place as planned. However, attention to the aggregate flow of cases, identification and responses to systemic issues and assessment of performance against targets or standards appears piecemeal, at best.

B.  Key conclusions and recommended actions

Systemic changes are needed in the way the IRB manages case scheduling and case progression, to increase the certainty that hearings will proceed as scheduled. Actions will be necessary in the following areas, which are aligned with each of the areas of best practice described in Chapter III of this report.

1.  Exercising effective leadership

Accountabilities and responsibilities for the overall management of case scheduling, control of postponements and adjournments, and collection and reporting of related data need to be strengthened. Registrars/schedulers described their principal scheduling responsibility as being to fill the calendar as each new month is added to the rolling scheduling cycle, and to then keep it full. ADCs/CMs and ID Directors are responsible for providing information on the availability of members for hearings during scheduling cycles, reviewing applications for postponements received prior to hearings and providing guidance on assigning cases to decision-makers. Members are also expected to set dates for postponed and adjourned hearings when these events occur on the day of the hearing.

2.  Developing and meeting appropriate time expectations

The Board has no firm standards or targets for managing the progress of cases through scheduling, hearing and receiving evidence in cases, and associated management of postponements and adjournments. Detention hearings are the only exception to this due to requirements in the legislation for timely and regular review hearings. We understand that there is a goal of resuming adjourned hearings within six to eight weeks in the RPD and IAD but this is a rule-of-thumb target and no data is compiled on the extent to which resumptions occur within this time.

3.  Early and continuous control of case progress

Research on best practices in caseflow management highlights a need for strategic involvement in the process of preparing cases for hearings, for example, for tribunal leaders to know what volume and mix of cases are in the scheduling process and approaching hearing so as to provide guidance and advice for prompt case processing, as required. At the RPD and IAD, ADCs/CMs only get involved when cases are being scheduled and they do not play any role in triage and nor are they expected to get involved in checking case file readiness or hearing readiness as a matter of regular practice. This is not to say that they should be performing roles currently played by adjudicative support personnel, only that there are likely to be benefits from regular, selective involvement or guidance regarding the treatment of scheduling and hearing issues for selected cases and associated implications for hearing length.

4.  Providing firm and credible dates for hearings

Certainty that hearings will take place as scheduled is the foundation for effective caseflow management. Comments by both internal and external interviewees, which were consistent with available breakdowns of reasons for postponements and adjournments, indicated that the IRB has a credibility gap with regard to hearing certainty. Factors contributing to the high degree of uncertainty are.

• The high incidence of administrative postponements, especially those due to member unavailability and needs to accommodate overbooking of hearings, timely resumption of adjourned hearings, and hearings that go beyond their expected duration.
• A high incidence of persons/counsel failing to comply with the requirements of the Rules and the RPD's Guideline 6. We were told that variations in the willingness by members to allow applications to change the date and time of a hearing contributed to this situation, which often leads to further departures from the Rules and Guideline 6.
• High proportions of unrepresented persons, especially in ID and IAD hearings, with limited understanding of the procedural requirements for hearings and who are not prepared to proceed when they appear before a member.
• A widespread assumption that it is necessary to have a high level of postponements in order to achieve high rates of final decisions/outcomes per member. While a certain level of postponements is both necessary and desirable to minimize empty slots on the schedule, a high rate of postponements beyond a certain base level can result in exponential rates of increase in the number of hearings per case.

5.  Monitoring and information systems to inform strategic and tactical management of case progression

Senior members and staff of the IRB recognize the need for sound data to help them manage hearing schedules and processes, and have developed ways to work around the limitations of STAR and ATS. Both RPD and IAD in the Central, Eastern and Western Regions generate reports to inform the review of individual postponed and adjourned cases by Board members and staff and the ID has recently started to generate some reports on postponements and adjournments. However, the content and format of these reports differs between locations and all rely on information systems that were not designed to capture such information in a structured manner nor to generate associated management reports. Some interviewees were concerned about the reliability of this data or supplemented it with copies of the hearing forms that capture the source reasons for postponements and adjournments.

Development of performance measures and reports for higher-level monitoring of performance has been largely undertaken on an ad hoc basis without systems to provide a 'big picture' view of the trends in the volume and composition of cases flowing through the hearings process. The limitations of the STAR and ATS systems would have to be addressed to enable the development and use of higher level strategic management reports on scheduling performance

---

Appendix A:
Sources of Information on Best Practices in Case Management

Australian Law Reform Commission, Managing Justice: A Review of the Federal Civil Justice System (ALRC 89), Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 2000, para. 6.19.

Caseflow Management Guide, State Court Administrative Office, Michigan, 2004, p. 1.

Leggatt, Sir Andrew, Tribunals for Users: One System, One Service (Report of the Review of Tribunals), Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, London, 2001, para. 8.4.

New Zealand. Law Commission, Criminal Pre-trial Processes: Justice Through Efficiency, (New Zealand Law Commission Report; 89), Wellington, 2005.

Sackville, Justice Ronald, From Access to Justice to Managing Justice: the Transformation of the Judicial Role, Presentation to the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Annual Conference, “Access to Justice – The Way Forward”, Brisbane, Queensland, 2002.

Steelman, D.C., Improving Caseflow Management: A Brief Guide, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA, Revised edition, February 2008.

Task Force on Delay Reduction and Case Management, Guidelines for Best Practices in Delay Reduction and Case Management, Judicial Council of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, October 1, 2004.

---

Appendix B
List of Interviewees

IRB Interviewees

1.  Divisional Management

Stephen Budaci – Coordinating Member, Refugee Protection Division; Central Region

Verena Cantin – Advisor to the Deputy Chairperson; Refugee Protection Division; Ottawa

Marie Chevrier – Coordinating Member, Refugee Protection Division; Eastern Region

Paula Dauns – Assistant Deputy Chairperson, Refugee Protection Division; Western Region

Rick Dawson – Coordinating Member, Refugee Protection Division; Central Region

Lois Figg – Assistant Deputy Chairperson, Refugee Protection Division; Central Region

Martin Ginsherman – Coordinating Member, Refugee Protection Division; Central Region

Michel Hamelin – A/Coordinating Member, Refugee Protection Division; Eastern Region

Robert Neron – Assistant Deputy Chairperson Refugee Protection Division; Eastern Region
(former Assistant Deputy Chairperson, Immigration Appeal Division)

Frederick Ringham – Director, Immigration Division; Western Region

Ken Sandhu – Deputy Chairperson, Refugee Protection Division; Ottawa

Konrad Smelser – A/Director, Immigration Division; Central Region

Eric Whist – A/Assistant Deputy Chairperson, Immigration Appeal Division; Central Region

Kim Workun – Assistant Deputy Chairperson, Immigration Appeal Division; Western Region

Gary Yee – Special Advisor to the Deputy Chairperson, Immigration Appeal Division; Toronto

2.  Registry Management and Adjudicative Support Personnel

Harry Adamidis – Immigration Appeal Division; Central Region

Serge Arsenault – Assistant Regional Director, Refugee Protection Division; Eastern Region

Marika Bandera – Registrar, Immigration Division; Central Region

Pam Bath – Immigration Division; Western Region (Interviewed with Frederick Ringham)

Estelle Bergeron – Registrar Officer, Refugee Protection Division; Eastern Region

Natacha Bernier – Project Officer, Immigration Division; Ottawa

Suzanne Bibeau – Director, Immigration Division; Eastern Region

Marie Boucher – Assistant Regional Director, Refugee Protection Division; Eastern Region

Matthew Browne – Assistant Director, Adjudicative Support; Western Region

Joyce Budnark – A/Regional Director; Central Region

Ghislaine Charlebois – Director General, Immigration Division; Ottawa

Krista Daley – Director General, Operations Branch; Ottawa

Martine Greaves – Deputy Registrar, Immigration Appeal Division; Eastern Region

Adiba Haq – Scheduling Assistant, Immigration Appeal Division; Central Region

Pavla Horsak – A/Registrar, Refugee Protection Division; Central Region

Micheline Lafontaine – Registrar, Refugee Protection Division; Eastern Region

Jeannie Lambert – Registrar, Immigration Appeal Division; Central Region

Jean-Pierre Lecours – Former Regional Director, Central Region

Cindy Lepur – Deputy Registrar, Refugee Protection Division; Western Region

Judith Malka – Registrar, Immigration Appeal Division; Eastern Region

Brandon Mah – Scheduling Assistant, Refugee Protection Division; Western Region

Simon Perusse – Regional Director; Eastern Region

Francine Severs – Registrar, Refugee Protection Division; Western Region

Leigh Sokoloff – Tribunal Officer, Immigration Division; Central Region

Francois Thinel – Registrar Officer, Immigration Division; Eastern Region

Wen-Kei Yeung – A/Deputy Registrar, Refugee Protection Division; Central Region

External interviewees

Jacques Beauchemin – Beauchemin, Paquin, Jobin, Brisson & Philpot; Montréal

Mario Bellissimo – Ormston, Bellissimo, Rotenberg; Toronto

Jean-Francois Bertrand – Bertrand Deslauriers; Montréal

Marshall Drukarsh – Green and Spiegel; Toronto

Eric Katz – Katz Consulting Ltd.; Toronto

Shane Molyneaux – Elgin, Cannon & Associates; Vancouver

Robert Proulx – Immigration Consultant, Montréal

Gary Segal – Barrister and Solicitor; Toronto

Frank Sturino – Canada Border Services Agency; Toronto

Peter Wong – Caron & Partners; Calgary

---

Appendix C
Management Response to Recommendations

Background

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) is committed to the fair and efficient processing of the cases that come before it. Postponements and adjournments, although at times unavoidable, can unnecessarily delay finalizations in all three Divisions of the IRB. A lack of file readiness, an unanticipated illness, or late disclosure of important documents can all lead to a scheduled proceeding being rescheduled for another date.

While some postponements and adjournments are unavoidable, many are avoidable. Their reduction lies within the control of the IRB and the parties to the proceedings, including counsel. Recognizing that fact, the IRB has undertaken a number of initiatives over the past two years to reduce the high rate of postponements and adjournments, including, in December 2007, engaging KPMG to evaluate the IRB's case scheduling process with a specific focus on the causes of postponements and adjournments of IRB proceedings.

The purpose of this report is to respond to the recommendations put forward by KPMG as well as to highlight actions undertaken by the IRB to reduce the incidence of postponements and adjournments since the evaluation was tabled with IRB management.

The report groups KPMG's ten broad recommendations into five overarching themes. The IRB has already accomplished a lot to improve scheduling practices and reduce postponements and adjournments while operating in a challenging context, and the IRB is committed to achieving further progress in this area.

Please note that actions committed to in this report assume that there is no fundamental reform of the refugee determination system made in the foreseeable future. Several actions are also dependent upon additional resources being made available to the responsible Branch or Division.

Themes	Recommendations
Theme 1: Clarification of Scheduling Accountabilities	1.1, 4.3
Theme 2: Caseflow Management	2.1, 4.1
Theme 3: Effective Policy Frameworks	6.1, 6.2
Theme 4: Effective Hearing Readiness Measures	5.1, 5.2, 5.3
Theme 5: National Standards and Performance Analysis Data Collection: National Determinants and Definitions Monitoring and Analysis Reporting	3.1, 4.2, 5.4, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 9.1, 10.1

Theme 1: Clarification of Scheduling Accountabilities

The IRB agrees with these recommendations and will undertake steps to ensure that responsibilities in relation to scheduling, particularly those responsibilities of Divisional management, adjudicative support and the registry, are clearly delineated. Divisional management will ensure that scheduling parameters are only as complex as necessary so they do not become unworkable for the registry.

Work Underway

• Regionally, through the existing committee structure or other decision-making body, regional division heads, registrars and assistant directors have established a defined set of scheduling parameters in order to inform the actions and day-to-day decisions of operational managers and staff when scheduling cases.
• A new scheduling tool, ISI (Interactive Scheduling Interface) is being implemented in the regions (Q4, 2009-10). ISI provides a simple, flexible and user-driven scheduling system to support the IRB's tribunal-based operations. Scheduling parameters are clarified to increase scheduling performance.

Theme 2: Caseflow Management

The IRB agrees to further explore this recommendation. The IRB will undertake a review of the literature on caseflow management including its application in other court and tribunal settings.

Work Underway

Many of the elements of effective caseflow management plan are already in place. Examples include the following: Division Case Management Manual, inventory report, case age report, 60-day reasons report, consistent approach to adjournments and postponements (Chairperson Memorandum to all Divisions, March 2008), mechanisms that promote effective caseflow management: ADR, readiness letter and pre-conference.

Action on this recommendation will be pending on decisions taken after further study of the caseflow management perspective including its application in other court and tribunal settings.

Theme 3: Effective Policy Frameworks

The IRB notes that practices and procedures specifying case scheduling processes are already in place, such as divisional Case Management Manuals and Guideline 6 (Scheduling and Changing the Date or Time of a Proceeding in the Refugee Protection Division) and Guideline 7 (Preparation and Conduct of a Hearing in the Refugee Protection Division). Divisional commentaries and regional scheduling parameters referred to above also inform the scheduling process nationally. As such, further policy development in this area is not felt to be necessary.

Work Underway

• Work is already underway to establish a national, cross-divisional list of reasons for postponements and adjournments and adapt STAR so those reasons might be tracked.
• Guideline 6 is being updated to apply to all Divisions.
• Ongoing professional development is being delivered to ensure members consistency in application of the Rules and Guideline 6.
• Coordinating members decide on all pre-hearing applications to postpone in order to provide consistent decision-making and strong adherence to the RPD Rules.
• In March 2008, the Chairperson issued a Memorandum listing the measures for a “consistent approach to changing a date of a proceeding (adjournments and postponements) in all divisions”.

Theme 4: Effective Hearing Readiness Measures

The IRB agrees with these recommendations and has recently put in place a number of measures to ensure files and persons concerned are ready to proceed to a hearing. The IRB will continue to adopt best practices such as scheduling conferences when it is in the Board's and parties best interest and will actively explore other methods to improve file and hearing readiness.

Work Underway

There are many initiatives underway within the three Divisions of the IRB to ensure that the file and the person concerned are ready to proceed to a hearing. Examples include the following:

• IAD: Enhanced hearing readiness actions through the development and implementation of a hearing readiness checklist which is filled out by a Tribunal Officer and appellant at the conclusion of a failed alternative dispute resolution (ADR) conference or at a scheduling conference. The initiative results in a signed document which attests to the appellant's state of readiness in terms of his or her appeal proceeding to a hearing.
• RPD: The IRB is making a broader use of the readiness letter for older claims and quality assurance check-listing is in place in the registry. Scheduling conferences are used for unrepresented claimants so they are made aware of the process and any obligations they have, such as with regards to the timely provision of information.
• ID: Case management conferences are conducted with the parties to establish the readiness of the case and to set the date for the admissibility hearing (Central region). Scheduling conferences are used to ensure that issues that might lead to further postponements and / or adjournments of cases are identified and addressed (Eastern region).

Theme 5: National Standards and Performance Analysis

The IRB concurs with the recommendations. The IRB will work on improving its data collection/monitoring within the existing resources and initiatives.

Initiatives Underway

• In the last two years, the IRB has achieved significant improvements in compliance with the 60-day time standard for outstanding reasons, through the provision of training, enhanced monitoring and regular reporting.
• Work is underway to establish performance indicators for quality and timeliness of decision-making. The indicators are being piloted in 2009-10 and will be implemented in 2010-11.
• Quantitative performance standards for members have been established and are monitored on an ongoing basis by member managers.
• Member's availability criteria were reviewed.

The IRB agrees with this recommendation.

Initiatives Underway

A Working group was mandated to harmonize the criteria, definitions and methods employed to generate statistical reporting on member availability for all three divisions of the IRB. The working group recommendations are now applied by the Standards, Analysis and Monitoring Section for monitoring purpose.

Data Collection: National Determinants and Definitions

The IRB agrees with the recommendations to establish a systematic and consistent data collection and performance measurement system. The IRB will work on improving its data collection/monitoring within the existing resources and initiatives. In the next fiscal year, the Operations Branch will seek funding to develop a national monitoring framework and will examine options to reallocate existing resources to improving data collection/monitoring/analysis.

Work Underway

• Work is already underway to consolidate a national, cross-divisional list of reasons for postponements and adjournments and to adapt STAR so these reasons might be tracked. In a short-term, this will provide better tracking and allow for corrective measures to be taken.
• The ongoing monitoring and regular reporting of the 60-day time standard for outstanding reasons as well as the development of indicators to measure quality and timeless of decision are two initiatives that support standards and performance analysis.
• Reasons for the granting of postponements and adjournments are tracked with corrective measures taken where appropriate.

Monitoring and Analysis

The IRB agrees with this recommendation. The IRB will consider Recommendation 8 in the development of its inventory management strategies.

The IRB agrees with this recommendation. The IRB will work on further improving its data collection/monitoring within the existing resources and initiatives.

Work Underway

• A regional meeting is taking place between Divisions and Registry Management on a regular basis to monitor and review postponements and adjournments.
• A bi-annual national meeting takes place between the Operations Branch and the Divisional management. Postponements and adjournments are addressed at this forum.
• Ongoing professional development is offered to ensure members are consistent in their application of the Rules, and in the case of RPD members, Guideline 6 (Scheduling and Changing the Date or Time of a Proceeding in the Refugee Protection Division).
• Ongoing monitoring of postponements and adjournments: trends are discussed regionally and quarterly reports are submitted nationally with reasons and corrective actions taken.

Reporting

The IRB agrees with this recommendation. The IRB believes that the following initiatives contribute to improve scheduling performance.

• Work is under way to consolidate a national, cross-divisional list of reasons for postponements and adjournments and to adapt STAR so those reasons might be tracked.
• Ongoing monitoring of postponements and adjournments; trends are discussed regionally and quarterly reports are submitted nationally with reasons and corrective actions.
• An Interactive Scheduling System is being implemented.
• Work is underway to establish performance indicators for quality and timeliness of decision-making. The indicators are being piloted in 2009-10 and will be implemented in 2010-11. Ongoing monitoring of the following data: age of cases, pending inventory, oral reasons and 60-day reasons to improve scheduling performance.

Endnotes

1. Guideline 6, Scheduling and Changing the Date or Time of a Proceeding in the Refugee Protection Division, December 1, 2003.
2. This approach means that ID statistics for adjournments include cases where the member is seized and others where any member can be assigned to the re-scheduled hearing. Ideally, ID should bring its definition of postponements and adjournments into line with that used by the RPD and IAD to provide a consistent basis for monitoring and managing postponements and adjournments across all Divisions.
3. Interpreters are not full-time employees of the IRB but contractors whose services are utilized when hearings require interpretation in a particular language or languages. This means that the availability of interpreters is not fully controlled by the Board and the availability of interpreters with required language skills for scheduled hearings cannot be taken for granted. Detailed investigation of the management of interpreters was outside the scope of this study; however, this is another area of possible risk for the IRB's control processes for case scheduling and caseflow management.
4. Not all Divisions practice overbooking nor do all regions.
5. RCO refers to Refugee Claim Officer. They subsequently became RPO, Refugee Protection Officers and are now referred to as Tribunal Officers.
6. In this report, we have used the terms 'person(s)' and 'tribunal user(s)' to describe in generic terms the 'refugee protection claimant' for refugee protection cases; the 'appellant' for immigration appeal cases; and, the 'person concerned' for detention reviews and admissibility hearings.
7. RPD Case Management Manual: 17. Scheduling of Proceedings, IRB, Issue No.4 – 2006-12-15, para. 17.1
8. These guidelines are from the RPD's Rules (Rule 48). The ID and IAD's Rules contain similar guidelines (Rules 43 and 48, respectively).
9. Caseflow Management Guide, State Court Administrative Office, Michigan, 2004, p. 1.
10. Leggatt, Sir Andrew, Tribunals for Users: One System, One Service (Report of the Review of Tribunals), Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, London, 2001, para. 8.4.
11. Caseflow Management Guide, op. cit., p. 1.
12. See for example, Steelman, D.C., Improving Caseflow Management: A Brief Guide, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA, Revised edition, February 2008; and, Task Force on Delay Reduction and Case Management, Guidelines for Best Practices in Delay Reduction and Case Management, Judicial Council of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, October 1, 2004.
13. Leggatt, A., op. cit., para. 8.15.
14. Caseflow Management Guide, op. cit., chapter 4, page 9.
15. Australian Law Reform Commission, Managing Justice: A Review of the Federal Civil Justice System (ALRC 89), Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 2000, para. 6.19.
16. Based on: Steelman, D.C. op. cit., p. 10 – Steps to ensure firm trial dates.
17. Australian Law Reform Commission, op. cit., para. 6.39.
18. The ID generally has much shorter hearings due to the nature of its cases.
19. The reference to an underlying or 'natural' rate of postponements and adjournments refers to the fact that, even in the most efficiently managed tribunal operation it will be necessary to postpone or adjourn some cases. There does not appear to be a general incidence figure or range for this natural rate, due to differences in the nature of cases heard by different tribunals and courts, and processes required by their enabling legislation and regulations.
20. Section 159(1)(f) of the IRPA provides that the Chairperson “apportions work among the members of the Board and fixes the place, date and time of proceedings.”
21. Interpreters are not full-time employees of the IRB but contractors whose services are utilized as needed, and as such, their availability cannot be fully controlled by the IRB's schedulers.
22. At the ID, the percentage of cases postponed prior to the hearing is much lower than 30%; the majority of postponements (called adjournments in the ID) happen at the hearing.
23. The Regional breakdown of these samples was:
    RPD – Central: 29, Eastern: 24, and Western: 20;
    IAD – Central: 7, Eastern: 7, and Western: 8;
    ID – Central: 8, Eastern: 9, and Western: 10.
24. Data on average processing times for cases heard by the ID is not published in the Division's Key Indicators Report and are thus not able to compare the average elapsed times for the sample of cases to the averages for all ID cases.
25. The samples of IAD and ID cases were too small to support breakdowns by Region.
26. The correlation (r²) between the number of scheduled hearings per case and elapsed time to final hearing was 0.40. In other words, for our sample of RPD cases in the rate of change in the number of scheduled hearings per case explained 40 percent of the variance in elapsed times per case.

About PDF