Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio Evaluation

Appendix C: Data Collection Instruments

Key Informant Guide for Department of Justice Officials

The Department of Justice Canada is conducting an evaluation of the Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio (AAP). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the performance of the AAP. The evaluation period will cover five years from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013. R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., a professional research firm, was hired by the Department of Justice Canada to assist with this evaluation.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in an interview for the evaluation of theAAP. This interview will contribute to the development of a comprehensive understanding of the Portfolio and its performance, based on your unique experiences and perspectives.

Your participation is completely voluntary. Your identity will not be attached to your individual responses. Responses from the interviews will be analysed in aggregate form (i.e., at the group level). Any quotes that are used for reporting purposes will be selected to ensure that no individual is identifiable.

We would like to remind you to be mindful of solicitor-client privilege before responding to any questions or providing us with any examples. Please avoid sharing details regarding any case you have been or are currently involved with that, upon reflection, you believe may be confidential in nature.

The interview should take approximately one hour to complete. With your permission, I would like to record the interview to ensure accuracy and completeness of results. All recordings will be used for research purposes only, and will be destroyed at project completion.

Do you have any questions before we begin? [Y/N]

Are you comfortable proceeding with this interview? [Y/N]

Introduction

1. Please briefly describe your current roles and responsibilities as they pertain to the AAP, including any Portfolio committees in which you are involved.

Relevance

2. In your opinion, how responsive has the AAP been to current and emerging issues over the past five years? Describe any gaps or challenges that remain. How might the quality and responsiveness of the AAP services be improved?

Organization Design

3. What processes and mechanisms are in place to facilitate collaboration and communication with the AAP? Do you believe these to be effective? Explain. Thinking of collaboration and communication processes and mechanisms, what do you think is missing? In terms of improvements moving forward, what would you like to see happen?

Performance

4. Describe the working relationship between your group and the Portfolio. In your opinion, what is working most effectively? What do you consider to be less successful? Explain. Are roles and responsibilities obvious/clear? Describe.

5. Do you have knowledge of/have you personally participated in AAP awareness enhancing activities/events as they pertain to Aboriginal law, and legal policy or northern development issues? Would you please comment on the extent to which you think the Portfolio contributes to the evolution of Aboriginal law and legal policy in Canada? How has this changed in the past five years? In what ways does the AAP ensure that the Crown’s interests are protected when providing legal services, including legal advice? How has this changed in the past five years?

6. Are you familiar with other ways of delivering similar services to those delivered by the AAP? Explain.

Efficiency and Economy

7. In your opinion, how might the Portfolio achieve greater efficiencies? Thinking of efficiency and economy, are there ways of improving or streamlining your group’s interactions/ communications with the AAP?

Closing

8. Is there anything else you would like to share about the Portfolio? Beyond those ideas already discussed, are you able to provide any additional suggestions for improvement?

Key Informant Guide for Legal Counsel and Other Professionals

The Department of Justice Canada is conducting an evaluation of the Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio (AAP). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the performance of the AAP. The evaluation period will cover five years from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013. R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., a professional research firm, was hired by the Department of Justice Canada to assist with this evaluation.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in an interview for the evaluation of theAAP. This interview will contribute to the development of a comprehensive understanding of the Portfolio and its performance, based on your unique experiences and perspectives.

Your participation is completely voluntary. Your identity will not be attached to your individual responses. Responses from the interviews will be analysed in aggregate form (i.e., at the group level). Any quotes that are used for reporting purposes will be selected to ensure that no individual is identifiable.

We would like to remind you to be mindful of solicitor-client privilege before responding to any questions or providing us with any examples. Please avoid sharing details regarding any case you have been or are currently involved with that, upon reflection, you believe may be confidential in nature.

The interview should take approximately one hour to complete. With your permission, I would like to record the interview to ensure accuracy and completeness of results. All recordings will be used for research purposes only, and will be destroyed at project completion.

Do you have any questions before we begin? [Y/N]

Are you comfortable proceeding with this interview? [Y/N]

Introduction

1. Please briefly describe your current roles and responsibilities with regard to the services you provide for the Portfolio. If you are involved in any AAP committees, please include these in your response.

Relevance

2. How have government priorities/needs changed over the past five years? {when responding to this question, please consider complexity of issues, legal strategies, positions, and resolution of legal disputes}

3. How have these changes affected the nature of the work you do?

Organization Design

4. In what ways are existing briefing processes effective/ineffective? Describe the usefulness of the various AAP committees with which you work most frequently. Are you also involved with any AANDC committees? If so, please describe their usefulness in terms of briefing.

5. What processes/mechanisms are in place to facilitate collaboration/communication within Justice? What works? What do you think is still missing? What processes/mechanisms are in place to ensure the consistency of legal positions taken by the AAP? How effective are these? If you are able to, please describe how these have changed in the last five years.

Performance

6. Please describe your working relationships within the Department of Justice (e.g., Headquarters, Regional Offices, Departmental Legal Services Unit, the Public Law Sector, Legislative Services Branch, and/or other Justice portfolios). Thinking of these relationships, are roles, and responsibilities clear?

7. How clear is the role of AANDC’s Litigation Management and Resolution Branch (LMRB)/other client departments as pertaining to their work with you on litigation files? Describe. [*Litigators/Litigation Paralegals]

8. Describe any methods/systems/standards that are in place to support ongoing quality assurance. Are there sufficient resources available to support these specific efforts? Explain. Do these methods/systems/standards contribute to your ability to provide integrated, consistent, and responsive legal services? What factors constrain your ability to provide timely, high-quality legal services? How could your services be more responsive to emerging priorities?

9. Describe how you assist clients in managing their legal risks {please include AAP’s involvement in AANDC/other client committees/branches in your answer}. Has this changed over the past five years? What works? What gaps/challenges remain?

Development, Innovation and Progress

10. How does your work support the development of knowledge and awareness of Aboriginal law and legal policy issues? How has this changed over the past five years? How does the AAP contribute to the evolution of Aboriginal law and legal policy in Canada? How does the AAP ensure that the Crown’s interests are protected during the provision of legal services, including legal advice?

11. Are you able to suggest alternative ways/law practice/service models of delivering the services you currently deliver (from within the Department, private sector, other jurisdictions as appropriate to your given area of work)?

Efficiency and Economy

12. In your opinion are there sufficient resources to meet the demand for legal services?

13. How has resource utilization (financial, technological, human resources) changed over the last five years? Describe any gaps, and/or duplication of effort in AAP processes. In your opinion, do you think the legal services provided by the Portfolio are cost effective? Describe. How might cost-effectiveness be improved? {when responding to this question, please consider the process for assigning files to legal counsel, as well as roles and responsibilities} What criteria are considered when assigning files? Thinking of efficiency and economy, do you have anything else you would like to comment on?

14. Do you have the necessary data, information and support systems related to the efficient delivery of legal services? What’s missing? How does the AAP monitor the changes in demand for legal services? Has this approach been effective?

15. Are the resources appropriate to meet the demand for delivery of legal services/the Aboriginal law practice? (e.g., financial, tools, products, IT, human resources, training, professional development, and subject matter expertise)

16. What role does the client play in the promotion of early dispute resolution; timely consultation with the Portfolio; providing client instructions? In your opinion, what is the client’s role in terms of improving the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of, and managing the demand for, legal services?

Conclusion

17. Is there anything else you would like to share with us about the services you provide, the Portfolio or the Department of Justice Canada more broadly? Beyond those already discussed, are you able to provide any suggestions for improvement?

Key Informant Guide for Management and Senior Counsel

The Department of Justice Canada is conducting an evaluation of the Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio (AAP). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the performance of the AAP. The evaluation period will cover five years from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013. R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., a professional research firm, was hired by the Department of Justice Canada to assist with this evaluation.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in an interview for the evaluation of theAAP. This interview will contribute to the development of a comprehensive understanding of the Portfolio and its performance, based on your unique experiences and perspectives.

Your participation is completely voluntary. Your identity will not be attached to your individual responses. Responses from the interviews will be analysed in aggregate form (i.e., at the group level). Any quotes that are used for reporting purposes will be selected to ensure that no individual is identifiable.

We would like to remind you to be mindful of solicitor-client privilege before responding to any questions or providing us with any examples. Please avoid sharing details regarding any case you have been or are currently involved with that, upon reflection, you believe may be confidential in nature.

The interview should take approximately one hour to complete. With your permission, I would like to record the interview to ensure accuracy and completeness of results. All recordings will be used for research purposes only, and will be destroyed at project completion.

Do you have any questions before we begin? [Y/N]

Are you comfortable proceeding with this interview? [Y/N]

Introduction

1. Describe your current roles/responsibilities within the Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio, including any AAP committees you are involved in.

Relevance

2. Have you noticed any changes in the demand for AAP services in the last five years? {when responding to this question, please consider volume, type, and complexity of legal issues, legal risk level, and/or other characteristics, such as potential impact} How have these changes affected the nature of AAP’s work?

3. How have government priorities/needs changed over the last five years? {consider the GOC’s lawful obligations with respect to Aboriginal peoples, claims, and monetary value of settlements/ judgements (e.g., class actions, settlements, claims), and other issues of federal relevance} How have the AAP services changed in response to these priorities/needs? {consider the legal strategies, and positions, means to present, and resolve legal disputes, and alternative dispute resolution practice} How might the responsiveness of AAP services be improved?

Organization Design

4. Describe any changes that have occurred to AAP’s organization design within the past five years {please consider roles, processes and formal reporting relationships in your response}. What brought about these changes? What has been the impact of these changes? {within the AAP; on AAP clients}

5. How does the current organization design support the achievement of AAP objectives? How are AAP objectives not being supported by the current organization design? Do you think the scope of the objectives of the AAP has changed in the last five years? Please explain.

6. Describe the usefulness of the various Portfolio committees.

7. In what ways are briefing processes effective/ineffective? Thinking about the AAP committees that you use on a regular basis, how useful are they in terms of supporting these processes?

8. What processes/mechanisms are in place to facilitate collaboration/communication within Justice? What works? What do you think is still missing? What processes/mechanisms are in place to ensure consistency of legal positions taken by Portfolio? How effective are these? How have these changed in the last five years?

Performance

9. Describe your primary working relationships within the Department of Justice (e.g., Headquarters, Regional Offices, Departmental Legal Services Unit, the Public Law Sector, Legislative Services Branch and/or other Justice portfolios). Thinking of these relationships, are roles and responsibilities clear?

10. Describe your primary relationship with clients. Are roles and responsibilities clear? If you work with AANDC LMRB, how clear is their role as it pertains to work on litigation files?

11. Thinking of the last five years, what factors support/constrain the Portfolio’s ability to provide timely, high-quality legal services related to Aboriginal law and northern development legal issues? {when answering this question, if suitable, please consider the level of risk, and complexity}

12. Describe any methods/systems/standards that are in place to support ongoing quality assurance. How do these methods/systems contribute to enhanced integration, consistency, and responsiveness of legal services related to Aboriginal law and northern development legal issues?

13. How does AAP assist clients in understanding/managing/mitigating legal risk? {consider AAP’s involvement in AANDC/other client committees/branches} Has AAP’s role changed over the past five years? What works? What gaps/challenges remain?

Development, Innovation and Progress

14. Thinking of developments in Aboriginal law and legal policy over the last five years, how has the AAP contributed to their evolution? How does the Portfolio ensure the Crown’s interests are protected when providing legal services/advice? {consider innovative legal strategies developed to help clients manage/mitigate legal risk, and/or contingency plans put in place for high impact files}

15. Are you able to suggest alternative ways/law practice/service models of delivering the same services (from within the Department, private sector, other jurisdictions as appropriate to your given area of work)?

Efficiency and Economy

16. In your opinion, are there sufficient resources to meet the demand for legal services?

17. How has resource utilization (financial, technological, human resources) changed over the last five years? Describe any gaps, and/or duplication of effort in AAP processes. In your opinion, do you think the legal services provided by the AAP are cost effective? How might cost-effectiveness be improved? {when responding to this question, please consider the process of assigning files to legal counsel as well as roles, and responsibilities} What criteria are considered when assigning files?

18. How appropriate is the current funding model for the Portfolio? How does it compare to funding models in other Justice portfolios? In your view, what changes, if any, are needed?

19. Do you have the necessary data, information and support systems in place to support business decisions related to the efficient delivery of legal services, including managing the demand for services? What’s missing?

20. In your opinion, what is the clients’ role in terms of improving the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of, and managing the demand for, legal services? What role does the client play in the promotion of early dispute resolution? In timely consultation with the AAP? In providing client instructions?

Conclusion

21. Is there anything else you would like to share with us about the Portfolio or the Department more broadly? Beyond those already discussed, are you able to provide any suggestions for improvement?

Key Informant Guide for Clients

The Department of Justice Canada is conducting an evaluation of the Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio (AAP). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the performance of the AAP. The evaluation period will cover five years from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013. R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., a professional research firm, was hired by the Department of Justice Canada to assist with this evaluation.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in an interview for the evaluation of theAAP. This interview will contribute to the development of a comprehensive understanding of the Portfolio and its performance, based on your unique experiences and perspectives.

Your participation is completely voluntary. Your identity will not be attached to your individual responses. Responses from the interviews will be analysed in aggregate form (i.e., at the group level). Any quotes that are used for reporting purposes will be selected to ensure that no individual is identifiable.

We would like to remind you to be mindful of solicitor-client privilege before responding to any questions or providing us with any examples. Please avoid sharing details regarding any case you have been or are currently involved with that, upon reflection, you believe may be confidential in nature.

The interview should take approximately one hour to complete. With your permission, I would like to record the interview to ensure accuracy and completeness of results. All recordings will be used for research purposes only, and will be destroyed at project completion.

Do you have any questions before we begin? [Y/N]

Are you comfortable proceeding with this interview? [Y/N]

Introduction

1. Please briefly describe your current roles and responsibilities within your department.

Relevance

2. What services do you commonly request from the Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio of the Department of Justice?

3. How have your priorities/needs changed over the past five years? {please consider scope, nature and complexity of issues, and level of legal risk} How have the services of the Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio of the Department of Justice changed in response to these priorities/needs?

Organization Design

4. What roles/processes/reporting relationships are in place to facilitate collaboration/communication between you and the Portfolio? In what ways have these been effective? How have these changed in the past five years? What do you think is still missing?

5. In your view, what is the mandate of the Litigation Management and Resolution Branch (LMRB), and how does it work in practice? How would you describe the responsibilities of the AANDC LMRB vis-à-vis the Justice litigators and Departmental Legal Services Unit (DLSU) counsel on litigation files? What do you understand to be the role of the DLSU on litigation matters? [*AANDC LMRB officials only]

Performance

6. In your opinion, do you receive consistent advice from the Portfolio?

7. How does the Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio of the Department of Justice support the development of your knowledge and awareness of Aboriginal law and legal policy issues? How does it support your ability to manage legal risk? What is the extent to which the Portfolio contributes to the evolution of Aboriginal law and legal policy in Canada? How has this changed in the past five years? In what ways does the Portfolio ensure that the Crown’s interests are protected when providing legal services, including legal advice? How has this changed in the past five years?

8. How responsive is the Portfolio in meeting your service needs? Describe any gaps or challenges that exist. How might the quality and responsiveness of the services of the Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio of the Department of Justice be improved? Based on your experience over the past five years, to what extent are your litigation files settled using a dispute resolution/other process? Explain. What improvements would you like to see?

9. What is the role of LMRB with regard to the resolution/settlement of Aboriginal litigation matters? Please describe the process at LMRB to get settlement approval on litigation files. How satisfied are you with the rate of settlement of AANDC litigation files? Please explain. [*AANDC LMRB officials only]

Development, Innovation and Progress

10. Thinking of developments in Aboriginal law and legal policy over the past five years, in your opinion, how has the Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio of the Department of Justice contributed to their evolution? How does the Portfolio ensure the Crown’s interests are protected when providing legal services/advice? {consider innovative legal strategies developed to help you manage/mitigate legal risk and/or contingency plans for high impact files}? How has this changed in the past five years?

11. In your view, are there other ways of delivering legal services that should be considered?

Efficiency and Economy

12. In your opinion, do you think that you have received value for money from the legal services provided? Please explain. What is your opinion with respect to the appropriateness of the current funding model of the Portfolio, and/or any specific agreements that may be in place?

13. To what extent does the LMRB approach the management and resolution of litigation based on risk and priorities? Are there any challenges in this regard? To what extent is this done in consultation with the Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio of the Department of Justice? How might greater efficiencies be achieved? [*AANDC LMRB or AANDC senior officials only]

14. As the client, describe your role in terms of the following:

Conclusion

15. Is there anything else you would like to share with us today about your experiences with the Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio of the Department of Justice? Beyond those already discussed, are you able to provide any suggestions for improvement?

Case Study Guide for the Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio

The Department of Justice Canada is conducting an evaluation of the Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio (AAP). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the performance of the AAP. The evaluation period will cover five years from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013. R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., a professional research firm, was hired by the Department of Justice Canada to assist with this evaluation.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in a case study interview for the evaluation of theAAP. This case study interview will contribute to the development of a comprehensive understanding of the Portfolio and its performance, based on your unique experiences and perspectives as they pertain to [insert name of case study here].

Your participation is completely voluntary. Your identity will not be attached to your individual responses. Responses from the interviews will be analysed at the group level (i.e., case studies). Any quotes that are used for reporting purposes will be selected to ensure that no individual is identifiable.

We would like to remind you to be mindful of solicitor-client privilege before responding to any questions or providing us with any examples. Please avoid sharing details regarding any case you have been or are currently involved with that, upon reflection, you believe may be confidential in nature.

The interview should take approximately one hour to complete. With your permission, I would like to record the interview to ensure accuracy and completeness of results. All recordings will be used for research purposes only, and will be destroyed at project completion. A member of the Justice Evaluation Division will be sitting in on this interview.

Do you have any questions before we begin? [Y/N]

Are you comfortable proceeding with this interview? [Y/N]

Case Study Guide: Representative of the AAP

Opening

1. Please describe the key legal issues raised in [insert name of case study here].

2. Please describe your primary role/responsibilities in this file.

Performance

3. In what way is this file a good example of the AAP’s capacity to deliver high quality legal services in an integrated, consistent, and responsive manner? Describe.

4. Did you collaborate or consult with other sections or committees of AAP or the Department on this file? If so, please describe their involvement and impact on the file? Were roles and responsibilities clear? Was the coordination between groups efficient?

5. Did you consult with clients on this file? If so, was the consultation effective? Please consider whether the consultations assisted AAP in understanding the client’s policy and program objectives; whether the consultations enhanced the clients’ understanding of the legal issues, their implications, and potential risks; and, whether the consultations affected progress and the ultimate outcome of the file.

6. How was legal risk communicated to the clients? How well did they understand the legal risks involved in this file? In your opinion, how did the clients use the legal risk assessment to manage and mitigate the legal risks associated with this file? What challenges, if any, did you encounter in assessing or communicating the legal risk associated with this file?

Processes/Tools

7. In your opinion, which tools or processes best supported your ability to deliver services in relation to this file?

8. Please describe any best practices or lessons learned that could be applied to other similar files, or more generally, that would help to improve the litigation, advisory and/or legal policy work.

Resources

9. In your opinion, were sufficient and appropriate resources assigned to this file (considering the nature of the file, the level of expertise, etc.)?

10. Were you aware of any resource challenges (e.g., human, financial, tools) in your work on this file? If so, how were those challenges managed?

11. Please describe what changes, if any, could have been made to achieve a greater level of efficiency in managing this file.

Closing

12. In closing, is there anything else you would like to share about this file?

Case Study Guide for the Client Department

The Department of Justice Canada is conducting an evaluation of the Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio (AAP). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the performance of the AAP. The evaluation period will cover five years from 2008-09 to 2012-13. R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., a professional research firm, was hired by the Department of Justice Canada to assist with this evaluation.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in a case study interview for the evaluation of theAAP. This case study interview will contribute to the development of a comprehensive understanding of the Portfolio and its performance, based on your unique experiences and perspectives as they pertain to [insert name of case study here].

Your participation is completely voluntary. Your identity will not be attached to your individual responses. Responses from the interviews will be analysed at the group level (i.e., case studies). Any quotes that are used for reporting purposes will be selected to ensure that no individual is identifiable.

We would like to remind you to be mindful of solicitor-client privilege before responding to any questions or providing us with any examples. Please avoid sharing details regarding any case you have been or are currently involved with that, upon reflection, you believe may be confidential in nature.

The interview should take approximately one hour to complete. With your permission, I would like to record the interview to ensure accuracy and completeness of results. All recordings will be used for research purposes only, and will be destroyed at project completion. A member of the Justice Evaluation Division will be sitting in on this interview.

Do you have any questions before we begin? [Y/N]

Are you comfortable proceeding with this interview? [Y/N]

Case Study Guide: Representative of the Client Department

[Insert Name of Case Study Here] – LITIGATION SERVICES

Opening

1. Please describe your primary role/responsibilities with reference to the [insert name of case study here].

Performance

2. Based on your experience, please comment on the following dimensions of the quality of the overall services provided by the AAP in relation to this file:

3. To your knowledge, was there more than one group within Justice Canada involved in this file (departmental legal services unit, regional offices, specialized sections, etc.)? If so, please describe the role you played, if any, during the work of these other groups. Additionally, based on your experience, how efficiently was the work coordinated between these different groups?

4. In your opinion, was the consultation between you and the AAP on this file effective? Please consider whether the consultations assisted the AAP in understanding your policy and program objectives; whether the consultations enhanced your understanding of the legal issues, their implications and potential risks; and, whether the consultations affected progress and the ultimate outcome of the file.

5. How was the legal risk communicated to you? How satisfied were you with the way legal risks were communicated? Please explain how the legal advice was used to manage and mitigate legal risk related to this file.

Resources

6. In your opinion, were sufficient and appropriate resources assigned to this file (considering the nature of the file, the level of expertise, etc.)?

7. Were you aware of any resource challenges (e.g., human, financial, technical) encountered by the AAP on this file? If so, how were those challenges managed?

8. Please describe what changes, if any, could have been done to achieve a greater level of efficiency in managing this file.

Closing

9. Is there anything else you would like to share about the Portfolio’s role in this file?

Justice Canada Evaluation of the Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio Legal Counsel Survey

The Department of Justice is conducting an evaluation of the Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio (AAP). This evaluation comes in response to the 2009 Treasury Board Secretariat Policy on Evaluation, which requires government departments to evaluate all direct expenditures every five years. For the Department of Justice, this policy requires that legal services be evaluated every five years. The Department of Justice has hired R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. to conduct the Evaluation of the AAP. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the extent to which the Portfolio provides relevant and effective legal services to its clients. The evaluation period will cover five years from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013.

Thank you for participating in this online survey. Its purpose is to obtain information about the performance of the AAP from the perspective of legal counsel working across the Portfolio. Your responses are very important to us, and represent a significant source of information in support of this evaluation. The results will provide insight into Portfolio structures, processes, and mechanisms, and how they are working. Please know that your participation is completely voluntary. Your identity will not be attached to your individual responses as responses will be analysed in aggregate. In addition, your individual answers will not be shared with anyone outside of R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd.

The survey should take approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete. Please note you are able to exit and re-enter the survey at any time during its completion. We would appreciate your completing this survey no later than June 27, 2014.

The survey will cover the following themes:

Background

1. When did you first join the Department of Justice? (Please select ONE)

2. What is the classification level of the position you currently occupy? (Please select ONE)

3. In what unit do you currently work? (Please select ONE)

4. What kind of files do you typically work on? (Please select ALL that apply)

5. In which of the following areas do you conduct the majority of your work? (Please select ALL that apply)

Portfolio design

The following questions ask about the design of the AAP, including the organization, and governance structures/ mechanisms, roles and responsibilities relative to the Portfolio's mandate, and objectives.

6. Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means totally disagree, and 10 means totally agree, please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about the AAP's governance structures/mechanisms, and roles and responsibilities:

a) The governance structures/ mechanisms are well-defined by the AAP (i.e. Management Committee; Senior Management Meeting; Law and Policy Committee; Cross Country Call; Direct Report Meetings; and Working Groups) (Hover pointer for explanation)

b) The governance/ organizational structures that are in place for my unit are functioning as intended.

c) The roles and responsibilities of my unit are clear.

d) The roles and responsibilities of my unit are appropriate.

e) The roles and responsibilities of the AAP in providing litigation support are clear

7. Do you have any other comments regarding AAP's governance structures/mechanisms? (Please select ONE)

8. In your opinion, is there any duplication of roles and/or responsibilities within the Portfolio? (Please select ONE)

9. Do you have any other comments regarding roles and/or responsibilities within the Portfolio? (Please select ONE)

10. To what extent have the following factors influenced the AAP's ability to meet clients' requests for legal services? Please use the scale provided, where 1 means no influence, and 10 means a very significant influence:

a) The completeness of the information provided in clients' requests

b) AAP approval processes

c) AAP information sharing processes

d) Client committee/ approval processes

e) The high volume of high risk files at any given time

f) Level of complexity of the legal issues associated with the file

g) The amount of legal consultation that is required on a file

h) Reporting requirements of AANDC clients

i) Reporting requirements of other client departments and agencies

j) Timeliness of instructions from AANDC

k) Timeliness of instructions from other client departments and agencies

l) Availability of resources

m) Workload pressures overall

n) Other (please specify):

11. Please indicate to what extent the following factors have influenced your work in a negative or positive way, where 1 means to a large extent negatively, 5 means no influence and 10 means to a large extent positively:

a) The completeness of the information provided in clients' requests

b) AAP approval processes

c) AAP information sharing processes

d) Client committee/ approval processes

e) The high volume of high risk files at any given time

f) Level of complexity of the legal issues associated with the file

g) The amount of legal consultation that is required on a file

h) Reporting requirements of AANDC clients

i) Reporting requirements of other client departments and agencies

j) Timeliness of instructions from AANDC

k) Timeliness of instructions from other client departments and agencies

l) Availability of resources

m) Workload pressures overall

n) Other (please specify):

12. Do you have any other comments regarding factors that may be influencing the AAP's ability to meet clients' requests for legal services? (Please select ONE)

Resources and professional development

13. Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means to no extent/not at all, and 10 means to the greatest extent/always, please rate the extent to which each of the following tools, systems, technologies, and resources are useful:

a) Electronic tools (e.g., Justipedia, Links to Legal Opinions) (Hover pointer for explanation)

b) Deskbooks (e.g., for the Settlement of Aboriginal Litigation, Consultation Deskbook, Legal Services Unit Deskbook for Specific Claims) (Hover pointer for explanation)

c) Guidelines (e.g., Federal Court Aboriginal Litigation Practice Guidelines, Guidelines for Drafting Expedited Legal opinions, other regulatory manuals/guides) (Hover pointer for explanation)

d) Other tools/systems/technologies/ resources (please specify):

14. Thinking of AAP's existing tools, systems, technologies, and resources, what improvements might be required moving forward?

15. Do you have any other comments regarding tools and resources? (Please select ONE)

16. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means strongly disagree, and 10 means strongly agree, indicate to what degree you agree that the following fora/processes are useful in terms of supporting you with your work:

a) Practice Working Groups

b) Litigation and Legal Risk Management Leadership Meeting

c) ALC Litigation and Legal Risk Management Group Meeting

d) Aboriginal Law Centre Key Issues Meeting

e) National Coordination Call on Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation

f) AANDC LSU Modern Treaty and Self-Government Practitioners Call

g) Access to Aboriginal Law Sections (Regional Offices)

h) Access to supervisors/mentors

i) Access to the AANDC LSU

Other (specify):

17. Do you have any other comments regarding tools and resources? (Please select ONE)

18. To what extent do the current tools, resources, and processes enable you to...?

a) Contribute to the development of consistent and integrated legal policy (comprehensive and co-ordinated Aboriginal legal policies involving government agencies, NGOs as well as national, regional and local parliaments and authorities).

b) Contribute to the development of consistent and integrated legal advice (for example, with respect to all aspects of legal negotiation regarding a specific issue).

c) Contribute to the development of consistent and integrated legal positions in litigation files.

d) Contribute to the effective resolution of Aboriginal legal issues, claims, and litigation files.

19. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements in relation to training in support of the delivery of legal services using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means strongly disagree, and 10 means strongly agree:

a) I receive training that is relevant to my practice area.

b) I receive training that builds my legal practice skills.

c) I receive training that builds my leader-ship and management skills.

d) I receive training from mentors.

20. Are there areas in which you would like to receive additional training? (Please select ONE)

21. Do you have any other comments regarding AAP training opportunities? (Please select ONE)

22A. In the past two years, have you ever provided any AAP-related training?

22B. To whom did you provide this training? (Select ALL that apply)

AAP contributions to legal risk management

23. Taking into consideration the ADVISORY FILES you have been involved with in the past five years, how often would you say that legal risks were identified and assessed when you opened a file? (Please select ONE)

24. Taking into consideration your ADVISORY FILES in the past five years, how often did you REASSESS the legal risk after the initial assessment? (Please select ONE)

25. Taking into consideration the LITIGATION FILES you have worked on in the past five years, how often did you REASSESS the legal risk after the initial assessment?

26. Using the scale provided below, where 1 means to no extent/not at all, and 10 means to the greatest extent/always, based on your experiences with the overall active management of litigation files , indicate to what extent did the level of legal risk...

a) Influence your decisions to recommend alternative dispute resolution?

b) Influence the client's decision to participate in dispute resolution processes?

27. Do you have any other comments regarding AAP's overall contributions to legal risk management? (Please select ONE)

28. Are there any barriers to using dispute resolution to try to resolve AAP litigation files?

29. Have you worked with AANDC's Litigation Management and Resolution Branch (LMRB)?

30. Using the scale provided below, where 1 means to no extent/not at all and 10 means to the greatest extent/always, based on your experience, indicate to what extent...

a) The role of AANDC's Litigation Management and Resolution Branch (LMRB) is clear on litigation matters.

b) LMRB processes contribute to the delivery of high quality legal litigation services

c) The LMRB contributes to the early resolution or settlement of litigation files

d) LMRB's process to settle litigation files is effective.

31. In your opinion, is there any duplication of responsibilities between LMRB, and AAP in terms of managing litigation?

32. Is there any duplication of responsibilities between AANDC's LMRB, and the DLSU in providing litigation support?

33. Do you have any other comments regarding the role of LMRB?

34. Do you have any other comments regarding the role of the DLSU in providing litigation support?

Demonstration of efficiency

35. In terms of experiences regarding your particular unit, please indicate the extent to which AAP resources have been sufficient and appropriate, using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means to no extent/not at all sufficient and appropriate, and 10 means to the greatest extent/always sufficient, and appropriate.

a) Appropriate number of counsel is assigned to litigation files relative to the assessed legal risk and complexity.

b) Appropriate level of counsel is assigned to litigation files relative to the assessed legal risk and complexity.

c) Appropriate number of counsel is assigned to advisory files relative to the assessed legal risk and complexity.

d) Appropriate level of counsel is assigned to advisory files relative to the assessed legal risk and complexity.

36. What factors contribute to your unit's ability to provide timely, high-quality, cost-effective legal services? [Quality legal services are defined by the Department of Justice as: accurate in law (not addressed under the current evaluation); consistent and coordinated across Justice; meeting/exceeding established client service standards for timeliness, responsiveness, and usefulness; and consistent with the Hallmarks of Well-drafted Acts and Regulations with respect to legislative services]. (Hover pointer for explanation)

37. What factors constrain your unit's ability to provide timely, high-quality, cost-effective legal services?

38. Do you have any further comments or suggestions? (Please select ONE)

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.

File review – Closed Litigation Files

Overview

1. File number:

2a) Date request was received:

2b) Date file was opened:

3. Date file closed:

4. Lead Organizational Unit:

5. Supporting Organizational Unit:

6. Description of supporting role:

7. Lead client department/agency:

8. Other departments involved in the file process:

9. Other levels of government involved:

10. Overview of issue being litigated:

11. Client is:

12. Level of court:

13. A) Case Outcome:

13. B) Crown Result:

14. Were the expectations of the outcome provided to the client, and the one that consistently informed the work on the file, achieved at the end of the life of the file?

15. Has the case been appealed?

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

17. What was the level of lead counsel originally assigned to this file:

18. Did the lead counsel change over the life of the file?

iCase Information – Case Characteristics

19. Potential client impact (at start of case) [note: this field removed from iCase April 2013, so may not be available]:

20. Complexity:

21. Possibility of Settlement:

22. Risk Level:

Staff Resources used (from iCase)

23. a) Total number, and level of AAP counsel, paralegals, and other staff assigned to file b) # Hours spent on this file, and *timeframe (mm/dd/yy to mm/dd/yy) based on timekeeping entries, for each staff involved in the file

b) # Hours per staff assigned to file, and *timeframe

Type/Total

*Please add additional staff assignment categories as required (e.g., 6: _____; 7: _______, 8: _______, and so forth).

Risk assessment [from file or from text fields in iCase (background, impact, and status)]

24. What legal risks are identified?

Please check all that apply. Only include if there is documentation that specifies risks (in iCase or in file). Do not enter risks that are already listed under potential client impact in iCase (see Q15). You should include other risks that might be identified in the Background, Impact, and Status sections of iCase as well as risks identified in the paper files.

25. Is there a risk level indicated in the file (i.e., not iCase)?

26. If yes, please indicate level:

27. Date of initial risk assessment:

28. Was the assessed risk level communicated to the client?

29. Who was consulted in the initial risk assessment?

30. Was risk reassessed?

31. Reasons risk was reassessed (from notes field in iCase, information found in file):

32. What was the final risk level?

33. Date of final risk assessment:

34. If case was reassessed to a higher risk level, did any of the following occur after the reassessment?

35. If case was reassessed to a lower risk level, did any of the following occur after the reassessment?

Communications

36. Which of the following documents related to assessing, and communicating legal risk are in the file (Check each type of document found in file)?

37. Is there an indication in the file that any of the following were briefed or that their approval was sought?

Is there an indication in the file that it was reviewed in one of the following communication fora/ committee meetings?

39. Is there an indication in the file that any of the following stakeholders were advised of legal risks, and risk- related events (i.e., did counsel report the files to senior management, and others)?

40. Please include any other information that you believe would be useful in understanding how risk was managed in this file.

Consultations

41. Is there an indication in the file that any of the following were consulted?

42. Legal advice/consultation sought (Note: consultations can include oral/written updates or discussions of possible strategies, options, approaches to the file):

a. ALC/ALSP/RB/AAP

If yes, reason for consultation with ALC/ALSP/RB/AAP:

b. Regional office/AAP

If yes, reason for consultation with Regional Office:

c. AANDC LSU

If yes, reason for consultation with AANDC LSU:

d. Other units within Justice

If yes, reason for consultation with other Justice Units:

e. Client departments/agencies

If yes, reason for consultation with client:

f. Other departments

If yes, reason for consultation with other departments:

Quality Assurance Processes

43. Quality assurance processes completed as evident in the file documentation (Check all that apply):

Dispute Resolution Options

44a) Were dispute resolution options considered?

44b) If yes, which dispute resolution options were considered (please check ALL that apply)?

45a) Were dispute resolution options pursued?

45b) If yes, which dispute resolution options were pursued (please check ALL that apply)?

46. Is there evidence that the client was involved in the selection of one or more of these pursued resolution options?

47. Is there evidence of the DR process used at LMRB?

48. Is there evidence of the role of the DLSU in providing litigation support on this file?

49. Is there evidence of the role of the LMRB on this file?

50 Was DR utilized / recommended on more than one occasion on this file?

General Comments/Observations: