text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/164 - Presence of parties and use of telecommunications for hearings

The IRB has successfully used videoconferencing and teleconferencing at hearings since the early 1990s. This section discusses the provision of the Act that relates most directly to this practice.

IRPA Section 164
The relevant provision of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act reads: Presence of parties 164 Where a hearing is held by a Division, it may, in the Division’s discretion, be conducted in the presence of, or by a means of live telecommunication with, the person who is the subject of the proceedings.

A hearing may be conducted either in the presence of the person, or by live telecommunication, but not normally in their absence
Section 164 of the IRPA provides that a hearing may be conducted in the presence of, or by live telecommunication with, the person who is the subject of the proceedings. While the Division may choose which, it should not normally choose to proceed without the person who is the subject of the proceedings being present. On this point, the Board has stated:"The hearing should not normally proceed, however, in the absence of any claimant who is a competent adult. For example, where claims of family members are being heard jointly, there may be a request to have one parent, who is a claimant, leave the hearing to attend to children, while the other parent, who is also a claimant, remains at the hearing. Such request should ordinarily be denied. If one parent has to leave, the proceedings should be recessed or adjourned until both parents (claimants) are able to attend."That said, the above statement was made referring to the former Immigration Act, which required that a hearing into a claim "shall be held in the presence of the claimant, wherever practicable". The text has now changed to the phrasing above. Furthermore, even at that time, the right to be present at the hearing could be waived if there is an express waiver by the claimant. But see in Philip v. Canada, the female claimant was excluded from the hearing room while her children, aged 5 and 8, were questioned. When she returned to the hearing room, counsel asked the presiding member to summarize the children’s evidence. It was only at that point that the mother was appointed designated representative. In allowing the application for judicial review, the Court held that the presence of the claimant under the then-subsection 69(2) of the Immigration Act was mandatory: "The words ‘whenever practicable’, while recognizing that in some circumstances, it may not be possible for an applicant to be present, also require that when it is feasible, applicants must be present." Though it was noted that even if the exclusion was permissible, the summary provided to the female claimant was inadequate.

The right to proceed without a minor claimant is uncontroversial. In Baig v. Canada, the court upheld a decision that he RPD did not breach procedural fairness when it questioned an adult applicant in the absence of the minor applicant, since there was an explicit exchange about, and consent from, the principal applicant regarding the absence of the minor claimant while very sensitive issues were being discussed. In that case, the RAD was held to be reasonable in finding that the RPD was alert and sensitive to ensuring the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the best interests of the child and with Chairperson Guideline 3: Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues.

Meaning of "telecommunication"
When interpreting the meaning of "live telecommunication", one can have recourse to the definition in the federal Interpretation Act: " telecommunications means the emission, transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds or intelligence of any nature by any wire, cable, radio, optical or other electromagnetic system, or by any similar technical system; (télécommunication)".

History of the provision and its content
The repealed Immigration Act, which preceded the IRPA, contained no direct analogue to section 164. Section 164 was introduced, along with the rest of the IRPA, in 2001. The section came into force on June 28, 2002 and has not been amended.

An earlier version of the IRPA, which had been introduced as a bill in the previous session of Parliament, but died on the order paper, did not contain a direct analogue to s. 164. Instead, Bill C-31 had stated that, "subject to the other provisions of this section, proceedings must be held in public and, as far as possible, in the presence of the interested parties [emphasis added]". Furthermore, that bill had also stated that in all proceedings the RPD "must conduct a hearing in the presence of the foreign national concerned".

This section of the Act is frequently considered in applications to change the location of a proceeding
One of the ways that this section of the Act is frequently considered and relied upon is with applications to change the location of a proceeding where the Board elects to allow a claimant to appear by video from the place that they have moved to, rather than transferring the file to a different office in its entirety. See the commentary to RPD Rule 53(4)(g): Canadian Refugee Procedure/Changing the Location of a Proceeding.

The use of videoconferencing is not per se unfair
Videoconferencing is widely used in refugee status determination procedures around the world, including Australia and the United States. Section 164 of the Act provides that the Board may conduct a hearing via live telecommunication here in Canada. The Board has a policy entitled Use of Videoconferencing in Proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada which sets out that it is the IRB 's position that provided that it is carried out in accordance with appropriate technological and procedural standards, videoconferencing does not affect the quality of the hearing or decision-making and respects the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Board policy specifies that videoconferencing is inappropriate for certain types of claims and claimants
It may be noted that many counsel do not like videoconferencing and academic commentators have called on the Board to "limit this practice as much as possible". The 2004 RPD Policy on the Transfer of Files for Hearings by Videoconference states at Section 5.5 that counsel may bring matters to the attention of the RPD that are inappropriate for videoconferencing, by making an application.

In what circumstances may issues with videoconferencing arise?

 * Disability issues: In Al-Gumer v. Canada the appellant was hearing impaired and required the assistance of sign language interpreter at his hearing and, further, his counsel required a captionist or an ASL interpreter. In the circumstances, it was determined that it was not practical to conduct that hearing remotely given the technology available. This decision of the Immigration Appeal Division should be persuasive for the Refugee Protection Division.
 * Parties should have 'feedback screens': The Board commissioned an external review of the use of videoconferencing at the IRB which recommended the the Board "install feedback screens in all of the claimant's rooms in the system." The report went on to state that "Fairness and effectiveness both require that both the claimants and their counsel be aware at all times of the picture of their room transmitted to the screen in the member's room." IRB management accepted this recommendation, stating that it is their policy that "All offices with videoconferencing equipment currently have feedback screens: either picture-in-picture or a separate television screen. The Board, through the designated employee, will ensure that participants are using this technology correctly."
 * Awareness of effects of video on the assessment of demeanour: Subtle lags inherent in the technology can affect perceptions of credibility according to psychological research. Board Members should be aware of this and consider this when thinking about their subjective assessment of witness credibility.
 * Confidentiality: As per s. 166(c) of the IRPA, the Division, in all of its proceedings, must respect the confidential nature of refugee proceedings. If this would be compromised by proceeding virtually, then the Division should not require it.

The Board has jurisdiction to request that a party show their surroundings during a remote videoconferencing hearing
In Slimani v. Canada, the court affirmed the RPD’s authority to ask for a 360-degree camera view when it suspects that a claimant is using notes or other documents. The court accepted that pursuant to section 162 of the IRPA, the RPD has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over its proceedings, and that pursuant to this authority, the RPD may request that a witness show his or her surroundings when the hearing is held by videoconference. See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/162 - Board Jurisdiction and Procedure.


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/163 - Composition of Panels

IRPA Section 163
The relevant provision of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act reads: Composition of panels 163 Matters before a Division shall be conducted before a single member unless, except for matters before the Immigration Division, the Chairperson is of the opinion that a panel of three members should be constituted.

The RPD only uses three-member panels for training purposes
The IRB publishes a policy instrument on their website entitled Designation of three-member panels - Refugee Protection Division. It notes that the Chairperson's authority to designate three-member panels for matters before the RPD has been delegated to the Deputy Chairperson (DC) and to the Assistant Deputy Chairpersons (ADCs) of the RPD and so the Chairperson need not form the above-noted opinion personally. However, under this delegation cases may only be designated to be heard by three-member panels for training purposes. That policy states that "assignment of three-member panels will be solely for training purposes" which appears to indicate that three-member panels will not be used in other circumstances, such as where a case is seen to be complex. For more details, see the commentary to RPD Rule 68(2): Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 67-68 - Decisions.

The RAD has issued a policy with respect to three-member panels
The IRB has issued a policy with respect to RAD three-member panels, which discusses criteria for designation, requests for a three-member panel, and notice of a three-member panel. This provision has been used in the past; on May 17, 2017, the RAD issued a decision by a three-member panel, which provided guidance to RAD members as to when the RPD is in a better position to make findings with respect to the credibility of oral testimony (subsequently overturned on judicial review ). See also the following provision of the IRPA with respect to the precedential value of such three-member RAD panels: Canadian Refugee Procedure/IRPA Section 171 - Proceedings.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/166 - Proceedings must be held in the absence of the public

IRPA Section 166
The legislative provision reads: 166 Proceedings before a Division are to be conducted as follows: (a) subject to the other provisions of this section, proceedings must be held in public; (b) on application or on its own initiative, the Division may conduct a proceeding in the absence of the public, or take any other measure that it considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of the proceedings, if, after having considered all available alternate measures, the Division is satisfied that there is  (i) a serious possibility that the life, liberty or security of a person will be endangered if the proceeding is held in public, (ii) a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the proceeding such that the need to prevent disclosure outweighs the societal interest that the proceeding be conducted in public, or  (iii) a real and substantial risk that matters involving public security will be disclosed; (c) subject to paragraph (d), proceedings before the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division must be held in the absence of the public; (c.1) subject to paragraph (d), proceedings before the Immigration Division must be held in the absence of the public if they concern a person who is the subject of a proceeding before the Refugee Protection Division or the Refugee Appeal Division that is pending or who has made an application for protection to the Minister that is pending; (d) on application or on its own initiative, the Division may conduct a proceeding in public, or take any other measure that it considers necessary to ensure the appropriate access to the proceedings if, after having considered all available alternate measures and the factors set out in paragraph (b), the Division is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so; (e) despite paragraphs (b) to (c.1), a representative or agent of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is entitled to observe proceedings concerning a protected person or a person who has made a claim for refugee protection or an application for protection; and (f) despite paragraph (e), the representative or agent may not observe any part of the proceedings that deals with information or other evidence in respect of which an application has been made under section 86, and not rejected, or with information or other evidence protected under that section.

The purpose and history of section 166(c) with respect to refugees
The right to privacy is a fundamental human right. IRCC takes the position that the purpose of the provisions under s. 166 of the IRPA are to provide protection for the refugee and their family against harm that might occur from disclosure of their case in public. They note that "in many cases, refugees have family members that are not accompanying them and revealing their identity may put remaining family members in the country of persecution at risk" and that "protecting the confidentiality of a refugee claimant's identity, the particulars of their claim for protection, and the fact that they had submitted a claim is 'vital to ensuring that no claimant is put at additional risk of serious harm, including persecution and torture. Otherwise, disclosure of information could lead to the country of persecution learning of the applicants' whereabouts, which could result in harm to the applicant.'" This is consistent with guidance from the UNHCR that "confidentiality and data protection extend to all communications with current and former asylum-seekers and refugees, as well as all personal data or information obtained from or about them".

Under the 1910 Immigration Act, proceedings before boards that determined admissibility and deportation matters were not public. This was subsequently changed somewhat. Under the regime that existed prior to the creation of the IRB, the refugee determination scheme contained both a public and an in camera hearing. The examination under oath before an officer was not public and persons other than the claimant, the senior immigration officer, the interpreter, and the stenographer could be present only if the claimant consented. The re-determination hearing before the Immigration Appeal Board, however, was public. This changed with the legislation that created the IRB. The Plaut report which presaged the creation of the IRB articulated the rationale for closed hearings as follows:"There is no doubt that the public has a valid interest in legal proceedings generally, as do members of the media. In the refugee context, however, this interest is outweighed by the very real danger to the claimant (should the claim be refused) or to the claimant's family, if the fact of the claim and the testimony given at the hearing become public knowledge and come to the attention of the authorities in the country from which the claimant fled. It is therefore recommended that the claimant have the right to require that the hearing be held in camera."The above recommendation was accepted and was incorporated into a provision introduced into the bill which led to the founding of the IRB in the late 1980s. In Bill C-86, tabled in the House of Commons on June 16, 1992, the government considered changing this provision back. As originally tabled, the bill provided for public hearings of refugee cases. This provision of the bill raised "a storm of protest" as, it was charged, public hearings would place refugee applicants in jeopardy. In response to this criticism the government reverted to the old rule that hearings before the refugee board would be in camera. Only in exceptional cases would they be held in public.

What is encompassed by the phrase "proceedings before the Refugee Protection Division"?
Section 166(c) provides that "...proceedings before the Refugee Protection Division...must be held in the absence of the public". What is encompassed by the term "proceedings" as it is used in this provision? For a discussion of that, see the definitions section of the RPD Rules, which comments on the definition of the term "proceeding": Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rule 1 - Definitions.

What is entailed by the legislative requirement that proceedings be conducted in the absence of the public?
The personal information in refugee claim files is generally accorded "Protected B" status. This is defined as "information where unauthorized disclosure could cause serious injury to an individual, organization or government. Examples include: medical information, information protected by solicitor-client or litigation privilege, and information received in confidence from other government departments and agencies." The legal standards requiring the protection of information also stem from the Directive on Departmental Security Management and the Privacy Act, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 55-56 - Joining or Separating Claims or Applications.

Facilities in which proceedings are held shall be sufficiently private
The requirement in s. 166(c) that refugee proceedings be conducted in the absence of the public tracks Canada’s international obligations. The UNHCR Executive Committee has outlined certain basic requirements for fair and effective status determination procedures. These requirements ensure that people seeking protection are provided with “necessary facilities,” which is defined to include an interview space that respects the privacy of the individuals being assessed.

Issues can arise related to this where a witness is testifying remotely, for example over the telephone. In such situations, the interview should be conducted in a location that will provide the highest level of confidentiality and security to the interviewee. If no such place exists, then it may be more appropriate not to hear such testimony at all, unless the individual concerned provides their informed consent. The greatest risk arises in public places such as hotels or restaurants, where interviews may be overheard and where surveillance may be very likely.

RPD staff must maintain confidences and be sufficiently trustworthy
Persons who have access to "Protected B" information within the government must have "Reliability Status". This is defined as "The minimum standard of security screening required for individuals to have unsupervised access to Protected government information, assets or work sites. Security screening for Reliability Status appraises an individual's honesty and whether he or she can be trusted to protect the government's interests."

Part of this obligation is ensuring that only trusted intermediaries are used, for example that interpreters can also be trusted to maintain confidences.

Facilities in which information is stored must be sufficiently private
The facilities in which refugee claim information are stored must be sufficiently private. As stated in the UNHCR "Privacy Protection Guidelines", "refugee information must be filed and stored in a way that is accessible only through authorized personnel and transferred only through the use of protected means of communication." For example, protected information must not be carried in the open when it is being carried out of the office. When being handled outside of an operational zone, Protected B files must not be "in the open" but carried in an envelope or comparable mechanism.

Protected information should be transmitted and communicated in a way that is sufficiently secure and private
As stated in the UNHCR Privacy Protection Guidelines, refugee information must be transferred only through the use of protected means of communication. This has a number of implications: when contacting a claimant, the RPD should not leave a voicemail about their case on an unknown voicemail if there is an indication that their phone number may have changed. Furthermore, the RPD should not communicate Protected B-level information or higher by email. The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) has a practice notice on communicating by email. It states that "the IAD will not transmit a document by email if it contains Protected B or higher information or it has been declared confidential or is subject to an order restricting publication, broadcasting or transmission by the IAD or any other competent authority." The same principles should apply to the Refugee Protection Division emailing any such information.

Members shall not disclose confidential information, even to other staff, where doing so is not operationally required
IRB personnel are only permitted access to hearings held in the absence of the public as required for work-related purposes. In the words of the Guideline for Employees of the Government of Canada: Information Management (IM) Basics, the government should ensure that "protected information is only made available on a need-to-know basis to those who are authorized to access it." The Code of Conduct for Members of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada provides that "Members shall not disclose or make known any information of a confidential nature that was obtained in their capacity as a member. This means disclosure outside of the IRB to other government departments or agencies or to the general public, as well as disclosure within the IRB to members or staff where such disclosure is not operationally required." This is in keeping with the UNHCR "Privacy Protection Guidelines" which require that "refugee information must be filed and stored in a way that is accessible only through authorized personnel and transferred only through the use of protected means of communication."

Members should only include necessary personal information in their decisions
The Code of Conduct for Members of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada provides that "Members have a responsibility to consider the privacy interests of individuals in the conduct of proceedings and the writing of decisions, ensuring that decisions contain only the personal information that is necessary to explain the reasoning of the decision."

The Board may issue a sealing order or confidentiality order
The Immigration Appeal Division has issued what are called "sealing orders" in other cases. Panels of the Refugee Appeal Division and Refugee Protection Division have likewise issued orders that the parties to an appeal, and any person who becomes privy to the sealed information in the record, shall maintain its confidentiality. Such orders that information be sealed and declared confidential, and that parties not to disclose it to the public, have been applied to the content of exhibits, the names of the witnesses, etc. Panels have at times provided quite specific directions, for example that parties delete and destroy specified information after a proceeding has completed.

The federal Privacy Act applies to information submitted to the Board
Quite apart from section 166 of the IRPA, the federal Privacy Act also places limitations on the ability of a government institution to use and disclose personal information under its control without the consent of the individual to whom it relates. Section 7 of the Privacy Act states that "personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be used by the institution except (a) for the purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled by the institution or for a use consistent with that purpose; or (b) for a purpose [listed in subsection 8(2) of the Act]."

“Personal information” is defined in section 3 of the Privacy Act as “information about an identifiable individual”. If the claimant cannot be identified as a result of redactions of a document, there would not be a concern about the disclosure of a document breaching the Privacy Act.

What are uses consistent with the purpose for which information is obtained in the refugee context?
According to the Treasury Board Interim Policy on Privacy Protection, consistent use is defined as one that has a reasonable and direct connection to the original purpose(s) for which the information was obtained or compiled. This means that the original purpose and the proposed purpose are so closely related that the individual would expect that the information would be used for the consistent purpose, even if the use is not spelled out. In Bernard v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that to qualify as a “consistent use” under paragraph 8(2)(a), a use need not be identical to the purpose for which information was obtained. There need only be a sufficiently direct connection between the purpose for obtaining the information and the proposed use, such that an individual could reasonably expect that the information could be used in the manner proposed.

The Basis of Claim form includes an appendix which contains the following instructions on the subject of "disclosure in other claims":"Although the confidentiality of the personal information you give in your BOC Form is protected, your information may be used in other claims that are related to yours or similar to yours, even if the other person is not claiming refugee protection with you. Before releasing this information to another claimant, the IRB will try to inform you about this in writing. To make sure that you receive this information, remember to give the IRB your new address when you move, even after you have received a decision on your claim. The IRB will not release the information if there is a serious possibility that releasing it will put someone's life, liberty or security in danger or is likely to cause an injustice. If you do not want your personal information to be released, please explain on a separate sheet of paper why you think there is a serious possibility that releasing your information may put someone's life, liberty or security in danger or is likely to cause an injustice. Attach the sheet of paper to your BOC Form."The following are examples of consistent uses that have been identified in previous decisions:
 * Disclosing a claimant's identity to a foreign government for the purpose of investigating their claim: In Igbinosun v. Canada the Federal Court held that disclosure of a claimant's identity to a foreign government for the purpose of investigating their potential exclusion from the refugee protection regime was a use of the information "consistent with [the purpose for which the information was obtained]" within the meaning of paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act. The normal practice of the Minister in such circumstances was exemplified in Moin v. Canada, wherein the Minister disclosed the claimant’s name to a foreign state (the alleged persecutors) but there was no indication that the Minister had advised authorities in the foreign country that the claimant had made a claim for asylum. As such, this inquiry was seen as unobjectionable by the court in that case. Where the Minister goes beyond providing a claimant's name and discloses additional information to the alleged persecutor, such as copies of documents that a claimant submitted, they may err. For example, in Canada v. X, Member McCool of the Refugee Protection Division stated: "In investigating the merits, bona fides or veracity of claims brought before the Division, the Minister must balance, and be seen to balance, the need to protect the individual, including those who have been determined to be Convention refugees, against the need, in the public interest, to detect and prevent fraud."
 * Disclosing information regarding the conduct of authorized representatives to regulatory bodies: Section 13.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations provides that if a member of the Board or an officer determines that the conduct of a representative in connection with a proceeding before the Board is likely to constitute a breach of the person's professional or ethical obligations, the Board may disclose information to a body that is responsible for governing or investigating that conduct or to a person who is responsible for investigating that conduct. The Board has a Policy on Disclosing Information Regarding the Conduct of Authorized Representatives to Regulatory Bodies which states that it is the view of the IRB that such disclosures are in accordance with paragraph 8(2)(b) of the Privacy Act, namely that it is for a purpose in accordance with any Act of Parliament or any regulation made thereunder that authorizes disclosure. See also: Canadian Refugee Procedure/IRPR s. 13.1 - Authorized disclosure.
 * Considering information from one claim when adjudicating other, joined claims: See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 55-56 - Joining or Separating Claims or Applications.
 * Disclosing information from one hearing where it is relevant to credibility in another hearing: The Privacy Commissioner has found that the Immigration and Refugee Board's introduction of one individual's personal information into the refugee hearing of another individual was a "consistent use" under section 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act. In one particular case, a refugee claimant gave evidence at his own refugee claim hearing, but gave contradictory evidence about his curriculum vitae when he agreed to be called as a witness in a subsequent hearing for another individual. The Immigration and Refugee Board introduced his file into the second hearing to challenge the credibility of the witness, something the Privacy Commissioner concluded was appropriate in the circumstances. This was properly considered a consistent use because the individual concerned brought his own personal information into question at the second refugee hearing by testifying about the same information provided at his hearing (although in a contradictory manner). Paragraphs 8(2)(a) and (b) of the Privacy Act are definitely not intended as a blanket endorsement for personal information of refugees to be shared at all refugee hearings.

For further discussion of the Privacy Act in the refugee context, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 55-56 - Joining or Separating Claims or Applications.

An application may be made to have the proceedings conducted in public
Applications to have proceedings conducted in public are considered under the rubric of RPD Rule 57: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rule 57 - Proceedings Conducted in Public or the equivalent rule at the RAD.

Should a panel admit copies of decisions from other claims?
As section 166(c) of the Act provides, refugee proceedings are to be conducted in the absence of the public. Some decisions are anonymized and are posted on CanLII by the Board (for data on this, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 67-68 - Decisions). At times, counsel will want to provide decisions to a panel of the Board from other panels of the Board that have not been published. It is common practice that counsel will indicate that they have the consent of the claimant in question to provide the decision and that they will anonymize parts of the decision that disclose the claimant's identity. Where this is not done, panels of the Board have declined to admit such information. For example, in one such case Refugee Appeal Division Member Kim Polowek stated that: "The RAD notes that proceedings before the Refugee Protection Division and Refugee Appeal Division must be held in the absence of the public and should not be disclosed without the consent of the persons involved in the proceeding (i.e. the claimant). Given that the Appellant has not provided any confirmation which would indicate that each claimant referred to in these RPD decisions has provided consent for disclosure to the RAD, and the fact that despite the partial redactions, many personal details remain in each of the RPD decisions, the Appellant’s Application [] to submit these RPD decisions to the RAD as new evidence fails."That reasoning may be persuasive in similar cases. In contrast, where the consent of the claimant has been obtained and/or the decision has been well redacted of personally-identifying information, a panel may decide to admit such decisions.


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/170 - Proceedings

IRPA Section 170
The relevant provision of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act reads: Proceedings 170 The Refugee Protection Division, in any proceeding before it, (a) may inquire into any matter that it considers relevant to establishing whether a claim is well-founded; (b) must hold a hearing; (c) must notify the person who is the subject of the proceeding and the Minister of the hearing; (d) must provide the Minister, on request, with the documents and information referred to in subsection 100(4); (d.1) may question the witnesses, including the person who is the subject of the proceeding; (e) must give the person and the Minister a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, question witnesses and make representations; (f) may, despite paragraph (b), allow a claim for refugee protection without a hearing, if the Minister has not notified the Division, within the period set out in the rules of the Board, of the Minister’s intention to intervene; (g) is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence; (h) may receive and base a decision on evidence that is adduced in the proceedings and considered credible or trustworthy in the circumstances; and (i) may take notice of any facts that may be judicially noticed, any other generally recognized facts and any information or opinion that is within its specialized knowledge.

IRPA Section 170(a) - May inquire into any matter that it considers relevant to establishing whether a claim is well-founded
Proceedings 170 The Refugee Protection Division, in any proceeding before it, (a) may inquire into any matter that it considers relevant to establishing whether a claim is well-founded; ...

Commentary
The pro-active role of RPD members was recognized with the passing of the IRPA which first included this particularly provision specifying the RPD “may inquire into any matter that it considers relevant to establishing whether a claim is well-founded”. See also: Canadian Refugee Procedure/165 - Powers of a Member.

IRPA Section 170(b) - Must hold a hearing
Proceedings 170 The Refugee Protection Division, in any proceeding before it, ... (b) must hold a hearing;

The Division is required to hold a hearing in any proceeding before it, except where it allows a claim for refugee protection without a hearing in specific circumstances
Section 170(b) of the IRPA states that the Division must hold a hearing in any proceeding before it. This requirement is qualified by section 170(f), which provides that, despite paragraph (b), the Division may allow a claim for refugee protection without a hearing if the Minister has not notified the Division, within the period set out in the rules of the Board, of the Minister’s intention to intervene. For more information on this, see the commentary on Rule 23: Canadian Refugee Procedure/Allowing a Claim Without a Hearing.

The requirement to hold a hearing provided for in section 170(b) of the Act is a comparatively strong requirement, which can be contrasted with the equivalent provision for the Immigration Division, which only requires that Division to hold a hearing "where practicable". This requirement stems from the Supreme Court of Canada's Singh decisions, which mandates an oral hearing in every case that went to the IAB, the IRB's predecessor. There were strong policy reasons for this, not only related to fairness so that apparent inconsistencies in the claimant's statement could be clarified, and the claimant's response to adverse evidence could be obtained, but also for reasons of efficiency. As Rabbi Gunther Plaut explained in his report on Refugee determination in Canada commissioned by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, prior to an oral hearing being provided in every case, in order to ensure fairness to the claimant, the Refugee Status Advisory Committee had adopted a procedure whereby the examination would be re-opened to elicit necessary evidence. This resulted in considerable delay and was a cumbersome procedure that became unnecessary with the advent of full oral reasons before the actual decision-maker.

IRPA Section 170(c) - Must notify the person who is the subject of the proceeding and the Minister of the hearing
Proceedings 170 The Refugee Protection Division, in any proceeding before it, ... (c) must notify the person who is the subject of the proceeding and the Minister of the hearing;

The person who is the subject of the proceeding must be notified, but such individuals are responsible for providing their contact information
The Refugee Protection Division has concludes that "claimants have the right to be notified of their hearing date and to be present at the hearing, but similarly share the responsibility of providing authorities with the information necessary to receive notice." See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/Information and Documents to be Provided.

Minister must be notified of the hearing regardless of whether they are a party under the rules
As stated in the Board's public commentary to the previous version of the RPD Rules, "The Minister must be notified of the hearing of a claim for refugee protection even if the Minister has not intervened in the claim under...the Rules". For more detail, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing.

IRPA Section 170(d) - Must provide the Minister, on request, with the documents and information referred to in subsection 100(4)
Proceedings 170 The Refugee Protection Division, in any proceeding before it, ... (d) must provide the Minister, on request, with the documents and information referred to in subsection 100(4);

IRPA Section 170(d.1) - May question the witnesses, including the person who is the subject of the proceeding
Proceedings 170 The Refugee Protection Division, in any proceeding before it, ... (d.1) may question the witnesses, including the person who is the subject of the proceeding;

IRPA Section 170(e) - Must provide an opportunity to present evidence, question witnesses and make representations
Proceedings 170 The Refugee Protection Division, in any proceeding before it, ... (e) must give the person and the Minister a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, question witnesses and make representations;

The person involved in any proceeding before the RPD must have a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, question witnesses and make representations
For a discussion of how this relates to the right to be heard, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing and Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing.

The Minister must have a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, question witnesses and make representations
Section 170(e) of the IRPA provides that the RPD, in any proceeding before it, must give the Minister a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, question witnesses, and make representations. This was not the case when the Convention Refugee Determination Division was originally created. At that point, the Minister was entitled only to present evidence and could not cross-examine the claimant or make representations, save where exclusion or cessation was at issue. This was considered important at the time in order to ensure the non-adversarial nature of the refugee status determination inquiry. In subsequent years, however, this provision was amended so that it is now worded as above. Furthermore, even under the prior Immigration Act wording the Refugee Division could, if it considered it appropriate to do so, give the Minister a reasonable opportunity to question the claimant and any other witnesses and to make submissions.

The RPD Rules require that the Minister be notified of certain issues, for example where there is a possibility of exclusion. If a panel proceeds without notifying the Minister as required, the Minister's right to be heard has been violated, as discussed in the commentary to Rule 26: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 26-28 - Exclusion, Integrity Issues, Inadmissibility and Ineligibility. Similarly, if the Board accepts a claim without holding a hearing, and without providing advance notice to the Minister, then the Minister's right to participate in the hearing process may have been violated: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rule 23 - Allowing a Claim Without a Hearing.

IRPA Section 170(f) - May allow a claim without a hearing
Proceedings 170 The Refugee Protection Division, in any proceeding before it, ... (b) must hold a hearing; ... (f) may, despite paragraph (b), allow a claim for refugee protection without a hearing, if the Minister has not notified the Division, within the period set out in the rules of the Board, of the Minister’s intention to intervene;

Commentary
For commentary on this provision, see RPD Rule 23: Canadian Refugee Procedure/Allowing a Claim Without a Hearing.

IRPA Section 170(g) - Is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence
Proceedings 170 The Refugee Protection Division, in any proceeding before it, ... (g) is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence;

The Division may receive evidence that does not comply with the Canada Evidence Act and common law rules of evidence
Section 170(g) of the Act provides that the Refugee Protection Division, in any proceedings before it, is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence. As such, the Board is not required to refuse to admit evidence merely because it does not comply with a rule of evidence. For example, a panel of the Board is not required to refuse to admit an affidavit merely because it does not meet the requirements of Part III of the Canada Evidence Act, which governs the taking of affidavits abroad. Similarly, the Board is not enjoined from compelling a party's spouse to testify about communications made to them in the course of their marriage, something that would ordinarily be prohibited by section 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act which provides that "No husband is compellable to disclose any communication made to him by his wife during their marriage, and no wife is compellable to disclose any communication made to her by her husband during their marriage." The Federal Court has held that the legislative intent behind IRPA section 170(g) is "to avoid the formalities which are attendant upon court hearings in civil or criminal proceedings."

That said, the relaxation of evidentiary rules by the RPD cannot be uniform in all matters; they must respond to the requirements of procedural fairness, and reflect the nature of the particular proceedings, issues involved, and interests at stake. Furthermore, each Canada Evidence Act provision may be examined to determine how it interacts with s. 170(g) of the IRPA. In Brown v. Canada, when commenting on the scope of disclosure required of the Minister necessary for a matter to be procedurally fair, the Federal Court of Appeal made reference to the Canada Evidence Act, as follows: "Subject to recognized public interest privileges arising under section 38.01 of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, relevant evidence of communications with a receiving country ought to be disclosed in advance of the hearing." They went on to note that "it would be a rare case where a member could properly exercise their discretion to continue detention in the absence of this evidence." In this way, despite the Immigration Division in that case not being "bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence" (the language of the relevant IRPA provision which applies to the Immigration Division), this Canada Evidence Act provision nonetheless related to the extent of disclosure necessary for the proceeding to be fair.

The Division must refuse to admit evidence where admitting it would violate a substantive rule of law such as solicitor-client privilege
Section 170(g) of the Act provides that the Refugee Protection Division, in any proceedings before it, is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence. This means that provisions of the Canada Evidence Act do not constrain the Board's ability to admit evidence. This principle applies to rules of evidence, such as spousal privilege, but not to rules of substantive law such as solicitor-client privilege. In this way, a panel of the RPD is obliged to respect solicitor-client privilege and must decline to admit information so protected, except where a relevant exception applies.

That said, the panel must consider whether such privilege in fact applies, for example, where a litigant relies on legal advice as an element of his or her claim or defence, the privilege which would otherwise attach to that advice is lost. Furthermore, the Board can also inquire into the instructions provided by immigration consultants or lawyers as to efforts to obtain corroborating evidence. This is not a privilege issue as it does not pertain to legal advice but instructions to follow the law.

Similarly, a panel of the Board may be required to refuse to admit evidence where doing so is required by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or specific statutes such as the Privacy Act. For more details, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 31-43 - Documents.

The Division must not fetter its discretion by refusing to admit evidence where the evidence does not meet the technical rules of evidence
See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to an independent decision-maker.

While the Division is not bound by rules of evidence, the Division may still have regard to them
Section 170(g) of the IRPA is clear that the Refugee Protection Division is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence. That said, the Division may nonetheless have regard to such rules in a number of ways, including:

 * When assigning weight to evidence: Lorne Waldman writes in his text that "in cases where the evidence is not normally admissible in a court of law, the Division must give careful consideration to the weight given to the evidence." For example, the fact that evidence was "based on hearsay that was only corroborated by other hearsay" was an appropriate consideration where the RAD concluded that the evidence tendered was insufficient to establish the appellant's factual claim. The relaxation of evidentiary rules by the RPD cannot be uniform in all matters; they must respond to the requirements of procedural fairness, and reflect the nature of the particular proceedings, issues involved, and interests at stake.
 * When exercising residual discretion about whether to admit evidence: Simply because a panel of the Board may accept some evidence does not mean that it must; the panel has a discretion to decline to admit the evidence as part of the broader discretion that it has to control its own process and balance the probative value of evidence with its prejudicial effect, if any, on the hearing process. In the words of the Refugee Appeal Division, “since the RPD is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence, it must generally admit all evidence unless it is irrelevant, repetitive or prejudicial”, highlighting this residual discretion to decline to admit certain prejudicial evidence. For example, see decisions regarding the Board's discretion to refuse to allow a lawyer to act as a witness in a matter where they are also acting as counsel: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 44-48 - Witnesses.
 * When determining whether evidence should properly be considered credible and trustworthy: Section 31.1 of the Canada Evidence Act provides that "Any person seeking to admit an electronic document as evidence has the burden of proving its authenticity by evidence capable of supporting a finding that the electronic document is that which it is purported to be." Recourse may be had to this provision when assessing whether a claimant has met their burden to establish that electronic evidence tendered is credible and trustworthy.
 * When determining whether an individual may properly act as counsel: Common law principles preclude counsel from being the affiant who swears an affidavit in a matter that they will appear as counsel on. Such principles of evidence and potential conflict of interest may be considered when allowing evidence and allowing an individual to act as counsel.
 * When determining what questions may appropriately be posed to a witness: For example, the Chairperson’s Guideline 3: Proceedings Involving Minors at the Immigration and Refugee Board specifies that when a minor under the age of 14 testifies they shall not be asked if they understand what promising to tell the truth means. The reference cited for this in the guideline is section 16.1 of the Canada Evidence Act.

IRPA Section 170(h) - May receive and base a decision on evidence considered credible or trustworthy
Proceedings 170 The Refugee Protection Division, in any proceeding before it, ... (h) may receive and base a decision on evidence that is adduced in the proceedings and considered credible or trustworthy in the circumstances;

History of this provision
The standard that evidence considered credible or trustworthy may be admitted and used for a decision has been a longstanding one in Canadian immigration proceedings. The 1910 Immigration Act articulated the duties and procedures of boards of inquiry to determine admissibility and deportation matters. At that time, a board could base its decision on any evidence it considered credible and trustworthy.

Burden of proof
The burden of proof rests on a claimant to show that they meet the definition of a 'person in need of protection' or Convention Refugee in the Act. For further discussion of this, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The Board's inquisitorial mandate.

Standard of proof
The standard of proof for assessing evidence as well as credibility in Canadian law is a balance of probabilities, that is, the evidence is more likely than not true. This accords with UNHCR guidance which states that the authorities need to decide if, based on the evidence provided, it is likely that the claim of the applicant is credible.

Where there is a dispute, the Division should explain why evidence was considered credible and trustworthy
Section 170(h) of the Act provides that the Refugee Protection Division, in any proceeding before it, may receive and base a decision on evidence that is adduced in the proceedings and considered credible or trustworthy in the circumstances. In this way, a Division of the Board is entitled to rely on sources of information that may not be admissible evidence in a court proceeding, provided that the Division explains why the information is credible or trustworthy. The IRB's paper on weighing evidence notes that it is not the Division's normal practice to determine whether evidence is credible or trustworthy prior to admitting it: The wording of the relevant provisions of the IRPA tends to support the position that the IRB should not receive, or admit, evidence unless it is determined to be credible or trustworthy. However, this does not reflect the normal practice at the ID, IAD, or RPD. There are two reasons for this. Once evidence is excluded, it is hard to later admit it. It is much simpler to admit the evidence and subsequently give it no weight if that is warranted. Further, it is preferable to assess the credibility of the evidence based on the total evidence presented. Credibility decisions are not always easy to make, and often require careful thought and analysis. The hearing process would become very slow and tedious if a ruling regarding credibility had to be made as each piece of evidence was tendered. However, it is clear that before relying on evidence, the Board must first assess the reliability of the evidence. See a discussion of this in Pascal v Canada, which, while a decision relating to the Board's Immigration Division, applies mutatis mutandis to the Refugee Protection Division. See also Fong v Canada, a decision concerning the Board's Immigration Appeal Division, in which the IAD accepted police reports into evidence concerning a crime that Mr. Fong had been acquitted of. The Federal Court held that the IAD had erred in doing so because it had failed to determine that the police reports were either credible or trustworthy, as required by the Act:"in light of the acquittal of the applicant on the charges to which they related, [the police reports] were prima facie neither credible nor trustworthy as they set out the factual foundation for charges laid that were subsequently not proven. The police reports should not have been admitted into evidence in these circumstances."This relates to James Hathaway's statement that it is not the case that "every piece of paper tendered [should] be received, even with the stipulation that differential weight will be accorded to less relevant materials" as the statutory reference to the admission only of evidence which is trustworthy or credible requires that evidence not logically probative of a legally material fact be excluded. See also: Canadian Refugee Procedure/Documents.

How should the Division determine whether evidence should be considered credible or trustworthy?
The Refugee Protection Division, in any proceeding before it, may receive and base a decision on evidence that is adduced in the proceedings and considered credible or trustworthy in the circumstances. The Federal Court of Appeal has stated that it finds "no linguistic warrant for distinguishing the words 'credible' and 'trustworthy'" and has treated them as synonymous. At other times, the terms have been distinguished, with "credible" evidence being considered that which is believable and "trustworthy" evidence is that which falls into the broader category of reliable evidence. A full discussion of these principles is beyond the scope of this text. Credibility and reliability are different. Credibility has to do with a witness’s veracity, while reliability relates to the accuracy of testimony, which engages consideration of the witness’s ability to accurately observe, recall and recount events in issue. In general, it is observed that credibility and reliability assessments are also context-specific and multifactorial: they do not operate along fixed lines and are “more of an ‘art than a science’”.

There are a number of tools utilized by refugee status determination bodies to this end, for example, UNHCR registration officers deploy tools such as checking the consistency of stories told to them by re-interviewing applicants. Government security services will seek to corroborate the information they receive. When it comes to assessing the credibility and reliability of documents that have been submitted, the Federal Court has endorsed applying the five criteria used in library and information science to determine the reliability of information—authority, accuracy, objectivity, currency, and coverage—as a framework. Decision-makers may also consider whether a party has failed to provide corroborative evidence and this relates to credibility in 2 cases: (1) where there are other valid reasons to doubt a claimant’s credibility; and (2) where such evidence would be reasonably expected to be available and filed, and the decision maker does not accept the claimant’s explanation for failing to produce it. The law also recognizes the inherent unreliability of certain types of evidence, such as hearsay evidence. There is no presumption of truth for hearsay and it can be accepted, but only on grounds of reliability and necessity – the burden to establish those conditions resting on the party introducing the evidence.

Determining whether evidence should be excluded on the basis that there are reasonable grounds to believe it was obtained through torture or cruel inhumane or degrading treatment [CIDT] requires the application of a two-part test. First, the party advocating for the exclusion of the evidence is required to show a plausible connection between the evidence and the use of torture or CIDT. Where the plausible connection threshold has been met, the burden shifts to the party seeking to rely on the evidence, the Minister, to demonstrate there are no reasonable grounds to believe the evidence was obtained by torture, or put differently, that there is an absence of a real risk the evidence was obtained by torture.

See also: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 3-13 - Information and Documents to be Provided.

IRPA Section 170(i) - May take notice of facts
Proceedings 170 The Refugee Protection Division, in any proceeding before it, ... may take notice of any facts that may be judicially noticed, any other generally recognized facts and any information or opinion that is within its specialized knowledge.

RPD Rule 22 on Specialized Knowledge relates to this provision of the Act
For a discussion of the interpretation of this provision, see the commentary to RPD Rule 22: Canadian Refugee Procedure/Specialized Knowledge.


text:
Wikijunior:How Things Are Made/Electrical Appliances/Radio

Products
The radio receives electromagnetic waves from the air that are sent by a radio transmitter. Electromagnetic waves are a combination of electrical and magnetic fields that overlap. The radio converts these electromagnetic waves, called a signal, into sounds that humans can hear.

What do we need to make this thing?
Today's radio consists of an antenna, printed circuit board, resistors, capacitors, coils and transformers, transistors, integrated circuits, and a speaker. All of these parts are housed in a plastic case.

Antenna - Antenna usually consists of either internal or external type. An internal antenna consists of small-diameter insulated copper wire wound around a ferrite core. An external antenna consists of several aluminum tubes that slide within one another.

(PCB) Printed circuit board - The printed circuit board consists of a copper-clad pattern cemented to a phenolic board. The copper pattern is the wiring from component to component. It replaces most of the wiring used in earlier radios.

Resistors - The resistors consist of a carbon film deposited on a cylindrical substrate, encased in a plastic (alkyd polyester) housing, with wire leads made of copper.

Capacitors - Capacitors grouped into two types: Variable or fixed. Fixed capacitors consist of two extended aluminum foil electrodes insulated by polypropylene film, housed in a plastic or ceramic housing with copper wire leads. Variable capacitors have a set of fixed aluminum plates and a set of rotating aluminum plates with an air insulator.

Coils and transformers - They consist of two or more sets of copper wire coils either wound on an insulator or mounted side-by-side with air as the insulator.

Transistors - It consist of germanium or silicon encased in a metal housing with copper wire leads.

(IC) Integrated circuit - It houses thousands of resistors, capacitors, and transistors into a small and compact package called a chip. This chip is about the size of the nail on the little finger. The chip is mounted in a plastic case with aluminum tabs that allow it to be mounted to a printed circuit board.

What is the step by step process?
There is no single process for manufacturing a radio. The manufacturing process depends upon the design and complexity of the radio.
 * Step 1: The blank printed circuit board consists of a glass epoxy resin with a thin copper film cemented to one or both sides. A light sensitive photoresist film is placed over the copper film. A mask containing the electrical circuitry is placed over the photoresist film. The photoresist film is exposed to ultraviolet light. The photoresist image is developed, transferring the image to the copper film. The unexposed areas dissolve during etching and produce a printed circuit on the board. This process is called chemical etching.
 * Step 2: Holes are drilled in designated locations on the printed circuit board to accept the components. Then, the board is pre-soldered by dipping it in a bath of hot solder.
 * Step 3: Smaller electronic components such as resistors, capacitors, transistors, integrated circuits, and coils are installed in their designated holes on the printed circuit board and soldered to the board. These operations can be performed by hand or by robots.
 * Step 4: Larger components such as power transformer, speaker, and antenna are mounted either on the PCB or cabinet with screws or metal spring tabs.
 * Step 5: The case that houses the radio can be made either of plastic or aluminum. Plastic cases are made from pellets that are melted and injected into a mold. Aluminum cases are stamped into shape from sheet aluminum by a metal press.
 * Step 6: External components not mounted on the printed circuit board can be the antenna, speaker, power transformer, volume, and frequency controls are mounted in the case with either screws, rivets, or plastic snaps. The printed circuit board is then mounted in the case with screws or snaps. The external components are connected and soldered to the printed circuit board with insulated wires made of copper and plastic insulation.


text:
User:Ahmet Q.

User of Wikibooks.

title: User:Ahmet Q.


text:
History of wireless telegraphy and broadcasting in Australia/Topical/Biographies/George Henry Boundy

George Henry Boundy was a well known early wireless experimenter in the period before WW1. He was a member of the brief lived Wireless Institute of Queensland, but does not appear to have continued his interest through the Queensland Wireless Institute post WW1. He was a contemporary of Edward Gustavus Campbell Barton and was a member of the Queensland Electrical Association with Barton in the 1890s. He was originally a testing officer with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in Victoria from 1882 and accepted a similar position in the Queensland department. He retired in 1931 and passed suddenly in 1932 while visiting relations in Victoria. The Boundy family was known in Victoria through their association with the earliest discoveries of gold in Victoria in 1851. A summary biography has not yet been prepared however the following resources have been assembled in preparation:
 * Transcriptions and Notes - George Henry Boundy - More than 50 transcriptions and notes
 * Photos, QSL cards and other graphics - George Henry Boundy - Nothing uploaded as yet


text:
History of wireless telegraphy and broadcasting in Australia/Topical/Biographies/George Henry Boundy/Notes

Non-chronological material and key article copies
Farewell to Boundy at Malmsbury as he departs for Qld "MALMSBURY. (From our own correspondent.) November 1. PRESENTATION TO MR. G. H. BOUNDY. A very pleasant affair came off on Friday night at the National Hotel — a presentation to Mr G. H. Boundy, who during the last four years has acted as telegraph operator at the post-office here; and who by his courteous and obliging conduct has won the golden opinions of the inhabitants generally. He has obtained a similar appointment in Queensland. The occasion of the presentation was very hurriedly arranged. About 20 ladies and gentlemen were present. The Mayor was voted to the chair, and explained the object of the gathering to be taking farewell of their young friend, and making a small presentation to him. Mr I. L. French said he was greatly pleased to have the opportunity of publicly expressing the pleasure he felt in presenting Mr Boundy with a small token of the respect and esteem in which he was held by those he was about to leave. Mr Boundy's character had been most exemplary, and a pattern to the young men of the place. His courteous bearing, and obliging manner, had won the esteem of every one. He (Mr French) felt all the more pride in speaking thus as Mr Boundy was a native of the place, and in presenting him with a testimonial : subscribed for by all classes, and with regard to which there had not been a single refusal. A much larger sum could have been obtained had time permitted, and probably the presentation would have taken another form. A short address had been prepared, which he handed to Mr Boundy with a purse of sovereigns, with the hope that they would prove useful to him, and be a memento of his career at Malmsbury. The address read as follows:—'Malmsbury, Colony of Victoria, 29th October, 1886 — To Mr George Henry Boundy — Dear Sir,— On the eve of your departure from this place, where you have during the past four years occupied the position of telegraph operator and messenger, and being about to proceed to Queensland in a similar.capacity, we herewith present you with a small purse of sovereigns in appreciation of the excellent character you have borne, and especially for your courtesy and obliging conduct at all times when in the discharge of your duties. We are sure that in your new sphere you will maintain these good qualities, and we trust that you will live to enjoy a career of usefulness that is open to you in the rising colony to which you are now going. — We are, Dear Sir, yours faithfully,' (Here follow the names of the subscribers with the amounts subscribed, the total being about £17.) After a few words from Mr Adamson expressive of the pleasure it afforded him to be able to speak in such high terms of one of the Malmsbury youths. Mr Boundy responded, regretting his inability to find words suitable to enable him to convey his heartfelt thanks for the kindness shown him. He trusted those present would accept as sincere whatever he was able to give expression to by way of thanks to all who had shown such a warm interest him, by contributing to the handsome gift and the tribute accompanying it. He would value it highly, and it would ever be an inducement to him to continue on the same path he had marked out while living in Malmsbury. In conclusion, he once more expressed his thanks for the.great kindness shown to him. The address was handsomely bound in maroon velvet, the work of Mrs French, and was greatly admired. After drinking Mr Boundy's health with musical honors, and wishing him bon voyage, the proceedings terminated."

Boundy retires at age 65 "FAREWELL SOCIAL. Postal Officers Retire. Messrs. G. Bolton, G. H. Boundy, and M. H. Tait, officers of the General Post Office in Brisbane, who are retiring, after nearly 50 years' service, were tendered a farewell by officials of the telegraph and engineering staffs at the Postal Institute on Saturday evening. More than 100 members of the department and their friends attended, and the Acting Deputy Director of Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. F. W. Arnold) presented to each of the retiring officers an upholstered easy chair. Mr. S. J. Wilcox (Superintendent of Telegraphs) presided. He referred to the lengthy services of the three men and regretted their departure from the service. They would be difficult to replace, he said, and certainly none commanded more respect than they. Tributes also were paid by Messrs. H. R. Moore (Assistant Superintendent of Telegraphs), C. E. Sandercock (Telegraphic Engineer), M. P. D. Healy (Supervisor of Telegraphs), M. Twomey (president of the Telegraphists' Union), and C. H. Fuelling (secretary of the Telegraphists' Union). Mr. Bolton, who was Assistant Superintendent of Telegraphs, joined the service in 1881, and Mr. Boundy (Testing Officer) two years later. Mr. Tait, who was also a Testing Officer, was transferred from the Railway Department in 1885. He was appointed Supervisor of Traffic in 1922 and Supervisor of Testing in 1926. During the evening an entertaining programme was provided by Miss Jessie Lees and Messrs. Bob Crosby. E. Woods, F. Ryland, J. Dean, and J. Macgregor. Accompaniments were played by Miss Eileen Healy."

As previous "PERSONAL. . . . A farwell social was tendered in the Postal Institute on Saturday evening to Messrs. G. Boulton (Assistant Superintendent of Telegraphs), G. H. Boundy, and M. H. Tait (testing officers), who are retiring from the service on attaining the age limit of 65 years. Mr. S. J. Wilcox (Superintendent of Telegraphs) presided over a large gathering, and on behalf of the members, presented the retiring officers each with an armchair. Speeches were also made by Messrs. H. R. Moore (Assistant Superintendent of Telegraphs), C. E. Sandercock (telegraph engineer), N. P. D. Healy (supervisor), M. Twomey; and C. H. Fuelling, and the guests made a suitable response. Musical items were contributed by Miss Jessie Lees, and Messrs. R. Crosby, J. Dean, and J. Macgregor. Miss Eileen Healy acted as pianiste, and Mr. J. Dean as master of ceremonies."

Brief obituary for Boundy "OBITUARY. MR. G. H. BOUNDY. It will be learned with regret by a wide circle of friends that Mr. G. H. Boundy, of Rockbourne-terrace, Upper Paddington, died early on Wednesday morning in a private hospital in Melbourne. The late gentleman came to Queensland in 1886 and joined the Postmaster-General's De-partment. After a few years in Bo-wen he was transferred to Brisbane where he was stationed until his re-tirement under the age limit last Oc-tober. Mr. Boundy was for many years testing officer in the Chief Telegraph Office, in Brisbane, and acted as as-sistant superintendent upon more than one occasion. He was esteemed by the department as a capable and trustworthy officer. Mr. Boundy was for a long time a church warden and treasurer of Christ Church, Milton. He is survived by his widow and daughter, Joyce (who are at present in Melbourne) and two sons, Roy and Noel."

As previous "Mr. G. H. Boundy. Mr. G. H. Boundy, of Rockbourne Terrace, Upper Paddington, died early on Wednesday morning in a private hospital in Melbourne. With his wife and son, Noel, he went to Victoria about six weeks ago on a visit, and became ill soon after arrival. He underwent a serious operation, but failed to recover. The late Mr. Boundy came to Queensland in 1886, and joined the Postmaster-General's Department. After a few years in Bowen he was transferred to Brisbane, where he was stationed until his retirement under the age limit last October. Mr. Boundy was for many years testing officer in the Chief Telegraph Office, in Brisbane, and acted as assistant superintendent on more than one occasion. He was much liked by his fellows, and esteemed by the Department as a capable and trustworthy officer. He was for a long time a church warden and treasurer of Christ Church, Milton. He is survived by his widow and daughter, Joyce (who are at present in Melbourne), and two sons, Roy and Noel."

1863 10
Brief mention of Boundy's father's role in discovery of gold in Victoria "THE FIRST DISCOVERY OF GOLD IN VICTORIA. In a lecture on this subject at Kyneton, on Wednesday evening last, Mr. Tucker, M.L.A., made the following statements, as reported in the Guardian:- 'He arrived in the colony in the year 1842, and resided on the Plenty River, not far from the present Yan Yean reservoir. Shortly after being there he fell in with an old hand who showed him some kind of stone or hard earth which he said contained gold. It was however, scarcely visible, but after looking at it carefully he thought he saw some specks something like gold. After this he went to reside near Ararat, where he fell in with a man named Johnson, who used to go about like a hermit, and it was fancied by people he was finding gold, and he had offered him, if he gave him money, to show where it was found, but it was not in his power then to give money. In 1847, some men were sent out from England, among whom was one named Chapman. This man discovered a lump of gold, took it to Melbourne, and sold it to a person named Chas. Bretenna (who was then living in Collins-street) for £20. The same lump was worth four times the amount, but of course Chapman did not know its value, and thought himself lucky to get what he did for it. This piece of gold was publicly exhibited, and he (Mr. Tucker) had frequently handled it. Shortly after this, Chapman went away to Sydney, and was never again heard of. A mate of Chapman's, however, came in contact with him (Mr. Tucker) by accident and he was frequently talking about the lump of gold sold to Bretenna. He was also constantly saying, 'If you only knew what you were walking upon, you would soon have sufficient gold to buy all Europe.' Very little notice was taken of this, as it was thought he was not right in his mind. Having, however, on one occasion, began to talk more than ever about gold, and having opened his swag, he took out a piece of gold rather more than a quarter of an ounce, and said there was plenty of it to be found. There was no mistake as to the gold now, and upon being further questioned, he admitted being a mate of Chapman's, but that he had agreed not to divulge the secret until he saw him again, or until after a certain time. This man, however, soon after left, but a deep impression was made upon himself, and for some time he could think of nothing else but this gold and where to find it. In 1848, parties in Melbourne, from hearing of the gold in possession of Bretenna, began to fancy gold was to be found at the Pyrennees, and many actually came up and began to dig for it, but Government would not allow them, and they were obliged to disperse. In 1849, gold was discovered in California, and the news arriving induced many to leave this colony and go to that place. In that year, two men came to him, hearing he had seen the gold in Melbourne and for that reason believed he must know something about minerals. They took out from a leather bag different samples of mineral, among which there certainly was gold, and he doubted not, silver also. These men agreed to dig and search for more of these provided he would supply them with rations. They would, however, have to work at night, for if found doing so in the day Government would send them to gaol. To work they went at night, and succeeded in finding a supply of a kind of black sand, containing minerals of some kind, which, on being brought to Bretenna he pronounced to be gold. As soon, therefore, as a quantity was obtained, this was put in a box, and taken by him to Melbourne. But now came the most trying and difficult part of the affair — how was the gold to be extracted? A long description of the methods resorted to for this purpose followed, all of which proved at any rate, that all was not gold that glitters. In 1850, he (Mr. Tucker) started business in Kyneton, and in going soon after up the country to find a Mr. Joyce, the owner of some land in Piper street, and on going down the creek now called Forest Creek, he picked up several stones in which gold was distinctly seen. Just at this time gold was discovered at the Clunes, in quartz, some of which he obtained, and compared with those picked up in Forest Creek, and on pounding them got therefrom a solid piece. Alluvial gold was now found at Ballarat in unmistakable quantities, and similar discoveries were also made at and near Castlemaine. This was in August, 1851, when he started himself with young George Boundy, and came upon some parties working at Specimen Gully, from whose claim he brought a few nice specimens. Seeing the state of things, he came back to Kyneton, and at once fitted out a party to proceed to Forest Creek to dig for gold. He there met Captain Dana and Mr. Powlett, and procured from them fourteen licences, for which he paid £21. These were the first licences ever issued in Forest Creek, where tons of gold have since been found.'"

1880 01
Birth of Boundy's brother Charles Russell Boundy "Births. BOUNDY.— On the 22nd inst., at Malmsbury, the wife of George Boundy of a son."

1882 02
Boundy's father's property features in a new gold claim "MINING MEMS. (FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) THE EYE-OPENER. Malmsbury, Feb. 24. The latest mining go here is the practical development of the existence of a branch of the famous Ironstone Hill Lead gutter, at a distance from, and at an angle which it was thought it never could have reached, about which, however, great diversity of opinion has prevailed, and that even now, had it not been that the aid of certain spirits had been invoked by a wise man, this branch or tributary would, at any rate at present, never have been discovered. The scene of operations is in the home paddock of Mr George Boundy, at Georgetown, consisting of a shaft being put down by a co-operative party, and which bottomed, not at 60 feet as predicted by some, but reached the depth of 95 feet, as said by others would be the case. The bottom was also directly upon the wash, and as much as an ounce of gold was taken off the same. This prospect, under ordinary circumstances, would be looked upon as more than excellent, but hereby hangs a tale, and as told by the contending parties, savors somewhat of the marvellous and a great deal of the ridiculous. It may as well be stated here that the name given to this shaft, or co-operative company's ground is that of 'The Eye-Opener,' which is both quaint and significant. Also it must be stated that other mining claims are in the vicinity of this one, notably for instance that known as the Ellis' Freehold, and it is gravely suspected that the spiritualistic information obtained has been from certain living spirits having, some connection with that claim, it having been said or surmised, that the Freehold was getting its gold from or very near the quarter in which The Eye-Opener is situated. Be that as it may, it is affirmed, and not denied, that during the sinking process of the above shaft, and when nearing the bottom, sounds of the pick and other mining operations were most distinctly audible, and that even voices were heard coming from the same quarter. If this should prove to be correct, the extent of ground to be worked by the co-operative party may prove small and perhaps beautifully less, as it will be among the old workings of real live spirits, or perhaps this knocking and pick-rapping so mysteriously heard, may after all be real spirit manufacturers leading its disciples on to something tangible at last. Should this latter prove to be the case, a large accession of adherents to this new faith it is certain will take place. With reference to some underground workings in the quarter being carried on, it is fully believed that there is something in it, as mysterious hints are being dropped in various quarters about the great sell in store for certain parties; in fact that the eye-openers will be eye-opened, biters will be bit, tables turned, &c., &c., while, on the other hand, ugly predictions are indulged in of actions at law, sueing for gold obtained, improvements, &c., the whole forming a moral, and pointing to a tale that time alone will unfold, the unfolding of which will, however, be watched with very great interest by all concerned in the welfare of this mining district. The Good Friday Company will wash off its fourth machine tomorrow (Saturday), and as the country is setting softer an improved yield may be looked for."

1886 11
Farewell to Boundy at Malmsbury as he departs for Qld "MALMSBURY. (From our own correspondent.) November 1. PRESENTATION TO MR. G. H. BOUNDY. A very pleasant affair came off on Friday night at the National Hotel — a presentation to Mr G. H. Boundy, who during the last four years has acted as telegraph operator at the post-office here; and who by his courteous and obliging conduct has won the golden opinions of the inhabitants generally. He has obtained a similar appointment in Queensland. The occasion of the presentation was very hurriedly arranged. About 20 ladies and gentlemen were present. The Mayor was voted to the chair, and explained the object of the gathering to be taking farewell of their young friend, and making a small presentation to him. Mr I. L. French said he was greatly pleased to have the opportunity of publicly expressing the pleasure he felt in presenting Mr Boundy with a small token of the respect and esteem in which he was held by those he was about to leave. Mr Boundy's character had been most exemplary, and a pattern to the young men of the place. His courteous bearing, and obliging manner, had won the esteem of every one. He (Mr French) felt all the more pride in speaking thus as Mr Boundy was a native of the place, and in presenting him with a testimonial : subscribed for by all classes, and with regard to which there had not been a single refusal. A much larger sum could have been obtained had time permitted, and probably the presentation would have taken another form. A short address had been prepared, which he handed to Mr Boundy with a purse of sovereigns, with the hope that they would prove useful to him, and be a memento of his career at Malmsbury. The address read as follows:—'Malmsbury, Colony of Victoria, 29th October, 1886 — To Mr George Henry Boundy — Dear Sir,— On the eve of your departure from this place, where you have during the past four years occupied the position of telegraph operator and messenger, and being about to proceed to Queensland in a similar.capacity, we herewith present you with a small purse of sovereigns in appreciation of the excellent character you have borne, and especially for your courtesy and obliging conduct at all times when in the discharge of your duties. We are sure that in your new sphere you will maintain these good qualities, and we trust that you will live to enjoy a career of usefulness that is open to you in the rising colony to which you are now going. — We are, Dear Sir, yours faithfully,' (Here follow the names of the subscribers with the amounts subscribed, the total being about £17.) After a few words from Mr Adamson expressive of the pleasure it afforded him to be able to speak in such high terms of one of the Malmsbury youths. Mr Boundy responded, regretting his inability to find words suitable to enable him to convey his heartfelt thanks for the kindness shown him. He trusted those present would accept as sincere whatever he was able to give expression to by way of thanks to all who had shown such a warm interest him, by contributing to the handsome gift and the tribute accompanying it. He would value it highly, and it would ever be an inducement to him to continue on the same path he had marked out while living in Malmsbury. In conclusion, he once more expressed his thanks for the.great kindness shown to him. The address was handsomely bound in maroon velvet, the work of Mrs French, and was greatly admired. After drinking Mr Boundy's health with musical honors, and wishing him bon voyage, the proceedings terminated."

1931 10
Boundy retires at age 65 "FAREWELL SOCIAL. Postal Officers Retire. Messrs. G. Bolton, G. H. Boundy, and M. H. Tait, officers of the General Post Office in Brisbane, who are retiring, after nearly 50 years' service, were tendered a farewell by officials of the telegraph and engineering staffs at the Postal Institute on Saturday evening. More than 100 members of the department and their friends attended, and the Acting Deputy Director of Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. F. W. Arnold) presented to each of the retiring officers an upholstered easy chair. Mr. S. J. Wilcox (Superintendent of Telegraphs) presided. He referred to the lengthy services of the three men and regretted their departure from the service. They would be difficult to replace, he said, and certainly none commanded more respect than they. Tributes also were paid by Messrs. H. R. Moore (Assistant Superintendent of Telegraphs), C. E. Sandercock (Telegraphic Engineer), M. P. D. Healy (Supervisor of Telegraphs), M. Twomey (president of the Telegraphists' Union), and C. H. Fuelling (secretary of the Telegraphists' Union). Mr. Bolton, who was Assistant Superintendent of Telegraphs, joined the service in 1881, and Mr. Boundy (Testing Officer) two years later. Mr. Tait, who was also a Testing Officer, was transferred from the Railway Department in 1885. He was appointed Supervisor of Traffic in 1922 and Supervisor of Testing in 1926. During the evening an entertaining programme was provided by Miss Jessie Lees and Messrs. Bob Crosby. E. Woods, F. Ryland, J. Dean, and J. Macgregor. Accompaniments were played by Miss Eileen Healy."

As previous "PERSONAL. . . . A farwell social was tendered in the Postal Institute on Saturday evening to Messrs. G. Boulton (Assistant Superintendent of Telegraphs), G. H. Boundy, and M. H. Tait (testing officers), who are retiring from the service on attaining the age limit of 65 years. Mr. S. J. Wilcox (Superintendent of Telegraphs) presided over a large gathering, and on behalf of the members, presented the retiring officers each with an armchair. Speeches were also made by Messrs. H. R. Moore (Assistant Superintendent of Telegraphs), C. E. Sandercock (telegraph engineer), N. P. D. Healy (supervisor), M. Twomey; and C. H. Fuelling, and the guests made a suitable response. Musical items were contributed by Miss Jessie Lees, and Messrs. R. Crosby, J. Dean, and J. Macgregor. Miss Eileen Healy acted as pianiste, and Mr. J. Dean as master of ceremonies."

1932 05
Brief obituary for Boundy "OBITUARY. MR. G. H. BOUNDY. It will be learned with regret by a wide circle of friends that Mr. G. H. Boundy, of Rockbourne-terrace, Upper Paddington, died early on Wednesday morning in a private hospital in Melbourne. The late gentleman came to Queensland in 1886 and joined the Postmaster-General's Department. After a few years in Bowen he was transferred to Brisbane where he was stationed until his retirement under the age limit last October. Mr. Boundy was for many years testing officer in the Chief Telegraph Office, in Brisbane, and acted as assistant superintendent upon more than one occasion. He was esteemed by the department as a capable and trustworthy officer. Mr. Boundy was for a long time a church warden and treasurer of Christ Church, Milton. He is survived by his widow and daughter, Joyce (who are at present in Melbourne) and two sons, Roy and Noel."

As previous "Mr. G. H. Boundy. Mr. G. H. Boundy, of Rockbourne Terrace, Upper Paddington, died early on Wednesday morning in a private hospital in Melbourne. With his wife and son, Noel, he went to Victoria about six weeks ago on a visit, and became ill soon after arrival. He underwent a serious operation, but failed to recover. The late Mr. Boundy came to Queensland in 1886, and joined the Postmaster-General's Department. After a few years in Bowen he was transferred to Brisbane, where he was stationed until his retirement under the age limit last October. Mr. Boundy was for many years testing officer in the Chief Telegraph Office, in Brisbane, and acted as assistant superintendent on more than one occasion. He was much liked by his fellows, and esteemed by the Department as a capable and trustworthy officer. He was for a long time a church warden and treasurer of Christ Church, Milton. He is survived by his widow and daughter, Joyce (who are at present in Melbourne), and two sons, Roy and Noel."

Death notice for Boundy "DEATHS. . . . BOUNDY.— On the 25th May, at a private hospital, George Henry second eldest son of the late George and Elizabeth Boundy, of Rosebank, Malmsbury, beloved husband of Pop, and loving father of Ray, Leslie (deceased), Joyce, and Noel, aged 65 years. BOUNDY.—On the 25th May, at Essendon, George Henry, of Upper Paddington (Queensland), beloved brother of Mary (Mrs. T. A. Horan, deceased), John W. (deceased), William F., Laura (Mrs. Rodd), Arthur E., Lottie (Mrs. R. Cargill), Bert (deceased), Charles R., Walter V., and Alf (deceased). Late of E.T.O., Brisbane."


text:
User talk:Tl6768

Test

title: User talk:Tl6768


text:
User:Tl6768

Test

title: User:Tl6768


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/Print version

This is a book about the legal processes involved in claiming refugee status in Canada, focusing particularly on the Refugee Protection Division Rules of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Tens of thousands of people file a claim for refugee protection in Canada every year. The ensuing process that they navigate is governed by the set of laws described herein.

=Preliminary= =About this text=

=Glossary=

=History of refugee procedure in Canada=

=Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice= =Principles for the interpretation of refugee procedure=

=The Board's inquisitorial mandate=

=The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing=

=The right to an unbiased decision-maker=

=The right to an independent decision-maker=

=Appropriate decorum and propriety at a refugee hearing=

=Chairperson Guidelines=

=Annotated Refugee Protection Division Rules= =Interpretation and Definitions (RPD Rule 1)=

=Communicating with the Division (RPD Rule 2)=

=Information and Documents to be Provided (RPD Rules 3-13)=

=Counsel of Record (RPD Rules 14-16)=

=Language of Proceedings (RPD Rules 17-18)=

=Interpreters (RPD Rule 19)=

=Designated Representatives (RPD Rule 20)=

=Disclosure of Personal Information (RPD Rule 21)=

= Specialized Knowledge (RPD Rule 22)=

= Allowing a Claim Without a Hearing (RPD Rule 23)=

=Conferences (RPD Rule 24)=

=Notice to Appear (RPD Rule 25)=

=Exclusion, Integrity Issues, Inadmissibility and Ineligibility (RPD Rules 26-28)=

=Intervention by the Minister (RPD Rule 29)=

=Claimant or Protected Person in Custody (RPD Rule 30)=

=Documents (RPD Rules 31-43)=

=Witnesses (RPD Rules 44-48)=

=Applications (RPD Rules 49-52)=

=Changing the Location of a Proceeding (RPD Rule 53)=

=Changing the Date or Time of a Proceeding (RPD Rule 54)=

=Joining or Separating Claims or Applications (RPD Rules 55-56)=

=Proceedings Conducted in Public (RPD Rule 57)=

=Observers (RPD Rule 58)=

=Withdrawal (RPD Rule 59)=

=Reinstating a Withdrawn Claim or Application (RPD Rules 60-61)=

=Reopening a Claim or Application (RPD Rules 62-63)=

=Applications to Vacate or to Cease Refugee Protection (RPD Rule 64)=

=Abandonment (RPD Rule 65)=

=Notice of Constitutional Question (RPD Rule 66)=

=Decisions (RPD Rules 67-68)=

=General Provisions (RPD Rules 69-71)=

=Coming into Force (RPD Rule 74)=

=Schedules to the RPD Rules=

=Annotated Refugee Appeal Division Rules= =Interpretation and Definitions (RAD Rule 1)=

=Rules Applicable to Appeals Made by a Person Who Is the Subject of an Appeal (RAD Rules Part 1)=

=Rules Applicable to Appeals Made by the Minister (RAD Rules Part 2)=

=Rules Applicable to All Appeals (RAD Rules Part 3)=

=Rules Applicable to an Appeal for Which a Hearing Is Held (RAD Rules Part 4)=

=Coming into Force (RAD Rule 69)=

=Schedule to the RAD Rules=

=Annotated Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations= =IRPR s. 13: Regulations Regarding Documents and Certified Copies=

=IRPR s. 13.11: Regulations Regarding Disclosure of Personal Information=

=IRPR s. 22: Misrepresentation=

=IRPR ss. 28-52: Conduct of Examination=

=IRPR ss. 159-159.7: Regulations Regarding Eligibility to Claim and Safe Third Countries=

=IRPR s. 159.8: Regulations Regarding Time Limits for Providing Documents=

=IRPR s. 159.9: Regulations Regarding Time Limits for Holding Hearings=

=IRPR s. 159.91: Regulations Regarding Time Limits for Appeals=

=IRPR ss. 315.21, et al.: Regulations Regarding Information Sharing Between Countries=

=Annotated Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) Provisions= =Summary of provisions of the IRPA concerning refugees=

=IRPA Sections 2-3: Definitions, objectives, and application of the IRPA=

=IRPA Sections 4-6: Enabling Authority=

=IRPA Sections 15-17: Immigration to Canada - Examination=

=IRPA Sections 20.1-20.2: Designated Foreign Nationals=

=IRPA Section 25: Humanitarian and compassionate considerations=

=IRPA Section 31.1: Refugee Travel Document=

=IRPA Sections 33-43: Inadmissibility=

=IRPA Sections 44-53: Loss of Status and Removal=

=IRPA Sections 72-75: Judicial Review=

=IRPA Sections 91-91.1: Representation or Advice=

=IRPA Sections 95-97: Refugee Protection, Convention Refugees and Persons in Need of Protection=

=IRPA Section 98: Exclusion — Refugee Convention=

=IRPA Section 99: Claim for Refugee Protection=

=IRPA Sections 100-102: Examination of Eligibility to Refer Claim=

=IRPA Sections 103-104: Suspension or Termination of Consideration of Claim=

=IRPA Section 106: Claimant Without Identification - Credibility=

=IRPA Section 107: Decision on Claim for Refugee Protection=

=IRPA Section 108: Cessation of Refugee Protection=

=IRPA Section 109: Applications to Vacate=

=IRPA Section 109.1: Designated Countries of Origin=

=IRPA Sections 110-111: Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division=

=IRPA Sections 112-114: Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)=

=IRPA Sections 115-116: Principle of Non-refoulement=

=IRPA Sections 133-136: Prosecution of Offences=

=IRPA Section 150.1: Sharing of Information=

=IRPA Section 140: Seizure=

=IRPA Section 153: Chairperson and other members=

=IRPA Section 154: Disposition after member ceases to hold office=

=IRPA Section 155: Disposition if member unable to take part=

=IRPA Section 156: Immunity and no summons=

=IRPA Section 159: Duties of Chairperson=

=IRPA Section 161: Functioning of Board and Division Rules=

=IRPA Section 162: The jurisdiction of the Board and its obligation to proceed quickly and informally=

=IRPA Section 163: Composition of Panels=

=IRPA Section 164: Presence of parties and use of telecommunications for hearings=

=IRPA Section 165: Powers of a Member=

=IRPA Section 166: Proceedings must be held in the absence of the public=

=IRPA Section 167: Right to counsel and representation by a designated representative=

=IRPA Section 168: Abandonment of proceeding=

=IRPA Section 169: Decisions and Reasons=

=IRPA Section 169.1 - Composition=

=IRPA Section 170: Proceedings=

=IRPA Section 170.2: No reopening of claim or application=

=IRPA Section 171: Proceedings=

=IRPA Section 170.1: No reopening of appeal=

=Related Legislation= =Charter of Rights and Freedoms=

=Official Languages Act=

=Privacy Act=