TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
2. TIME LIMIT
3. EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE PIF
4. ENDNOTES

INTRODUCTION

The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) is the largest division of Canada's largest administrative tribunal, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). Administrative tribunals operate less formally and more expeditiously than courts of law. Accordingly, the Immigration and RefugeeProtection Act (IRPA) requires the IRB to deal with proceedings before it informally, quickly and fairly. ¹ The Chairperson has issued these guidelines because timely and accurate provision of the Personal Information Form (PIF) is necessary for the RPD to carry out its mandate under IRPA.

The guidelines apply to most cases heard by the RPD. However, in compelling or exceptional circumstances, the members will use their discretion not to apply some guidelines or to apply them less strictly.

Generally speaking, the RPD will make allowances for unrepresented claimants who are unfamiliar with the Division's processes and rules. Claimants identified as particularly vulnerable will be treated with special sensitivity.

TIME LIMIT

The PIF must be received by the RPD no later than 28 days after the claimant received it from Citizenship and Immigration Canada. ² If the RPD does not receive the PIF on time, this may lead to a decision that the claim has been abandoned. The process for declaring a claim abandoned is set out in the Refugee Protection Division Rules (RPD Rules) . ³

In normal circumstances 28 days is enough time to provide a PIF. This time limit provides a claimant with a reasonable period to provide information about his or her claim, while also allowing the RPD to operate efficiently. It is expected that this time limit will be followed unless there are exceptional circumstances.

EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE PIF

1. The claimant may apply to the RPD for an extension of time to provide the PIF. ⁴ A claimant is expected to act responsibly when seeking an extension of time. This means that the claimant should apply for the extension within the 28-day timeframe. If an extension is requested and not granted, an abandonment hearing will be scheduled automatically as the PIF has not been provided within the 28-day timeframe. ⁵
2. A request for an extension of time that is made outside of the 28-day timeframe must be dealt with at the abandonment hearing even if the extension request is filed prior to the abandonment hearing. ⁶
3. The fact that a claimant is waiting for an application for legal aid to be approved or has failed to obtain legal aid funding is not, in and of itself, a reason for granting an extension of time to file the PIF. ⁷
4. The fact that a claimant has been unable to hire his or her counsel of choice is not, in and of itself, a reason for granting an extension of time to file the PIF. The claimant is expected to retain counsel who is available to assist with PIF completion within the 28-day timeframe set by the RPD. ⁸
5. If the claimant has not received a copy of the Port of Entry notes, this is not a reason for granting an extension of time to file the PIF.
6. The granting of an extension of time to file the PIF is only to occur in exceptional circumstances. The particular circumstances of the claimant must be considered in deciding whether to grant an extension of time or to declare a claim abandoned. Most extensions should not be more than 5 working days as the claimant is expected to act even more responsibly once the 28-day timeframe set by the RPD has passed.
7. Where an extension of time to file the PIF is granted by the RPD, the direction to the claimant must include (1) the due date for providing the PIF, and (2) a warning that failure to provide the PIF within the extended timeframe will result in abandonment proceedings being scheduled.
8. Where the PIF is provided after the 28-day timeframe, but before the abandonment hearing, the claimant must still attend the abandonment hearing. The presence of the claimant at the abandonment hearing is necessary so that the claimant can state the reasons why he or she failed to provide the PIF within the 28-day timeframe. This inquiry must take place to ensure that all relevant factors are considered. The fact that the claimant has provided the PIF by the time this inquiry takes place does not mean that the inquiry is not necessary.
9. When a claimant comes to an abandonment hearing and provides the PIF at the hearing, this is not, in and of itself, a basis for allowing the claim to proceed. The readiness of the claimant to proceed is only one of the factors that must be considered in deciding whether the claim should be declared abandoned. The RPD will consider the explanations given by the claimant and any other relevant information. ⁹

Endnotes

1. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 162(2).
2. Refugee Protection Division Rules, s. 6(1). The 28-day timeframe and the fact that abandonment is a possible consequence of failing to comply is set out in the instructions on the first page of the PIF.
3. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 168(1); Refugee Protection Division Rules, s. 58.
4. Refugee Protection Division Rules, s. 6(2).
5. Refugee Protection Division Rules, s. 58(2); Commentary to Rules 5 and 6.
6. Commentary to Rules 5 and 6.
7. Shokri, Evette v.M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1768-01), Blanchard, July 12, 2002.
8. Pilnitz, Viktor v.M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1205-96), Tremblay-Lamer, March 7, 1997.
9. Refugee Protection Division Rules, s. 58(3). In Ghassan, Daher v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2843-93), Denault, June 22, 1994 the Court held that the very purpose of the abandonment hearing is to allow the person concerned to explain the reasons why he did not abandon the claim. The Court rejected the argument that as long as a claimant produces a PIF at an abandonment hearing this was evidence of intent to proceed with the claim and therefore it was not possible to conclude that the claim had been abandoned.

Related Links

Backgrounder