ADR conferences at the IRB Immigration Appeal Division (IAD)

Samira, a permanent resident of Canada, waited over two years to reunite with her husband in Morocco. When IRCC refused their spousal sponsorship, she appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD). Instead of waiting months for a hearing, IAD selected her case for an ADR conference. Within weeks, she and the Minister’s counsel resolved the issue. Her appeal succeeded, avoiding a full hearing. This gave Samira peace of mind and a clear path forward while maintaining her dignity and avoiding the stress of a courtroom battle.

Understanding ADR conferences at the IAD

ADR stands for Alternative Dispute Resolution. In the Immigration Appeal Division, a “conference” refers to a structured meeting between the appellant, the Minister’s counsel, and a facilitator to resolve the appeal informally and collaboratively without a formal hearing. The facilitator in IAD ADR conferences is often an Early Resolution Officer (ERO), who mediates between the two parties. EROs are typically employees of the IRB. However, the facilitator could also be a member of the Board, meaning a regular adjudicator. If a member facilitates the ADR, they cannot later preside over the hearing unless both parties give consent. 

ADR conferences offer a faster and more collaborative alternative to full hearings at the IAD. They aim to resolve certain immigration appeals efficiently through informal but structured discussions. These sessions provide a unique opportunity for parties to focus on facts, clarify misunderstandings, and agree on resolutions reflecting compassion and legal compliance.

Under Rules 69 to 71 of the Immigration Appeal Division Rules, 2022, the IAD can initiate or approve requests for an ADR conference when a case seems resolvable without a hearing. These rules offer a legal and procedural framework for selecting cases with the potential for early resolution.

Legal framework for ADR conferences

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) does not mention ADR directly. However, section 161 empowers the IRB Chairperson to create procedural rules. This authority supports the creation of the IAD Rules, including those that govern ADR conferences. Therefore, ADR is a legitimate and structured option under the current legal regime.

Rules 69 to 71: Core structure

• Rule 69 allows the IAD or a party to request an ADR conference. The request must explain why ADR could resolve the matter.
• Rule 70 requires the IAD to assign either a member or a Board employee as the facilitator. If a member is chosen, they must not hear the appeal unless both parties agree.
• Rule 71 confirms that any agreement reached must be in writing and is not confidential. This ensures transparency and accountability.

These rules create a foundation that respects procedural fairness while promoting early resolution.

Who facilitates these conferences?

A Board employee known as an Early Resolution Officer (ERO) typically facilitates the conference. EROs are neutral professionals trained in dispute resolution. They guide the conversation, help clarify issues, and promote a resolution. If a Board member serves as a facilitator, they are disqualified from hearing the appeal unless both parties consent. This separation ensures fairness and avoids conflicts of interest.

Comparing ADR conferences to hearings

ADR conferences differ significantly from full hearings. Their purpose and design serve to reduce formality, promote efficiency, and ease emotional burdens. Here are some important differences:

• ADR sessions are informal and non-adversarial.
• The setting encourages respectful and open dialogue.
• Parties focus on facts, not legal posturing.
• The process allows space for compromise and understanding.
• The facilitator acts as a mediator rather than a decision-maker.
• The stress level is often much lower for appellants.

These features make ADR especially suitable for straightforward cases involving family reunification or procedural misunderstandings.

Confidentiality in ADR conferences

While the discussion during an ADR conference remains confidential, the final agreement is not. This distinction is set out in Rule 71(2). Confidentiality allows the parties to speak openly, while transparency in agreements ensures accountability and protects the integrity of the process.

In the past, Rule 20 of the previous IAD Rules emphasized confidentiality even more strongly. Under the new rules, the confidentiality of the discussion is now implied rather than detailed. Nonetheless, the practice continues based on procedural norms and case law.

Case law supporting this practice

Several decisions by the Federal Court and the IRB have shaped the legal understanding of ADR conferences and their limits.

Grewal v. Canada (2020 FC 1186)

In paragraph 31, the court recognized ADR as a valid way to resolve IAD appeals. Justice McHaffie noted that the IAD Rules support early resolution without a hearing. This case helped solidify ADR as a common-law-informed tool within the IAD process.

Wysozki v. Canada (2020 FC 458)

In this case, the appellant argued that having the same Minister’s counsel in both ADR and the hearing breached confidentiality. The court disagreed, stating that presence alone does not equal disclosure. This case clarified the boundary of confidentiality under the old rules.

Canada v. Pierre (2012 FC 1169)

Here, the Minister used an affidavit from the ADR process. The court ruled that documents disclosed before ADR are not protected by confidentiality. This reinforced the idea that ADR confidentiality covers only new or undisclosed information.

IRB cases: Gill, Manokaran, Veinotte, Shah

These IRB decisions further support the structure and intent of ADR conferences. In Gill and Manokaran, the Board affirmed settlements reached in ADR. Moreover, in Veinotte, the Board protected ADR confidentiality by denying cross-examination. Finally, in Shah, a witness who attended ADR later testified at the hearing, which the panel allowed under the exceptions listed in the rules.

The process of ADR conferences

ADR conferences follow a structured format to ensure fairness and consistency. The typical steps include:

• The facilitator opens the session and explains the process.
• The Minister’s counsel and facilitator ask questions of the appellant.
• The appellant responds, clarifies issues, and provides personal context.
• The parties consider options for resolving the appeal.
• If a resolution is reached, it is confirmed in writing and submitted.
• The case moves forward to a full hearing if no agreement is reached.

In some cases, the facilitator may speak with parties separately in caucus. This allows confidential clarification and increases the chances of agreement.

When does IAD choose ADR?

The IAD selects cases for ADR when the issues appear resolvable through informal discussion. Common situations include:

• Strong documentation of a genuine family relationship
• Misunderstandings that can be easily addressed
• Humanitarian and compassionate factors
• New evidence filed after the refusal decision

Parties may also request ADR. The request must explain why ADR is likely to succeed. The IAD evaluates the request based on the case’s potential for early resolution.

Role of counsel in ADR conferences

Counsel plays a vital role in the success of ADR. Their responsibilities begin well before the conference:

• Review the refusal reasons and appeal record carefully
• Help clients gather strong, clear evidence
• Submit an ADR request with compelling reasons
• Prepare the client by explaining the process and potential outcomes
• Attend the ADR conference and intervene when helpful

Effective counsel knows when to speak and when to let the process unfold. This approach builds trust and enhances resolution.

Advantages

ADR conferences offer many advantages to both appellants and the Minister:

• Quicker resolution than full hearings
• The lower emotional burden for appellants
• Greater chance to explain unique circumstances
• Reduced resource strain on the IRB
• Encourages communication and mutual understanding

Clients often describe the experience as empowering and more humane than formal hearings.

Limitations

Despite their benefits, ADR conferences have limitations:

• Parties cannot choose the facilitator
• Complex legal issues may not suit informal resolution
• There is no right to judicial review of the ADR session itself
• Confidentiality may be misunderstood or unevenly applied

Parties must understand that ADR is a tool, not a guaranteed solution. It is most effective when both sides approach it in good faith.

Conclusion: Explore your options

ADR conferences can greatly simplify immigration appeals at the IAD. I attended my first ADR conference in 2018. Since then, I have directed many of my appeal cases toward this route. These conferences have allowed numerous clients to resolve their appeals quickly and positively. Instead of going through long and stressful hearings, my clients have often benefited from faster decisions and a more collaborative atmosphere. If you or your client face an appeal, consider whether ADR might offer a more humane and efficient resolution. These sessions allow parties to work together toward an outcome without the formal pressures of a full hearing.

Book a consultation today to assess your case, understand the full process, and explore whether ADR is the right path forward for your situation. Alternatively, fill out the following form to contact our team.

List of Case Laws

• Grewal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1186 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jcb92>, retrieved on 2025-03-21
• Wysozki v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2020 FC 458 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/j6f95>, retrieved on 2025-03-21
• Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Pierre, 2012 FC 1169 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/ftv51>, retrieved on 2025-03-21
• Gill v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 94614 (CA IRB), <https://canlii.ca/t/frs3t>, retrieved on 2025-03-21
• Manokaran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 85977 (CA IRB), <https://canlii.ca/t/fpq5n>, retrieved on 2025-03-21
• Shah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 CanLII 67576 (CA IRB), <https://canlii.ca/t/1zhqr>, retrieved on 2025-03-21
• Veinotte v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 CanLII 67477 (CA IRB), <https://canlii.ca/t/1zfzx>, retrieved on 2025-03-21