Rules Amending the Refugee Protection Division Rules: SOR/2026-219

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 160, Number 22

Registration
SOR/2026-219 October 23, 2026

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT

P.C. 2026-1006 October 23, 2026

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, under subsection 161(1)footnote a of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Actfootnote b, approves the annexed Rules Amending the Refugee Protection Division Rules made by the Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board, in consultation with the Deputy Chairpersons.

The Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, in consultation with the Deputy Chairpersons, makes the annexed Rules Amending the Refugee Protection Division Rules under subsection 161(1)footnote a of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Actfootnote b.

Ottawa, September 22, 2026

Manon Brassard
Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board

Rules Amending the Refugee Protection Division Rules

Amendments

1 (1) The definitions Basis of Claim Form, officer and vulnerable person in rule 1 of the Refugee Protection Division Rulesfootnote 1 are repealed.

(2) Paragraph (a) of the definition contact information in rule 1 of the Rules is replaced by the following:

(3) Rule 1 of the Rules is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

basis of claim information
means the information referred to in Schedule 1 that a claimant must provide under paragraph 6(1)(a). (renseignements sur le fondement de la demande d’asile)

2 Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules are replaced by the following:

Providing documents and information in writing

3 (1) If the Minister refers a claim for refugee protection to the Division under subsection 100.1(1) of the Act, the Minister must, without delay,

Providing copies to claimant

(2) The Minister must provide to the claimant a copy of any documents or information that the Minister has provided to the Division under paragraph (1)(b).

Change to contact information

4 (1) If a claimant’s contact information changes after their claim is referred to the Division under subsection 100.1(1) of the Act, or transmitted to the Division under subsection 102.1(1) of the Act, the claimant must without delay provide the changes in writing to the Division and to the Minister.

Information concerning claimant’s counsel

(2) If a claimant retains or changes counsel — or if their counsel’s contact information changes — after their claim has been referred to the Division under subsection 100.1(1) of the Act, or transmitted to the Division under subsection 102.1(1) of the Act, the claimant must without delay provide the following information, in writing, to the Division and to the Minister:

3 The heading before rule 6 and rules 6 to 9 of the Rules are replaced by the following:

Basis of Claim Information and Documents

Documents and information to be provided

6 (1) For the purposes of subsection 100(4) of the Act, the claimant must provide the following documents and information to the Minister:

For greater certainty

(2) For greater certainty, every claimant who is 18 years of age or older must provide the applicable declarations referred to in paragraphs (1)(d) to (f) whether or not their claim is made together with other claimants.

Changes or additions to information

7 (1) To make changes or additions to the basis of claim information after a claim has been referred to the Division under subsection 100.1(1) of the Act, the claimant must provide to the Division the changes or additions, in writing, together with

Time limit

(2) The information referred to in subrule (1) must be provided without delay but must be received no later than five days after the day on which the claimant receives a notice to appear referred to in rule 25.

Identity and travel documents

(3) A claimant who obtains an identity or travel document after the claim has been referred to the Division under subsection 100.1(1) of the Act must provide, without delay, the original to the Minister and a copy of it to the Division together with a statement indicating how and when the original was provided to the Minister.

Language of documents and information

8 (1) The documents and information referred to in rules 6 and 7 must be in English or French.

Exception — identity and travel documents

(2) Despite subrule (1), the following documents may be provided in a language other than English or French:

4 Subrule 10(5) of the Rules is replaced by the following:

Variation of order of questioning

(5) The Division must not vary the order of questioning unless there are exceptional circumstances.

5 Rule 23 of the Rules and the heading before it are repealed.

6 (1) Subrules 25(1) and (2) of the Rules are replaced by the following:

Notice to appear

25 (1) The Division must notify the claimant or protected person and the Minister, in writing, of the date, time and location of the proceeding and, if applicable, of any information required to attend the proceeding by a means of live telecommunication.

(2) The portion of subrule 25(3) of the Rules before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Date fixed for hearing

(3) The date fixed for a hearing of a claim or an application to vacate or to cease refugee protection must not be earlier than 20 days after the day on which the parties receive the notice referred to in subrule (1) unless

7 Paragraph 27(3)(b) of the Rules is replaced by the following:

8 Subrule 33(2) of the Rules is replaced by the following:

Disclosure of country condition documents by Division

(2) The Division may disclose country condition documents by providing to the parties a list of those documents or providing information as to where a list of those documents can be found on the Board’s website.

9 (1) Paragraphs 34(3)(a) and (b) of the Rules are replaced by the following:

(2) Rule 34 of the Rules is amended by adding the following after subrule (3):

Non-application

(4) Subrule (3) does not apply in respect of documents provided for the purposes of a special hearing on abandonment under rules 65 and 65.1.

10 Rule 39 of the Rules is amended by adding “and” after paragraph (c) and by repealing paragraph (d).

11 Subrule 42(2) of the Rules is replaced by the following:

Documents referred to in paragraph 3(1)(b)

(2) On the written request of the Division, the Minister must without delay provide to the Division the original of any document referred to in paragraph 3(1)(b) that is in the Minister’s possession.

12 Paragraph 43(3)(c) of the Rules is replaced by the following:

13 Subrule 53(4) of the Rules is amended by adding “and” after paragraph (e) and by repealing paragraph (f).

14 (1) Subrule 54(1) of the Rules is replaced by the following:

Application in writing

54 (1) An application to change the date or time of a proceeding must be made in accordance with rule 50, but the party is not required to give evidence in an affidavit or statutory declaration.

(2) Subrule 54(2) of the Rules is amended by adding “and” after paragraph (a), by striking out “and” after paragraph (b) and by repealing paragraph (c).

(3) Subrule 54(4) of the Rules is replaced by the following:

Exceptional circumstances

(4) The Division must not allow the application unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as an emergency or other development outside the party’s control, and the party has acted diligently.

(4) Subrules 54(5) and (6) of the Rules are replaced by the following:

Application for medical reasons

(6) If a claimant or protected person makes the application for medical reasons, other than those related to their counsel, the claimant or protected person must provide to the Division, together with the application, a legible, recently dated medical certificate signed by a qualified medical practitioner whose name and address are printed or stamped on the certificate.

(5) Subrule 54(11) of the Rules is repealed.

15 Rule 65 of the Rules is replaced by the following:

Opportunity to make representations

65 (1) Before determining whether a claim has been abandoned under paragraph 104.1(1)(a) of the Act or subsection 168(1) of the Act, the Division must provide the claimant with the opportunity to make representations.

Representations

(2) The Division must notify the claimant in writing whether the representations are to be made in writing or at a special hearing on abandonment, and the time limits by which any written representations or other documents must be provided to the Division.

Factors to consider

(3) The Division must, in determining whether the claim has been abandoned, consider the representations made by the claimant and any other relevant factors, including the fact that the claimant is ready to start or continue the proceedings.

Late document

(4) If the claimant does not provide a document to the Division within the time limit referred to in subrule (2), the Division is not required to consider that document.

Failure to provide representations

(5) The claimant is considered to be in default of the proceedings if they fail to provide written representations within the time limit referred to in subrule (2) or if they fail to attend the special hearing on abandonment, unless the Division allows an application to change the date or time of the hearing or changes the time limit for the claimant to provide written representations.

Medical reasons

(6) If the claimant’s representations include medical reasons, other than those related to their counsel, the claimant must provide to the Division a legible, recently dated medical certificate signed by a qualified medical practitioner whose name and address are printed or stamped on the certificate.

Content of certificate

(7) The medical certificate must set out

Failure to provide medical certificate

(8) If the claimant fails to provide the medical certificate or if the medical certificate does not meet the requirements of subrules (6) and (7), the claimant must provide

Start or continue proceedings

(9) If the Division determines that the claim has not been abandoned, it must start or continue the proceedings on the day on which the decision is made or as soon as practicable after that day.

Transmission by Minister — subsection 102.1(1) of Act

65.1 (1) When the Minister transmits a claim to the Division under subsection 102.1(1) of the Act, the Minister must at the same time provide to the Division and to the claimant any relevant documents and information, including those that indicate

Additional information — Minister

(2) If, after the documents and information have been provided under subrule (1), the Minister receives additional relevant documents or information, the Minister must provide them to the Division and to the claimant without delay.

Representations

(3) For the purposes of subsection 102.1(2) of the Act, the Division must notify the claimant in writing whether representations are to be made in writing or at a special hearing on abandonment, and the time limits by which any written representations or other documents must be provided to the Division.

Factors to consider

(4) The Division must, in determining whether the claim has been abandoned, consider the representations made by the claimant and any other relevant factors, including the fact that the claimant is ready to comply with the requirements referred to in subsection 102.1(4) of the Act.

Late document

(5) If the claimant does not provide a document to the Division within the time limit referred to in subrule (3), the Division is not required to consider that document.

Failure to provide representations

(6) The claimant is considered to be in default of the proceedings if they fail to provide written representations within the time limit referred to in subrule (3) or if they fail to attend the special hearing on abandonment, unless the Division allows an application to change the date or time of the hearing or changes the time limit for the claimant to provide written representations.

Medical reasons

(7) If the claimant’s representations include medical reasons, other than those related to their counsel, the claimant must provide to the Division a legible, recently dated medical certificate signed by a qualified medical practitioner whose name and address are printed or stamped on the certificate.

Content of certificate

(8) The medical certificate must set out

Failure to provide medical certificate

(9) If the claimant fails to provide the medical certificate or if the medical certificate does not meet the requirements of subrules (7) and (8), the claimant must provide

Notices by Minister

(10) The Minister must notify the Division without delay if

New determination

(11) If the Minister notifies the Division, under subparagraph (10)(a)(ii), that a new determination is required, the Minister must provide, at the same time, the documents and information referred to in subrule (1) to the Division and to the claimant.

Notice to Minister and claimant

(12) If the Division determines, under subsection 102.1(2) of the Act, that a claim has not been abandoned, the Division must notify the Minister and the claimant of its determination.

16 Schedule 1 to the Rules is amended by replacing the reference after the heading “SCHEDULE 1” with the following:

(Rule 1 and paragraph 6(1)(c))

17 Item 1 of Schedule 1 to the Rules is replaced by the following:
Item Information
1 Claimant’s name and any other names that the claimant uses or has used in the past.
18 Item 3 of Schedule 1 to the Rules is replaced by the following:
Item Information
3 Claimant’s sex and gender.
19 Items 7 and 8 of Schedule 1 to the Rules are replaced by the following:
Item Information
7 Whether the claimant is afraid to return to their home country, or the country where they normally live, because they believe that they would be at risk of persecution or experience harm, mistreatment or threats if they were to return to that country today. If so, a description of what the claimant expects would happen, including a description of who would persecute, harm, mistreat or threaten them, and what the claimant believes would be the reasons for it.
8 Whether the claimant, a relative of the claimant or other people in the claimant’s situation were persecuted or faced other harm, mistreatment or threats by any person or group. If so, a description of who persecuted, harmed or mistreated or threatened them, when this occurred and the reasons for it.
20 Schedule 1 to the Rules is amended by adding the following after item 12:
Item Information
12.1 Date the claimant entered Canada.
21 Item 14 of Schedule 1 to the Rules is replaced by the following:
Item Information
14 If a child under seven years old is claiming refugee protection with the claimant, an explanation of why the claimant believes the child would be at risk of persecution or other harm, mistreatment or threats if the child were to return to their home country or the country where they normally live.
22 Item 16 of Schedule 1 to the Rules is replaced by the following:
Item Information
16 Every country in which the claimant believes they are at risk of persecution or other harm, mistreatment or threats.
23 Item 17 of Schedule 1 to the English version of the Rules is replaced by the following:
Item Information
17 Every country in which the claimant is or has been a citizen, including how and when citizenship was acquired and present status.
24 Items 18 and 19 of Schedule 1 to the Rules are replaced by the following:
Item Information
18 Name, date of birth, citizenship and place and country of residence of relatives, living or dead, specifically the claimant’s spouse, common-law partner, children, parents, brothers, sisters and grandparents.
19 If the claimant or the claimant’s relative, specifically their spouse, common-law partner, child, parent, brother, sister or grandparent, has claimed refugee protection or asylum in Canada or in any other country or territory — including at a Canadian office abroad or from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees — the details of the claim including the name of the person who made the claim, and the date, location and result of the claim, and, if any, the Immigration and Refugee Board file number or Department of Citizenship and Immigration client ID number.
25 Schedule 1 to the Rules is amended by adding the following after item 20:
Item Information
20.1 Whether someone assisted the claimant in obtaining a Canadian visa and, if so, the name of the person, their relationship to the claimant, their position title and whether the person was paid.
26 Item 22 of Schedule 1 to the Rules is replaced by the following:
Item Information
21.1 Whether the claimant received assistance in making their refugee claim and, if so, the name of the person, their relationship to the claimant and their position title.
22 Whether the claimant is represented by counsel and, if so, the counsel’s contact information, their relationship to the claimant, details on what the counsel has been retained to do and any limitations on the counsel’s retainer.

27 Schedule 2 to the Rules is repealed.

28 Item 3 of Schedule 3 to the Rules is replaced by the following:
Item Information
2.1 Claimant’s or protected person’s relationship to their counsel.
3 Name of counsel’s firm or organization, if applicable, and counsel’s contact information.
29 Items 5 and 6 of Schedule 3 to the Rules are replaced by the following:
Item Information
5 Declaration signed by the claimant or protected person that the counsel who is representing or advising them is not receiving consideration, that the counsel is not a person referred to in any of paragraphs 91(2)(a) to (c) of the Act and that the information provided under items 1 to 3 is complete, true and correct.
6 Declaration signed by counsel that they are not receiving consideration for representing or advising the claimant or protected person, that they are not a person referred to in any of paragraphs 91(2)(a) to (c) of the Act, and that the information provided under items 1 to 3 is complete, true and correct.

Transitional Provisions

30 (1) The following definitions apply in this section.

former Rules
means the Refugee Protection Division Rules as they read immediately before the day on which these Rules come into force. (régles antérieures)
new Rules
means the Refugee Protection Division Rules as they read on the day on which these Rules come into force. (nouvelles règles)

(2) Paragraph 34(3)(a) of the former Rules continues to apply in respect of a document that is to be provided by a claimant under subrule 34(3) of the new Rules if their claim for refugee protection was referred to the Division before the day on which these Rules come into force.

(3) Paragraph 34(3)(a) of the former Rules continues to apply in respect of a document that is to be provided by the Minister under subrule 34(3) of the new Rules in respect of a claim for refugee protection if the notice referred to in rule 29 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules was provided to the claimant or to the Division before the day on which these Rules come into force.

(4) Paragraph 34(3)(a) of the former Rules continues to apply in respect of a document that is to be provided in respect of a special hearing referred to in rule 65 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules if the date of the hearing was fixed before the day on which these Rules come into force.

Coming into Force

31 These Rules come into force on the day on which subsection 43(5) of the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act, chapter 4 of the Statutes of Canada, 2026, comes into force, but if they are registered after that day, they come into force on the day on which they are registered.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Rules.)

Executive summary

Issues: The Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act (the Amending Act) introduced changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act designed to improve the efficiency and integrity of the In-Canada Asylum System.

The Refugee Protection Division Rules (the RPD Rules) set out clear and transparent procedural requirements for parties and their counsel appearing before the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), for decision-makers (members) who decide cases, and for the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada employees who support the decision-making process. If the RPD Rules are not updated when the new legislative framework comes into force, the IRB will not be able to effectively implement and operationalize the amendments introduced by the Amending Act, which would undermine the effective functioning of the asylum system.

Description: The Rules Amending the RPD Rules (the Amendments) are required to align the rules with legislative changes to the asylum system. These Amendments will amend rules regarding the submission of the basis of claim information to support the new single online application process, new abandonment of claims before referral, the time limit for the disclosure of information and documents and the method of communication with the RPD.

Rationale: The Amendments are expected to have limited cost impacts on the Government of Canada and claimants and primarily align procedural requirements with legislative changes introduced by the Amending Act. Any costs are expected to be offset by the benefits. The Amendments are expected to benefit the Government of Canada and claimants by providing clear and transparent procedural requirements, improving case management, reducing postponements, and supporting more timely and efficient proceedings.

Issues

The Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act (the Amending Act) received royal assent on March 26, 2026. The Amending Act introduced amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) intended to improve processing efficiency and integrity within the asylum system. Many provisions of the Amending Act will come into force at a later point on a day fixed by the Governor in Council. To support the effective implementation of this new legislative framework, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) is amending its Refugee Protection Division Rules (the RPD Rules) to align procedural requirements with the amended IRPA. Without corresponding updates to the RPD Rules, the IRB would not be able to effectively implement and operationalize the new asylum system, and participants in Refugee Protection Division (RPD) proceedings would lack clarity on the applicable procedural requirements.

More concretely, among other changes, the Amending Act introduces the framework for a single online application, expands the role of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the Minister) in receiving documents and information for the purpose of making a refugee claim and considering claims prior to referral to the RPD, and introduces a mechanism authorizing the RPD to determine whether a claim should be declared abandoned where claimants failed to comply with information or examination requirements prior to referral. These measures aim to ensure that, to the extent possible, complete claims are referred to the IRB only after the Minister has had an opportunity to carry out the necessary due diligence activities. Minister’s due diligence refers to activities undertaken by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to identify issues related to integrity, credibility, misrepresentation, criminality and other grounds of inadmissibility. This due diligence also includes assessing whether the Minister should intervene in RPD proceedings through a notice of intervention.

The current RPD Rules governing the disclosure of information and documents are not aligned with the objectives of the Amending Act to improve the efficiency and integrity of the asylum system. In particular, the existing disclosure time limits require documents to be provided too close to the hearing date. For example, under the new legislative framework, claimants will be required to submit a complete application, including the basis of claim information, to the Minister before their claim is referred to the RPD. Claimants will continue to be able to submit additional documents in support of their claim after referral to the RPD. However, under the current Rules, the applicable time limit (10 days before a hearing) for submitting documents limits the RPD’s ability to triage files into case management streams in a timely manner, limits preparation time for members and parties, and frequently contributes to the postponement of hearings, which can contribute to unnecessary delays and stress for claimants.

In addition, the RPD Rules governing the exchange and delivery of documents between RPD and the participants are outdated and have not kept pace with technological developments. The RPD Rules continue to allow inefficient and outdated methods of communication that no longer reflect current operational realities or modern technologies and do not support effective case management and timely case processing.

Amendments to the RPD Rules are needed to align them with the Amending Act and to improve the efficiency of the asylum system.

Background

The IRB is Canada’s largest independent administrative tribunal and is mandated to make well-reasoned immigration and refugee decisions efficiently, fairly, and in accordance with the law. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the IRB Chairperson, subject to approval by the Governor in Council, and in consultation with the Deputy Chairpersons, has the authority to establish and revise procedural Rules for all divisions of the IRB. These Rules define the practices and requirements for parties, including time limits for applications, document disclosure, communication protocols, and formatting standards. The Rules are essential for ensuring that cases are handled fairly, efficiently, and lawfully.

Refugee Protection Division

The RPD is responsible for determining whether a claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The RPD also hears applications from the Minister to cease or vacate a person’s protected status. The RPD schedules a hearing for most refugee claims, while some claims may be accepted without a hearing pursuant to its authority under paragraph 170(f) of the IRPA.

Most proceedings before the RPD are non-adversarial in nature, meaning that they are inquisitorial and not contested by the Minister through an intervention. The Minister, whose authorities in refugee matters are exercised by the CBSA and IRCC, has the right to be represented in all matters before the RPD.

In assessing refugee protection claims, RPD members have access to country condition information produced by the IRB commonly referred to as National Documentation Packages (NDPs). The IRB produces NDPs for every country from which refugee claims originate. NDPs compile objective and reliable information on country conditions, drawing on sources such as international human rights organizations and government reports, and are disclosed by the RPD in every refugee claim so parties have access to this information. These packages support the refugee determination process, but they are not intended to be conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim for refugee protection.

IRB’s operating environment

Timely and fair adjudication is central to the IRB’s mandate and essential to the effective functioning of Canada’s asylum system.

The IRB has implemented a suite of initiatives to improve efficiency, including implementing the My Case Portal, which enables the RPD to exchange information and documents with claimants, counsel and designated representatives. The IRB has introduced initiatives to conclude more straightforward claims efficiently, including processes in which some claims can be decided via expedited procedures.

In recent years, the IRB has applied a multi-pronged strategy to reduce the number of postponed hearings, made better use of expedited procedures, including establishing the Expedited Cases Team, formerly the Task Force on Less Complex Claims, to expedite protection decisions for eligible asylum claimants, and began implementing digital processing of claims (moving away from paper files) to improve file management and interoperability between the IRB, the CBSA and IRCC. These initiatives have strengthened the efficiency and timeliness of refugee determination by helping to reduce delays, accelerate decisions, improve information-sharing with partner agencies, and by beginning to modernize processes through streamlined case management.

Despite these initiatives and an increase in productivity, the IRB continues to face heavy caseload pressures. In the 12 months ending in March 2026, the RPD received 96 700 new asylum claims, bringing its inventory to 295 500 cases, with average wait times reaching 25 months. In fiscal year 2025–26, the RPD finalized 82 600 cases. In this context, amendments to the Rules are necessary to implement the Amending Act and enable operational efficiencies that cannot be achieved through administrative measures alone.

Amending Act

The following summarizes elements of the Amending Act that require amendments to the RPD Rules.

Single online application process and referrals by the Minister
Abandonment of claims before referral
Physical presence in Canada and other amendments introduced by the Amending Act
Disclosure of information and documents
Method of communication with the RPD

Amendments to the rules are needed to address these issues and improve the efficiency, sustainability and management of Canada’s asylum system.

Objective

The objective of the Rules Amending the Refugee Protection Rules (the Amendments) is to support the efficient administration of the asylum determination system by aligning the RPD Rules with the legislative changes introduced by the Amending Act.

In addition, consistent with the objective of the Amending Act, the Amendments are intended to improve the efficiency and timeliness of proceedings by enabling the RPD to obtain a complete case file earlier in the adjudicative process. This supports more effective triage and scheduling of cases, reduces postponements of hearings and facilitates more timely and effective case processing and decision-making, while maintaining procedural fairness.

The Amendments are also intended to support the IRB’s transition to a more fully digital tribunal by eliminating outdated methods of communication, which will improve administrative efficiency, and reduce administrative burden and processing delays.

Description

The Amendments will apply to

The key elements of the Amendments are described below.

Amendments to support the new single online application process for refugee claims and referrals by the Minister

Application stage
Referral stage
After referral stage

Abandonment of claims before referral introduced by the Amending Act

The Amendments specify procedures to support the abandonment of claims before referral to the RPD, as introduced by the Amending Act. The Amendments create a new distinct Rule to

Other amendments to align with changes introduced by the Amending Act

Amendments to support efficiency and digital processes

Regulatory development

Consultation

Consultations prior to the publication of the Rules

The IRB held targeted consultations with key stakeholders on June 25, 2025, inviting them to provide written comments on seven areas of focus for potential changes to the RPD and RAD Rules. Respondents were provided until August 6, 2025, to provide their comments and recommendations.

The IRB received 11 submissions from members of the IRB Consultative Committee (IRB CC), as well as one submission from the CBSA and one submission from IRCC. Respondents generally supported replacing fax with digital communication methods; however, they emphasized the need to maintain alternative communication options to ensure accessibility and procedural fairness for claimants facing technological or other barriers. While some supported early disclosure of evidence as a way to support expedited processing, many emphasized the practical challenges claimants may face in obtaining relevant evidence early in the process. There was broad support for maintaining flexibility in filing deadlines and accepting late documents to accommodate vulnerable claimants and evidence that may only become available closer to the hearing date.

A summary of the comments and recommendations considered in developing some of the proposed Amendments, together with the IRB’s responses, was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on June 20, 2026.

Comments prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

The proposed Rules Amending the RPD Rules were prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on June 20, 2026, for a 30-day consultation period ending on July 20, 2026, to provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments. During this period, the IRB received 47 comments from 16 individuals and organizations: 3 anonymous individuals, 1 immigration consultant association, 1 legal aid organization, 1 immigration and refugee legal clinic (legal aid clinic), 3 legal professional associations specializing in immigration and refugee law (legal professional associations), 6 organizations involved in human rights, refugee protection and/or 2SLGBTQ+ advocacy human rights and refugee advocacy organizations (human rights and refugee advocacy organizations), and 1 animal advocacy organization. Seven of those respondents are members of the IRB CC.

While respondents generally supported the objectives of aligning the RPD rules with the new legislative framework and improving the efficiency of proceedings, several expressed concerns about specific aspects of the proposed Rules, including procedural requirements that they viewed as inflexible and the potential implications for procedural fairness and efficiency.

A thematic summary of the comments received and the IRB’s responses are outlined below.

Thirty-day disclosure time limit for personal documents

Comments: Several respondents, including legal professional associations, an immigration consultant association, a legal aid organization, a legal aid clinic, and human rights and refugee advocacy organizations, raised concerns that the requirement to disclose personal evidence within 30 days after referral will provide insufficient time to claimants to gather and submit all relevant evidence. In particular, they raised that earlier disclosure of documents could be challenging for some claimants, including recipients of legal aid who may require time to secure funding and legal representation; persons whose sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression are relevant to their claim and who may face challenges obtaining supporting evidence from abroad; and claimants experiencing mental health challenges who may face difficulties in gathering supporting evidence. Respondents noted that refugee claims may evolve over time and that additional evidence may become available closer to the hearing date. Some also indicated that, given current delays in scheduling hearings, the proposed timeline could result in additional costs for claimants associated with updating and submitting additional documents.

A few respondents, including a legal professional association and human rights and refugee advocacy organizations, recommended that the time limit remain unchanged. Legal professional associations, a legal aid organization and a legal clinic recommended extending the time limit for providing personal documents following referral, coupled with a second time limit before the hearing for documents that were not available at the time of the initial disclosure time limit.

Response: The new disclosure time limit will apply to refugee claims referred to the RPD after the coming into force of the Amendments, which will coincide with the coming into force of the new framework for making refugee claims under the Amending Act. As a result, only claimants referred to the RPD under the new legal framework will be subject to this new time limit. Under that framework, claimants will have completed their application, which includes the basis of claim information, before referral to the RPD.

Under this new regime, claimants will have an opportunity to gather documents they wish to rely on at their hearing before referral, while their claim is under review by the Minister.

In addition, late disclosure of documents remains part of RPD rules and procedures to ensure that claimants are not unfairly disadvantaged where, despite their reasonable efforts, relevant evidence cannot be provided within the time limit.

While the IRB recognizes that requiring earlier disclosure will require claimants and the legal community to adjust the timing of their work, the 30-day disclosure time limit for personal documents is retained, as the anticipated benefits to claimants support the approach. Earlier disclosure is a key measure to support the timely scheduling and efficient processing of refugee claims for faster resolution of claims while preserving procedural fairness. The IRB is actively implementing measures to improve the processing of refugee claims and consistent with these efforts, this Amendment, with the new legislation, is part of building a system that is more efficient and fairer for claimants.

Changes to the basis of claim information and time limit to submit the changes

Comments: Three respondents, legal professional associations and a legal aid organization, commented that requiring claimants to describe how changes to their basis of claim information differ from the information originally provided would be confusing and time consuming. They recommended maintaining the language in the current Rules.

Several respondents, including legal professional associations, a legal aid organization, and human rights and refugee advocacy organizations, commented that requiring claimants to provide changes to their basis of claim information within five days of receiving the Notice to Appear provides insufficient time to comply with the requirement.

Response: The amendment refining the wording governing how changes to the basis of claim information must be provided are made to facilitate the electronic submission of those changes and is not expected to impose any additional burden on claimants beyond what is required under the current process. The IRB will provide guidance to claimants to ensure that expectations are clear. As is the case today, claimants are not required to explain, when submitting the changes, why changes are made to their basis of claim information; however, a claimant needs to be able to explain them at their hearing.

The time limit to submit changes to the basis of claim information set out in the proposed Amendments has been maintained. Providing these changes in a timely manner is important for both claimants and for the efficient and fair processing of refugee claims by the RPD. The RPD must abide by the considerations of fairness and natural justice in dealing with refugee claims and recognize that changes to the basis of claim information may be necessary in some cases after the time limit; in those cases, discretion could be applied to allow the late changes.

Abandonment of claims before referral

Comments: Many respondents, including legal professional associations, a legal aid organization, and human rights and refugee advocacy organizations, commented that claimants should be given the option of making representations in abandonment proceedings, either through a special hearing or by written submissions, and being given a minimum time limit (e.g. 20–21 days) to provide written submissions, allowing for sufficient time to respond. In particular, respondents noted that unrepresented claimants may face challenges in articulating their submissions in writing.

Response: While the Rules do not include a time limit within which claimants must respond, the IRB will continue to provide claimants with a reasonable length of time to provide written submissions or documents for their abandonment proceeding, thereby ensuring procedural fairness is respected regardless of the process.

The Amendments are consistent with the Amending Act, which only requires that claimants be provided with an opportunity to make representations in writing or orally. The RPD is bound by the principles of natural justice and will apply procedural fairness principles in determining whether an oral or written process should be used in specific abandonment proceedings. Therefore, no amendments were made.

Removal of the definition of vulnerable person

Comments: Several respondents, including legal professional associations, a legal aid organization, and human rights and refugee advocacy organizations, expressed concerns about repealing the definition of “vulnerable person” and removing references to accommodating a vulnerable person in the Rules referring to changes to the order of questioning, hearing dates and times, and hearing locations. Respondents were concerned that these amendments could be interpreted as excluding consideration of vulnerability, disability or other personal characteristics when assessing whether exceptional circumstances exist.

Response: To clarify, the Amendments are not intended to preclude the RPD from considering accommodation needs. Rather, they are intended to align the Rules with the Chairperson’s Guideline on Accessibility to IRB Proceedings — Procedural Accommodations and Substantive Considerations, which removed the requirement to designate an individual as a “vulnerable person” before procedural accommodations may be considered. The Guideline adopts a broader and more flexible approach that focuses on identifying and addressing barriers to participation arising from a person’s disability, vulnerability and/or personal characteristics.

Removal of fax as a method of communication

Comments: Some respondents, including legal professional associations and human rights and refugee advocacy organizations, expressed concerns that people in detention may have limited or no reliable access to mail, courier services, or the My Case Portal. As such, they recommended that the IRB retains fax for this population. One legal professional association requested preserving the ability to use the fax as a method of serving the Minister and other parties.

Response: This change is made and is required to support the IRB’s transition to digital channels, such as the My Case portal. As noted in the “Benefits and costs” section, this change is intended to limit the methods by which parties may communicate with the Division but is not intended to limit parties’ ability to communicate with one another by fax.

The IRB recognizes that detained claimants may face challenges in accessing alternative methods of communication. However, the RPD Rules provide the authority for the RPD to allow a party to deviate from the procedures set out in the Rules in appropriate circumstances, so flexibility for detained claimants or claimants who cannot reasonably use digital channels can be addressed through operational guidance.

Translation of identity documents and travel documents

Comments: Some respondents, including an anonymous individual and a legal professional association, expressed concerns that requiring claimants to translate all identity and travel documents in their possession that they include with their application would be time-consuming and could result in significant translation costs for claimants. Under the current Rules, claimants are only required to translate documents they intend to use at a proceeding.

Response: The prepublished RPD Rules required claimants to provide translations of all travel and identity documents that are not in English or French. However, the Amendments were not intended to alter the existing translation requirements for claimants with respect to identity and travel documents. As a result, in response to the comments, the IRB amended subsection 8(2) of the prepublished RPD Rules to clarify that claimants are not required to translate all identity and travel documents that they include as part of their refugee application or provide after their claim has been referred to the RPD. Consistent with the current RPD Rules, claimants will continue to be required to provide translations only for identity and travel documents that they intend to rely on at RPD proceedings. For clarity, the IRB maintained the translation requirement if an adult claimant has in their possession a document showing that they either have custody of a minor claimant or permission to travel with a minor claimant.

Basis of claim information and Schedule 1

Comments: A few respondents, including a human rights and refugee advocacy organization and an immigration consultant association, expressed concerns that amendments to Schedule 1 may create ambiguity and encouraged the IRB to ensure that amendments do not create confusion for claimants.

Response: As a result of the comments, the IRB revised item 8 of Schedule 1 in the prepublished RPD Rules by reintroducing wording regarding when incidents occurred that had been removed to simplify the language. The change is intended to avoid ambiguity and make it clear that claimants must indicate when incidents of persecution, harm, mistreatment or threats occurred when providing their description of those events. Of note, while the RPD Rules set out information that claimants provide as part of their basis of claim information, claimants will be asked to complete an application, which will include help text. Guides will also be available to help them understand the questions set out in Schedule 1.

Comments considered out of scope

Respondents provided comments on the following issues, which are considered out of the scope of the amendments to the RPD Rules:

Other change to support implementation of abandonment proceeding before referral

To summarize, the following revisions have been made since prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I:

Indigenous engagement, consultation and modern treaty obligations

The Amendments are not expected to impact Indigenous peoples. An assessment of modern treaty implications has been conducted, pursuant to the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation. No adverse impacts on potential or established Indigenous or treaty rights, which are recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, were identified.

Instrument choice

Under subsection 161(1) of the IRPA, the Chairperson of the IRB, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, may make rules respecting the activities, practices, and procedures of each Division of the IRB.

Consideration was given to establishing instructions governing the practices and procedures of the RPD through other instruments, such as practice notices alone. However, such instruments will not provide a sufficiently authoritative framework to reflect the changes introduced by the Amending Act. In addition, reliance solely on other instruments will have resulted in rules that no longer align with the IRPA and that do not clearly set out the RPD’s authorities and core procedural requirements.

It was therefore determined that setting out the changes in the Rules, the most authoritative instrument at the IRB’s disposal, will establish clear, binding, and transparent foundational procedural requirements for both the IRB and persons appearing before it. The RPD will continue to complement its Rules with other instruments, where appropriate.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

The analysis uses current RPD Rules, guidance (e.g. Chairperson’s Guidelines, Practice Notices), case law, and changes introduced under the Amending Act as the baseline to determine any costs that will occur as a result of the Amendments. The Amendments primarily introduce changes to procedural requirements to align with changes introduced in the IRPA by the Amending Act. The Amendments do not change the legal test for the purpose of determining if a claim meets the definition of convention refugee or person in need of protection, and they do not alter the jurisdiction of the RPD in considering the merits of claims.

Overall, the Amendments will contribute to a more efficient, trusted and responsibly managed asylum system that will better serve both claimants and the Canadian public. Public confidence in Canada’s asylum system will be strengthened by enabling earlier screening of claimants who may experience vulnerabilities, facilitating the earlier identification of potential security or fraud risks, and supporting faster and more efficient processing of files. Given that the Government of Canada funds provincial and territorial legal aid programs, these amendments will further help to strengthen stewardship of public funds.

Following prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I, as reflected in the “Consultation” section, the Rules were revised to clarify requirements related to the translation of travel and identity documents, reintroduce wording in item 8 of Schedule 1 for greater precision, and specify that the RPD must provide a decision that a claim has not been abandoned to both the claimant and the Minister following a pre-referral abandonment proceeding. These revisions do not affect the cost-benefit analysis.

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Costs

The Amendments are expected to have a limited impact on IRB operations.

Although there will be ongoing costs incurred by the IRB, they will be incurred as a result of the Amending Act and not the Rules. The IRB is expected to incur one-time costs associated with implementation activities directly arising from changes introduced by the Amendments, including training, updating forms and guidance, and potential minor modifications to NOVA, its core case management system.footnote 2

The Amendments related to the new abandonment proceeding that apply before a claim is referred to the RPD are not expected to result in incremental costs for the IRB. Any additional activities or efforts associated with this proceeding are set out in the Amending Act. The Amendments will support the implementation of this statutory process by setting out clear procedural expectations for both claimants and the Minister (whose authorities are exercised by delegated officials within the CBSA and IRCC), to support the proper and transparent administration of this proceeding.

The RPD already conducts abandonment proceedings under existing Rules and the IRPA that occur once a claim has been referred, where applicable. While the Amendments introduce a Rule addressing abandonments that occur prior to referral, this represents a slight procedural adjustment for the RPD when compared to the previous Rules and procedures applicable to post-referral abandonment. Any increase in the number of abandonment proceedings will result from the Amending Act, rather than from the Amendments themselves.

The Amendments require that claimants submit personal documents they wish to use at a hearing earlier than the previous Rules. The existing RPD Rules already provide a mechanism for claimants and the Minister to seek permission to submit late documents so processing costs on a per request basis will not change; however, if the earlier submission deadline leads to increased requests to submit documents following the deadline, it could result in additional costs for the RPD. However, these costs are expected to be offset by the benefits described below.

Benefits

The change requiring claimants to submit personal documents earlier will result in efficiency gains arising from improved case management, more effective triage of claims, including identifying cases that may be suitable for resolution through established expedited procedures, a reduction in the volume of late documents submitted close to hearings, and fewer postponements. It will also allow hearings to be scheduled more efficiently, provide more preparation time for parties and members, and reduce follow-up actions and delays associated with incomplete files.

In cases where the Minister has not intervened and is not initially a party to the claim, there remains a possibility of later intervention based on information and documents submitted by claimants to the RPD after the claim is referred to the RPD. The RPD must notify the Minister of any exclusion, eligibility or certain inadmissibility issues that may apply to a claim, and the RPD may notify the Minister of any integrity issues where this would assist in the full and proper hearing of the claim. When documents are submitted late in the process and close to the hearing, this can result in postponements to allow for possible intervention by the Minister. Earlier submission of personal documents from claimants allows the RPD to identify potential issues and assess sooner if it needs to notify the Minister, improving case management and reducing the risk of potential postponements.

In addition, earlier submission of documents is beneficial to the Government of Canada, as it may assist in detecting potential integrity issues sooner, such as fraudulent claims, which is essential in maintaining public confidence in Canada’s refugee protection system.

CBSA and IRCC
Costs

IRCC and the CBSA are already required to adjust their processes and implement the changes introduced to the asylum system by the Amending Act. The Amendments primarily align procedural requirements with the new legislative framework established by the Amending Act and do not introduce new obligations for the CBSA and IRCC beyond those that already exist in the RPD Rules, in the IRPA, and those arising from the Amending Act. The Amendments are expected to only result in minimal implementation costs such as updating operational guidance and procedures.

The amendments related to abandonment before a claim is referred to the RPD will not result in ongoing costs for CBSA or IRCC. Any incremental costs associated with these changes can be attributed to the Amending Act.

Finally, the changes requiring the Minister to submit supporting documents at the same time as a notice of intervention will not add any costs to the CBSA and IRCC. This change does not introduce new activities or obligations for the CBSA and IRCC, which intervene in a small proportion of cases. Under the new legislative framework, the CBSA and IRCC will have more information from claimants earlier in the process and will complete due diligence activities and identify, in most cases, if they intervene before they refer a claim to the RPD. As such, the need to file late documents and the need to revisit claims later in the process will likely not increase when compared to the current system, where the Minister often receives documents and information later after a claim has been referred to the IRB.

Benefits

The Amendments will support the processes applied by the CBSA and IRCC under the Amending Act by establishing clear and predictable procedural requirements for both the Minister and claimants.

Earlier access to claimants’ documents will help reduce hearing postponements that can occur when documents are provided to the Minister too close to the hearing date. This will give the Minister more time to review the documents and prepare for the hearing where the Minister is a party, or to assess whether to intervene, as applicable.

Where the CBSA or IRCC files supporting documents along with a notice of intervention, claimants are better positioned to understand and respond to the issues raised at an early stage. This may facilitate earlier resolution of issues and reduce the need for in-person participation by the Minister in some cases.

Removing the fax as a method of communication from the Rules will not result in costs for the CBSA and IRCC, as they infrequently use this mode to share documents with the RPD. Eliminating the fax is an important step for information to flow directly into digital workflows and supports the IRB and Government of Canada’s broader digital transformation. For clarity, this change is not intended to limit parties’ ability to communicate with one another by fax.

Claimants
Costs

The Amendments are administrative and procedural in nature and primarily adjust procedural requirements with the new legislative framework. Therefore, the Amendments are not expected to generate an additional financial or operational burden on claimants beyond what is required under the Amending Act and existing Rules.

The Amendments do not change the legal tests or evidence threshold applied in assessing the merits of refugee claims. In addition, as noted in the “Background” section, when making a claim, claimants will be required under the Amending Act to submit their complete application to the Minister, including their basis of claim information. If they wish to do so, claimants can include any documents supporting their claim at the time of the application.

The Amendments requiring claimants, once their claim has been referred to the RPD, to submit personal documents earlier in the process, may, in limited circumstances, result in the potential need to submit late personal documents. However, any potential costs are expected to be minimal and are anticipated to be offset by the benefits described below. It should be noted that disclosure requirements for country condition documentation remain unchanged, and existing procedures already allow for the late submission of documents where necessary.

Removing the fax as a method of communication is expected to have minimal impact on claimants. Any potential impacts would be mitigated by the availability of other communication methods set out in the Rules. The IRB also intends to maintain flexibility by allowing detained claimants or claimants who cannot reasonably access digital channels, through operational guidance, to use the fax to communicate with the RPD. For clarity, this change is not intended to limit parties’ ability to communicate with one another by fax if they wish to do so.

Benefits

Earlier submission of documents and information will support more effective case management by allowing claims to be triaged and directed sooner to the most appropriate process, which could result in expedited proceedings or shorter hearings for claimants. Earlier submission of documents also allows the Minister to assess potential interventions at an earlier stage. It helps claimants identify the issues to be decided in their case and better prepare for their hearing, allowing them to preserve their scheduled hearing dates and improve access to the refugee determination system. Postponements of hearings can lead to unnecessary stress and delays for claimants.

When the RPD has access to a more complete file containing relevant documents supporting a claim early in the process, through its triage functions, it can identify key issues to be decided in a claim sooner. The RPD can better identify and signal to claimants earlier in the process what documents or information may be required or missing, which may eliminate the need for claimants to provide detailed medical information and other information later in the process that may not be necessary. In some cases, this can result in a shorter process, where claimants may not need to retain counsel. This may also make the process more accessible for claimants.

Overall, more effective triage, reduced late filing of documents, and fewer postponements will benefit claimants by supporting shorter and more predictable case processing and decision timelines, and reducing the personal and practical burdens on claimants associated with prolonged refugee claim processes.

The changes requiring the Minister to submit supporting documents at the same time as a notice of intervention will benefit claimants by improving procedural fairness and helping them prepare early before their hearing.

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that the Amendments will not impact Canadian small businesses. The rules apply to individuals; thus, any requirements fall outside the definition of “administrative burden on business” in the Policy on Limiting Regulatory Burden on Business. Any requirements that would be carried out by lawyers or immigration consultants are considered to be on behalf of individuals, and as such, are not considered to be direct impacts on business.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule does not apply, as there is no impact on business. The rules apply to individuals; thus, any requirements fall outside the definition of “administrative burden on business” in the Red Tape Reduction Act.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The Amendments are not related to a work plan or commitment under a formal regulatory cooperation forum.

International obligations

The Amendments are not related to any international obligations.

Effects on the environment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, a preliminary scan concluded that a strategic environmental assessment is not required.

Gender-based analysis plus

The legal tests and criteria that guide decision-makers in evaluating each case’s merits are detailed in the IRPA, IRPR and case law. The IRB has a fundamental obligation to ensure all parties have a full opportunity to present evidence and make arguments for their case; the Amendments do not change this.

As identified under the “Consultation” section of this document, respondents raised concerns about potential barriers to earlier submission of documents for certain claimants. The intent of earlier disclosure of information and documents is to enable the IRB to strengthen its case management approach, including identifying claims that may be suitable for expedited processing. In addition, the RPD already has an application process in place for submitting late disclosure. This allows parties to request that the division accept documents filed after the deadline as evidence for the proceeding. Through this application, parties have an opportunity to explain why the document is important for the hearing and what it contributes to the case.

The late disclosure application process provides mitigation measures for claimants who may face challenges in obtaining evidence earlier, ensuring that fairness is preserved while maintaining efficiency in case management. It is recognized that a standard procedure may not always fit the circumstances of every person, so the Rules will continue to give the RPD power to modify procedures to ensure that parties receive a fair hearing. In addition, the IRB has existing instruments and a targeted Gender Related Task Force (GRTF) to support a gender-inclusive perspective. The Amendments will be supported by the Chairperson’s guidelines, which provide guidance on procedural accommodations for persons with vulnerabilities, including children, women, and individuals whose sexual orientation or gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics must be taken into account. The Amendments will also support the RPD in better planning hearings that are responsive to the accessibility needs of claimants.

Consistent with the guidelines, the IRB will continue conducting its proceedings in a manner that takes into account the specific circumstances of claimants, including those related to vulnerabilities, disabilities, gender, gender identity and sexual orientation, and making decisions in accordance with the law. The data below provide an overview of individuals appearing before the RPD, based on available information such as age and gender.

RPD finalized cases by gender and age group (2020–21 to 2024–25)

Total: 259 917 cases

By gender: 57% (148 800) male, 43% (110 838) female, and 72 finalized cases in the other category (non-binary/other identities).

Age group composition

The Gender Related Task Force (GRTF) is a dedicated team of decision-makers that hears and decides gender-related refugee claims. While all members can hear gender-related claims, GRTF members receive additional specialized training focusing on trauma-informed adjudication and decision making, questioning from a cross-cultural and trauma-informed perspective, cultural humility, intersectionality and reflexivity, and consistent adjudication of these claims. Claims assigned to the GRTF are determined based on evidence, the specific merits of the claim, and in accordance with the law.

Gender Related Task Force (GRTF) [2020–21 to 2024–25]

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The Amendments will come into force on the day upon which subsection 43(5) of the Amending Act comes into force, but if they are registered after that, they will come into force on the day on which they are registered. They will apply to all refugee claims, except those covered in the transitional provisions.

The IRB will continue to measure, monitor, and publicly report on RPD performance through its annual report to Parliament, consistent with its accountability framework.

The RPD anticipates improved timeliness in case resolution and continued delivery of high-quality decisions. These outcomes will be assessed using performance indicators established in the IRB’s 2025–2026 Departmental Plan (PDF) and reported in the 2024–25 Departmental Results Report, which are tabled in Parliament on an annual basis. For the RPD, these indicators include

To support implementation, the IRB will provide training to decision-makers, Registry staff, and other affected personnel on the updated procedures. To ensure alignment with the Amendments, the IRB will update operational instruments to ensure consistency with the Amendments. In addition, guidance will be available on the IRB’s website upon coming into force to assist claimants in understanding and navigating the changes.

Contact

Evan Travers
Senior General Counsel
Legal Services
Minto Place — Canada Building
344 Slater Street, 13th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0K1
Email: IRB.Policy-Politiques.CISR@irb-cisr.gc.ca