October 3, 2003
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
AT THE IMMIGRATION APPEAL DIVISION (IAD)
The use of Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) offers
an informal, less confrontational and more consensual approach to dealing
with sponsorship appeals, which essentially concern
the appellant's desire to reunify his or her family. ADR
is consistent with the Immigration and Refugee Board's vision to
deal with matters "simply, quickly and fairly."
The success of a 1998 ADR pilot
project in the IAD Toronto
office led to the ADR process
being made a permanent part of the Toronto office's case processing
for many types of sponsorship appeals. The ADR process
was then implemented in Vancouver in 2000 after further study, refinement
and consultation. Following the implementation of the new Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, which came into force on June 28, 2002,
the Montréal, and Calgary offices started using ADR in
the Fall of 2003, followed by Ottawa in January 2004.
The ADR process at the IAD usually involves an in-person meeting -
an ADR Conference - that is scheduled to last for one hour. The
IAD assigns a member to act as a dispute resolution officer (DRO) for
each appeal that is selected for the ADR process. All DROs receive training
in ADR and have in depth substantive and procedural knowledge of sponsorship
appeal issues. In addition to the DRO, the ADR Conference participants
are the Minister's counsel, and the appellant and their counsel. About
half of the cases that go through ADR will have a final result without
the parties having to attend an oral hearing. Usually this is CIC agreeing
to the appeal being allowed, or it could be the appellant withdrawing
the appeal.
There are written ADR procedures and there is specific ADR rule in the
new IAD Rules - Rule 20 covers such matters as exchange of documents,
participating in good faith, confidentiality and IAD approval of any settlements.
An independent consultant's evaluation in 2001
confirmed that the IAD's
use of ADR
contributes significantly to the efficiency, effectiveness, and quality
of administrative justice at the IAD.
It provides appellants with a process that is generally viewed as fair
and worthwhile and often produces savings in terms of costs and time.
Its informality reduces the tension often felt by participants in adversarial
proceedings.
The
ADR program has not, however, reached its full potential. The IAD accepted
all of the recommendations of Leslie Macleod's evaluation
report, and they have now largely been implemented - this includes
enhancing of ADR training for dispute resolution officers and Minister's
counsel, and providing more detailed written guidelines on ADR procedures
and practices.
|