Introduction

The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada is a competent authority responsible for hearing certain immigration-related appeals. In recent months, there has been an increase in the number of appeals brought before the IAD (see table 1), highlighting the need for a clear understanding of the hearing process.

This article aims to offer a practical walkthrough of the typical hearing structure. It’s written for readers seeking clarity on what to expect during an IAD appeal. While not a substitute for official IRB materials, references to authoritative sources have been included to support and complement the observations shared throughout.

Table 1

Month	Year 2024	Year 2025
January	288	336
February	265	318
March	285	341
April	296	374

 

What appeals can be filed before the IAD

1.     Sponsorship appeals pursuant to section 63(1) of IRPA.

2.     Removal order appeals pursuant to section 63(2) and 63(3) IRPA.

3.     Residency obligation appeals pursuant to section 63(4) IRPA.

4.     Appeals filed by the Minister pursuant to section 63(5) IRPA.

 

Understanding Key Terms

Before appearing at an IAD hearing, it’s essential for a representative to be familiar with the basic terminology and procedural courtesies. These foundational terms help set the tone for clear, professional communication during proceedings. For reference, please refer to Rule 1 of the IAD Rules.

• Appellant: This is the individual who has filed the appeal. As a representative, you should consistently refer to your client as the appellant during submissions and throughout the hearing process.
• Respondent: In most cases, the Minister is the respondent. However, if the Minister initiates the appeal, the individual who was the subject of the original Immigration Division decision becomes the respondent.
• Member: This refers to the decision-maker presiding over the hearing, a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board. When addressing or referring to the Member, it’s standard practice to use respectful terms such as Madam Member, Sir Member, or simply Member, whether speaking directly or referring to them during submissions.

 

Nature of the Hearing

QUASI-JUDICIAL

IAD hearings are quasi-judicial in nature. This means they follow a process similar to a court but are not strictly bound by formal court rules. The appellant has the right to be represented by a licensed counsel or representative, to present evidence, and to receive a decision from the Member presiding over the case.

DE-NOVO

These hearings are also conducted on a de novo basis. In simple terms, this means the matter is heard afresh. New facts, updated documentation, or additional evidence may be introduced, even if they weren’t part of the original decision under appeal.

ADVERSARIAL

The process is adversarial, meaning there is an opposing party involved, represented by the Minister’s counsel. A common misconception is that the Minister only participates after issuing a notice, which is true for the cases in the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) hearings. However, at the IAD, the Minister’s counsel is always present and actively participates, unless the Minister opts to file written submissions instead.

Burden of Proof (Onus)

Generally, the burden of proof, also known as the onus, rests with the appellant. This includes:

• Sponsorship appeals under subsection 63(1) of IRPA.
• Residency obligation appeals under subsection 63(4) of IRPA.
• Cases involving humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) considerations, assessed under subsection 67(1) of IRPA.

In these cases, it’s the appellant’s responsibility to provide enough credible evidence and arguments to persuade the Member that the appeal should be allowed.

However, there is an important exception. In removal order appeals, when the underlying removal order was issued by the Immigration Division under subsection 45(d) and the subject of the section 44 report is a permanent resident, the burden shifts. In such cases, it’s the Minister who must prove that the individual is inadmissible to Canada.

Understanding the ONUS in each type of appeal is crucial, as it shapes the overall strategy and presentation of evidence.

Disclaimer:
This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are those of the author and are based on personal/ professional experience and publicly available sources at the time of writing. Readers should consult official IRB documentation or seek qualified legal counsel for case-specific guidance. The author assumes no liability for actions taken based on the content of this article.

Have questions or need guidance?
Feel free to contact me directly for further discussion or support.
Name: Harpreet Singh 
Contact: Book a consultation at https://www.mggimmigration.com/#contact
WhatsApp text: +16478714537