Separating Refugee Claims at the RPD

Lina sat in the Immigration and Refugee Board’s waiting room, clutching her folder of documents. She had fled Eritrea with her brother, but their claims told very different stories. Her lawyer had requested that their refugee claims be separated, yet the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decided to hear them together. Lina wondered why.

Understanding Why the RPD Joins Claims

The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) often joins family members’ claims. This approach typically saves time and ensures consistent decisions. According to Rule 55(1) of the RPD Rules, claims by family members must be joined unless it is not practicable.

Joined claims allow for:

• Coordinated hearing dates and shared interpreters
• Evaluation of consistent facts across applications
• Efficient use of resources by the Board

In Dhaliwal v. Canada (2024 FC 1542), the RPD joined claims from two families. Although the families objected, the RPD noted strong factual overlap. The Federal Court found this joinder reasonable.

Legal Framework for Separating Claims

Rule 56 of the RPD Rules permits the separation of claims when appropriate. A party may apply to join separate claims under Rule 56(2). The RPD must consider all relevant factors under Rule 56(5).

These include:

• Whether the claims involve similar questions of fact or law
• Whether separation would improve administrative efficiency
• Whether joining or separating the claims would cause injustice

The rules provide flexibility, but the onus rests on the applicant to justify separation.

When Separation Is Justified

Separation may be necessary when joined claims create unfairness. This might arise from conflicting interests or health-related complications.

In Koky v. Canada (2015 FC 562), the RPD separated the wife’s claim on the basis of her medical condition. She was psychologically unfit to attend. The RPD found that disjoining her claim preserved her right to a fair hearing. The Federal Court upheld the RPD’s decision, citing administrative efficiency and lack of injustice.

Key reasons that justify separation:

• A claimant’s medical condition prevents participation
• The claims conflict in substance or credibility
• The joinder could prejudice a party’s case

However, separation must not be used simply to seek a favourable panel or outcome.

Unjustified Attempts to Separate Claims

In some cases, applicants claim that joinder is unfair without proper justification. The RPD and the courts require more than mere assertions of difference.

In Rukoro v. Canada (2020 FC 417), the applicants argued that RPD should have heard their claims separately. They claimed their situations differed too much. However, they did not explain how joinder caused actual unfairness. The court found the RPD had considered each claim fairly and saw no basis for separation.

Therefore, to succeed in a separation application, the claimant must do more than state that their claims differ.

How the RPD Balances Factors

The RPD must apply discretion fairly and transparently. It must consider all evidence and ensure that joining or separating claims promotes justice.

In Dhaliwal, the RPD refused separation after weighing the high factual similarity. In Koky, the RPD recognized the mental health barriers that made separation necessary. In Rukoro, the RPD found no prejudice in joinder.

This shows that context matters. The RPD’s task is not only administrative but also judicial.

Best Practices for Counsel Seeking Separation

Counsel should carefully assess the implications of joinder or separation. A strategic approach involves presenting clear evidence and explaining how joinder could harm fairness.

Before applying to separate claims:

• Review whether claims share the same facts or legal issues
• Determine if any party has a condition preventing participation
• Prepare submissions showing how joinder could cause injustice

A well-prepared application under Rule 56(2) has a better chance of success when it addresses the factors set out in Rule 56(5).

Conclusion

Separating refugee claims at the RPD requires clear evidence and legal justification. You must assess each case on its own facts. Applicants and counsel must be ready to show that separation is essential for fairness.

If you or your client face issues, contact us today. We can help you assess your options and prepare a strong case for separation or joinder.

List of Case Laws

• Dhaliwal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1542 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/k74qv, retrieved on 2025-03-25
• Koky v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 562 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/ghk53, retrieved on 2025-03-25
• Rukoro v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 417 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jfjr0, retrieved on 2025-03-25

Take the Refugee Appeal Assessment

If you are facing a failed refugee claim, fill out the following form. However, for brand-new refugee claims, fill out our Refugee Claim Self-Assessment tool.

Take the Refugee Claim Self-Assessment

Please answer the questions below honestly. The form provides an immediate estimate of your claim’s strength based on the information you provide.

Disclaimer: This assessment is generated by an automated algorithm and does not constitute official legal advice.