Legislative Services Branch Evaluation

Appendix B: File Review Templates

Drafting Files

Overview

1. Assigned File Code Number:

2. Date request sent: (mm/dd/yy)

3. Date file opened/work started: (mm/dd/yy)

4. Date file closed/work ended: (mm/dd/yy)

5. Section of LSB DASG in charge of file:

6. a) Request initiated by:

b) Other departments involved in the drafting process:

7. Legal issue advised on and brief description of the nature of the type of advice required (e.g., name of bill/regulation, any info from cover page, evidence of previous work on same issue). Do not reference any information that would waive solicitor-client privilege.

8. Did the drafting counsel (French) change over the course of the file?

b) Did the drafting counsel (English) change over the course of the file?

Drafting Request

9. Reason for request

10. Drafting instructions:

11. Level of detail included in the initial instructions

12. Instructions were revised/changed significantly over the course of the file

13. a) Discussion with client on instrument choice

b) Did the request change as a result of the discussion?

c) If yes, describe change:

Drafting Information

14. a) Deadline for completion of the drafting contained in request

b) Deadline request made by:

15. Deadlines Set/Changed (enter all deadlines identified in the file):

16. a) Based on the documentation in the file, did drafting counsel identify issues that should be referred to other areas within LSB or within Justice?

Consultation Activities

17. Evidence of involvement with PCO/TBS or the PMO on drafting issues or instructions, or related matters:

18. Legal advice/consultation sought (Note: consultations can include oral/written updates or discussions of possible strategies, options, approaches to the file (please check the most appropriate choice):

If yes, reason for consultation within LSB:

b) Regional office

If yes, reason for consultation with Regional office:

c) DLSU

If yes, reason for consultation with DLSU:

d) Other units within Justice

If yes, reason for consultation with other Justice Units:

e) Other

If yes, reason for consultation with other government departments:

Quality Assurance Processes

19. Quality control processes completed evident in the file documentation (Check all that apply):

20. Evidence of research into wording of regulation/legislation

21. Evidence on file that comments were taken into account (i.e., revised draft or discussed reason not to revise)

b) If no, is there a record on file to explain why some comments were not accepted by the Legislative Counsels?

22. Challenges or issues related to language/wording of regulation/legislation (Check all that apply):

Factors Contributing to File Complexity

23. a) Is there a discussion/indication of risk level indicated in the file?

b) If yes, was the risk described as:

c) If yes, was the risk communicated to the client?

24. Factors that characterise the file/challenges faced (select all):

iCase information

25. How many hours did drafting counsel and other LSB staff spend on the file?

Advisory Files

1. Assigned File Code Number:

2. Date request sent: (mm/dd/yy)

3. Date file opened/work started: (mm/dd/yy)

4. Date file closed/work ended: (mm/dd/yy)

5. Section of LSB in charge of file:

6. a) Request initiated by:

7. Nature of the request:

8. Where did the request originate (type of file, i.e. drafting, litigation, policy)?

9. At what point in the process was the request made?

10. Security level of the file:

11. Materials provided as background information needed to provide legal opinion (e.g., legislation, Gazette, memos/correspondence, opinions, affidavits, pleadings, etc.):

File Information

12. a) Deadline for opinion contained in request

b) Deadline request made by:

c) Reason for deadline:

d) Was the advice/opinion provided within the requested deadline?

13. Risk level identified in the file

Consultation Activities

14. Based on the documentation in the file, did counsel consult with other areas within LSB?

a) Bijuralism Team

If yes, reason for consultation with the Bijuralism Team:

b) Jurilinguistic Team

If yes, reason for consultation with the Jurilinguistic Team:

c) Legislation Section

If yes, reason for consultation with the Legislation Section:

d) Regulations Section

If yes, reason for consultation with the HQ Regulations Section:

15. Based on the documentation in the file, did counsel consult with other areas within Justice?

a) PLS

If yes, reason for consultation with PLS:

b) DLSU

If yes, reason for consultation with DLSU:

c) Other Justice Unit(s). Specify:

If yes, reason for consultation with other Justice units:

16. Based on the documentation in the file, did counsel consult with PCO?

If yes, reason for consultation with PCO:

17. Evidence of consultation with other central agencies: Specify

If yes, reason for consultation with other central agencies:

18. Evidence of consultation with other government departments. Specify:

If yes, reason for consultation with other government departments:

19. Evidence of consultation with litigation groups

If yes, reason for consultation with litigation groups:

20. Is there evidence of briefings to senior managers or other potential stakeholders as the legal advice was being developed?

Quality Assurance Processes

21. Quality control processes completed evident in the file documentation (Check all that apply):

Challenges

22. a) Is there a discussion/indication of risk level indicated in the file?

b) If yes, was the risk communicated to the client?

iCase information

23. What was the level of the primary counsel?

24. How many hours did drafting counsel and other counsel spend on the file?