Central Agencies Portfolio Evaluation

Appendix C: Data Collection Instruments

Interviews

Interview Guide – Representatives of the Central Agencies Portfolio

The Department of Justice hired Prairie Research Associates Inc. (PRA), a research company, to support the evaluation of the legal services provided by the Central Agencies Portfolio (CAP), through the:

The evaluation includes interviews with those working within the CAP and its Legal Services Units, with other representatives of Justice Canada, and with representatives of CAP client departments and agencies.

The evaluation covers a five-year period (2010-11 — 2014-15) and focuses on the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the CAP.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form only. Interview notes will not be shared outside of PRA and the Evaluation Division of Justice Canada. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections or additions.

With your permission, we would like to digitally record the interview to ensure the accuracy of our notes. The audio file will be deleted after the completion of the study.

Finally, some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know, and we will skip those questions.

Introduction
  1. Please describe your current roles and responsibilities for the CAP. Probes: Who are your clients? Do you work regularly with other Justice HQ, regional or LSU offices? Are you involved in any Portfolio-wide or Department-wide initiatives, meetings or committees?
Relevance
  1. Over the last five years, have you observed any changes in the demand for legal services? (Please consider any changes in the volume, complexity, and legal risk level, as well as the type of legal issues being dealt with, the types of legal services requested, and the urgency of the requests.) How has the CAP/LSU responded to these trends? [Q 1.1, 1.2]
  2. In your opinion, how have the government’s and/or your clients’ roles and priorities with respect to central agency function affected the legal services provided by CAP/LSU counsel? How has the CAP/LSU responded to meet changes in federal and/or client priorities? What future impact, if any, are changes in priorities expected to have on legal service demand and the role played by the CAP/LSU? [Q 1.3]
Design of the Portfolio
  1. Are both the current mandate and objectives pursued by the CAP/LSU clearly understood within your team? What factors contribute to or limit understanding of the CAP/LSU’s mandate and objectives? [Q 2.1]
  2. Considering the current structure and composition of the CAP/LSU, how would you describe the key strengths? What changes, if any, could be considered to enhance the efficiency and/or the effectiveness of the CAP/LSU’s structure and composition or service delivery strategies? In your view, does the CAP provide legal services to the most appropriate mix of departments and agencies to support the government in carrying out central agency functions? [Q 2.2, 2.4]
  3. The CAP Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) holds a unique, dual role, as both the head of the CAP and the ADM of the Finance Canada Law Branch. To what extent, if any, do you feel that this unique structure helps to ensure a coordinated, whole-of-government approach to legal issues dealt with by the CAP/LSU? Please explain. [Q 3.2.5]
  4. Do you believe that your clients have a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of CAP/LSU counsel? Why or why not? [Q 2.2, 2.4]
  5. Do the legal services provided by the CAP/LSU relate to those provided by other areas within the Department of Justice? Are you aware of any areas of overlap between CAP legal services and other Justice legal services? Please explain. [Q 2.3]
  6. Please describe what, if any, resources, methods, or systems are used within the CAP/LSU for performance measurement? To what extent do current performance measurement resources, methods, or systems support ongoing quality improvement within the CAP/LSU? [Q 2.5, 3.1.2]
Performance – Effectiveness
  1. Please describe how the CAP/LSU identifies, assesses, and manages legal risks, in cooperation with client departments. In particular, what are the key tools, strategies, committees or structures currently used to assist in managing legal risks? In your opinion, how efficient and/or effective have these tools/strategies/structures been? What role do clients play in identifying, assessing, and managing these risks? In your opinion how effective is the collaboration between counsel and clients in managing legal risks? Please explain. [Q 3.1.1, 3.2.2]
  2. In your opinion, has the level of awareness and understanding of legal risks among client departments and agencies improved over the last five years? If so, what do you consider to be the key contributions of the CAP/LSU towards this outcome? If not, please explain. What more needs to be done? [Q 3.1.1, 3.2.2]
  3. As you know, the CAP/LSU is guided by Service Standards in its dealings with its clients. These standards include the following:
    • provision of legal services in either official language
    • courteous and respectful treatment
    • timely response to legal service requests
    • negotiation of and attention to deadlines
    • provision of clear and practical guidance on resolving legal issues
    • provision of ongoing feedback respecting client requests for service
    • involvement of clients in developing legal strategies and positions
    • development of legislative and regulatory drafting options and solutions appropriate to clients’ policy and program objectives
    • early identification of means to prevent and resolve legal disputes
    • identification of opportunities to implement policies or programs by administrative, as opposed to legislative or regulatory, means:
    In your view, are these Service Standards being met? In instances where the Service Standards are not met, please identify which are not, and what you believe are the most common factors challenging the CAP/LSU’s ability to meet these standards? [Q 3.1.2, 3.1.4]
  4. How well does the coordination/consultation work within the CAP/LSU and between regional offices and CAP/LSU counsel working in the National Capital Region? Please explain. [Q 3.1.2]
  5. In general, are the consultations/collaboration between the CAP/LSU and the specialized sections in Justice effective? Why or why not? [Q 3.1.2]
  6. Please describe the strategies used by the CAP/LSU to ensure a nationally coordinated, whole-of-government approach to legal issues. In your opinion, are these strategies effective? What, in your opinion, is the purpose of/need for a national approach in the provision of legal services to clients? [Q 3.1.2, 3.2.5]
  7. What is your opinion of the current training/professional development provided to CAP/LSU counsel? Are any training needs not being met? .[Q 3.1.4, 3.3.1]
  8. Please list any tools or resources that you are aware of which are available to support CAP/LSU counsel in their provision of high-quality legal services and accurate legal advice to clients. In your response, to the extent possible, please identify the tools and resources available at the Department, Portfolio and LSU levels. In your opinion, how helpful are these tools, resources, and structures? Are you aware of any gaps? What (if anything) could be done to improve current tools and resources so that they better support the work of CAP/LSU counsel? [Q 3.1.2, 3.3.1]
  9. [For those who provide legislative drafting services]: CAP/LSU counsel contribute to the creation of federal regulations and statutory instruments through provision of legislative drafting services. To what extent do CAP/LSU services in this area support the government’s legislative needs? In your response, please consider factors such as: the availability of drafting protocols, procedures, tools, and resources to support the CAP in providing drafting services; and collaborations with the Legislative Services Branch to ensure that legislative drafts respect the Constitution and other legal requirements. [Q 3.1.3, 3.2.3]
  10. What factors (if any) contribute to or constrain the CAP/LSU’s ability to provide timely, high quality, responsive legal services? [Q 3.1.2, 3.1.4, 3.3.1]
  11. In your experience, to what extent is the advice provided by the CAP/LSU considered by clients in developing programs or policies and making decisions? What factors make it more or less likely that advice will be considered? Are there any barriers to CAP/LSU advice being considered by client departments or agencies in the decision-making process? [Q 3.2.1]
  12. [For those who provide litigation services]: To what extent are client litigation cases effectively resolved? In your view, are alternatives to litigation explored and used when they should be? [Q 3.2.4]
Performance – Efficiency and Economy
  1. In your opinion, are adequate resources (e.g., human, financial, technological) in place to support the current and forecasted demand for CAP/LSU services? How does the CAP/LSU manage resource challenges? Probe: Can you comment on the capacity of CAP/LSU staff to meet current demand for its legal services? To respond to client requests in a timely manner? [Q 4.1, 4.3]
  2. Since 2012, the Department of Justice has been implementing a number of strategies to increase the efficiency of its resource utilization (such as those initiatives related to process optimization, including: reducing time on files, reducing legal services requests, screening and prioritizing requests, reducing the number of counsel per file, meeting the 1300 hours target per counsel, applying project management approach to major advisory or litigation files, etc.). In your opinion, how well have these strategies been communicated and implemented by the CAP/LSU? [Q 4.1, 4.2]
  3. Do you make use of paralegals to support you in your work? If yes: what types of tasks do paralegals assist you with? If no: please explain why you do not receive/use support from paralegals. Do you feel that paralegals are used to their full potential by your area of the CAP/LSU? Why or why not? [Q 4.2]
  4. Please describe what you perceive to be the key results achieved to date in maximizing efficiency. In your opinion, what role does the client play in improving the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of legal services, e.g. what are the clients’ role and responsibility in managing demand for legal services within the available resources? [Q 4.2]
  5. Are there remaining challenges that influence the Portfolio’s ability to achieve its expected outcomes effectively? What changes, if any, are needed to enhance the processes and tools to maximize resource utilization within the CAP/LSU? [Q 4.1]
  6. Are you aware of any alternative funding or service delivery models for the provision of similar types of legal services within government? If so, do these alternative models offer insights into any potential strategies for improving the efficiency or economy of CAP/LSU legal services? [Q 4.1, 4.3]
Conclusion
  1. Do you have any further comments relating to the work of the CAP/LSU?

Thank you for your participation

Interview Guide – Representatives of the other areas within the Department of Justice

The Department of Justice hired Prairie Research Associates Inc. (PRA), a research company, to support the evaluation of the legal services provided by the Central Agencies Portfolio (CAP), through the:

The evaluation includes interviews with those working within the CAP and its Legal Services Units, with other representatives of Justice Canada, and with representatives of CAP client departments and agencies.

The evaluation covers a five-year period (2010–11 — 2014–15) and focuses on the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the CAP.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form only. Interview notes will not be shared outside of PRA and the Evaluation Division of Justice Canada. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections or additions.

With your permission, we would like to digitally record the interview to ensure the accuracy of our notes. The audio file will be deleted after the completion of the study.

Finally, some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know, and we will skip those questions.

Introduction
  1. Please describe your current roles and responsibilities. What roles have you played on CAP client files?
Relevance of the CAP
  1. Over the last five years, have you observed any changes related to your work on CAP client files? Have you noticed any changes in the volume, complexity, and legal risk level, as well as the type of legal issues being dealt with, the types of legal services requested, and the urgency of the requests? Please explain. What has been the most significant change, if any? [Q 1.1, 1.2]
  2. If you have worked on cases/files for CAP clients, or observed the legal services provided by the CAP/LSU, to what extent do you feel these services meet the needs of the Government of Canada (e.g., their alignment with government priorities and the Justice outcome of a federal government that is supported by high-quality legal services)? Are you aware of any changes in government priorities related to central agency functions that would impact the way that the CAP/LSU provides legal services? Please explain. [Q 1.3]
Design of the Portfolio
  1. In your view, are the CAP/LSU’s current mandate and objectives as well as its roles and responsibilities clearly understood within your team? What factors contribute to or limit understanding of the Portfolio’s mandate and objectives? [Q 2.1]
  2. Considering the current structure and composition of the CAP/LSUs, how would you describe the key strengths of the CAP/LSUs? What changes, if any, could be considered to enhance the efficiency and/or the effectiveness of the CAP/LSUs’ structure and composition or service delivery strategies? In your view, does the CAP provide legal services to the most appropriate mix of departments and agencies to support the government in carrying out central agency functions? [Q 2.2, 2.4]
  3. In CAP client files involving multiple departments or agencies, have you observed CAP/LSU coordination of legal services? To what extent are you aware of CAP/LSU coordination efforts in these files? If so, are you satisfied with the level of coordination achieved? To what extent does this coordination contribute to a whole-of-government approach to the legal issues being addressed? [Q 2.4, 3.1.2, 3.2.5]
  4. Do the legal services provided by the CAP/LSUs relate to those provided by other areas within the Department of Justice? Are you aware of any areas of overlap between CAP/LSU legal services and other Justice legal services? Please explain. [Q 2.3]
Performance – Effectiveness
  1. To what extent, if any, have you been involved in the identification, assessment, and/or management of legal risk on CAP client files? In your opinion, has the CAP/LSU sufficiently involved counsel from your region or specialized section in identifying, assessing, and managing legal risks? Why or why not? [Q 3.1.1, 3.2.2]
  2. Please describe your level of satisfaction with the following dimensions of your work with the CAP/LSUs: [Q 3.1.2]
    1. The extent to which your group is consulted in a timely manner.
    2. The extent to which the timeframes for completing requests are appropriate.
    3. The extent to which you are consulted on the appropriate issues, at an appropriate level, etc.
  3. In general, are the consultations/collaboration between the CAP/LSUs and your area of the Department of Justice effective? Why or why not? [Q 3.1.2]

    Probes for representatives of the Legislative Services Branch:

    • To what extent does your group assist the CAP clients in supporting the government’s legislative needs?
    • How essential are services from your group in ensuring that CAP/LSU legislative drafting services respect the Constitution and other legal requirements? [Q 3.1.3, 3.2.3]
  4. Over the past five years, has your group provided training either to CAP/LSU legal counsel or to their clients? If yes, what was the nature of this training? Did the training improve the effectiveness of the Portfolio? [Q 3.1.2, 3.3.1]
  5. [For those who provide litigation services]: To what extent are CAP client litigation cases effectively resolved? In your view, are alternatives to litigation explored and used when they should be? [Q 3.2.4]
Performance – Efficiency and Economy
  1. Since 2012, the Department of Justice has been implementing a number of strategies to increase the efficiency of its resource utilization (such as those initiatives related to process optimization, including benchmarking, reducing time on files, reducing legal services requests, screening and prioritizing requests, reducing the number of counsel per file, applying project management approach to major files, etc.). Have you seen any changes in your working relationship with the CAP/LSUs as a result of these strategies? If so, please explain. [Q 4.2]
  2. What, if any, suggestions do you have for improving efficiency or cost-effectiveness in terms of how the CAP/LSUs or CAP clients work with your area of Justice? [Q 4.1, 4.3]
Conclusion
  1. Do you have any further comments relating to the work of the CAP/LSUs?

Thank you for your participation

Interview Guide – Representatives of client departments and agencies

The Department of Justice hired Prairie Research Associates Inc. (PRA), a research company, to support the evaluation of the legal services provided by the Central Agencies Portfolio (CAP), through the:

The evaluation includes interviews with those working within the CAP and its Legal Services Units, with other representatives of Justice Canada, and with representatives of CAP client departments and agencies.

The evaluation covers a five-year period (2010-11 — 2014-15) and focuses on the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the CAP.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form only. Interview notes will not be shared outside of PRA and the Evaluation Division of Justice Canada. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections or additions.

With your permission, we would like to digitally record the interview to ensure the accuracy of our notes. The audio file will be deleted after the completion of the study.

Finally, some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know, and we will skip those questions.

Introduction
  1. Please describe briefly your current roles and responsibilities. How do they relate to the legal services provided by the CAP/LSU? Probe: with which CAP LSU do you work, and do you work with the CAP ADMO? On what types of matters (litigation, legal advisory, legislative services) have you (or has your department/agency) consulted the CAP/LSU? For litigation matters, did LSU counsel or regional litigators handle the files?
Relevance of the CAP
  1. Over the last five years, have you observed any changes in the demand for legal services? (Please consider any changes in the volume, complexity, and legal risk level, as well as the type of legal issues being dealt with, the types of legal services requested, and the urgency of the requests.) How has the CAP/LSU responded to these trends? [Q 1.1, 1.2]
  2. In your opinion, how have the federal government’s and/or your department/agency’s roles and priorities with respect to central agency functions affected your legal services needs? How has the CAP/LSU responded to meet changes in federal priorities or the priorities of your department/agency? What future impact, if any, are changes in priorities expected to have on legal service demand and the role played by the CAP/LSU? [Q 1.3]
Design of the Portfolio
  1. In your view, are the current mandate and objectives pursued by the CAP/LSU, as well as its roles and responsibilities clearly understood within your department/agency? Why or why not? [Q 2.1, 2.2]
  2. In your department/agency’s legal files involving multiple departments or agencies, have you observed CAP/LSU coordination of the legal services being offered. To what extent are you aware of these coordination efforts in these files? If so, are you satisfied with the level of coordination achieved? To what extent does this coordination contribute to a whole-of-government approach to the legal issues being addressed? [Q 2.4, 3.1.2, 3.2.5]
  3. From your perspective or the perspective of your department/agency, what are the strengths of the current structure and composition of the CAP/LSU? Do you have any suggestions for any improvements in the CAP/LSU’s organizational structure and composition or service delivery strategies which would allow the CAP/LSU to better serve your department/agency? Please explain. [Q 2.4]
Performance – Effectiveness
  1. Please describe how/if the CAP/LSU works together with your department/agency to identify and assess legal risks, and develop options to manage legal risks. In your opinion, how effective is this collaboration? [Q 3.1.1, 3.2.2]
  2. In your opinion, has the level of awareness and understanding of legal risks improved within your department/agency over the last five years? If yes: to what extent do you feel this improvement is attributable to the CAP/LSU? If no: why do you say that? [Q 3.1.1, 3.2.2]
  3. Based on your experience, overall, how satisfied are you with the services provided by the CAP/LSU? [Q 3.1.2]
  4. More specifically, and again based on your experience, please comment on the following dimensions of the quality of the overall services provided by the CAP/LSU: [Q 3.1.2, 3.1.4]
    1. Their current capacity to respond to your requests in a timely manner.
    2. The extent to which the guidance your department/agency receives on resolving legal issues is clear and practical.
    3. The extent to which the CAP/LSU provides ongoing feedback to your department/agency.
    4. The extent to which your department/agency is involved in the development of legal strategies and positions.
    5. The extent to which your department/agency is provided with legal advice/options/solutions appropriate to your policy and program objectives.
    6. The extent to which the CAP/LSU assists in identifying opportunities for early resolution of legal disputes.
    7. The extent to which the CAP/LSU assists in identifying opportunities for implementing policies or programs by administrative, as opposed to legislative or regulatory, means.
    8. The extent to which your department/agency receives consistent legal advice.
  5. What factors (if any) contribute to or constrain the CAP’s ability to provide timely, high quality, responsive legal services? [Q 3.1.2, 3.1.4, 3.3.1]
  6. How would you describe the CAP/LSU’s contribution to your department/agency’s ability to meet its legislative goals and objectives? To what extent does the CAP/LSU work with your department or agency on legislative drafting? How effective is this collaboration? To what extent does the CAP/LSU work with the Legislative Services Branch on legislative drafting? To what extent do consultations with the Legislative Services Branch help to ensure that legislative drafts respect the Constitution and other legal requirements? [Q 3.1.3]
  7. In your experience, to what extent is the advice provided by the CAP/LSU considered by your department/agency in developing programs or policies and making decisions? What factors make it more or less likely that advice will be considered? Are there any barriers to CAP/LSU advice being considered by your department/agency in the decision-making process? [Q 3.2.1]
  8. [For those who have been involved in litigation files]: To what extent has the CAP/LSU assisted in the effective resolution of litigation cases? In your view, were alternatives to litigation explored and used when they should have been? [Q 3.2.4]
Performance – Efficiency and Economy
  1. In your opinion, does the CAP/LSU have adequate resources (e.g., human, financial, technological) in place to support the current and forecasted demand for its services? What, if any, resource challenges have you encountered in your work with the CAP/LSU? Probe: Can you comment on the capacity of CAP/LSU staff to complete all requests for services? To complete requests in a timely manner? [Q 4.1, 4.3]
  2. In your opinion, are the legal services provided by the CAP/LSU cost-effective? In your response, please consider issues such as the following:
    • is the time spent and number of counsel assigned on cases/files reasonable relative to legal risk and/or complexity
    • are appropriate counsel assigned to cases/files, in terms of years of experience and areas of expertise, relative to legal risk and/or complexity
    • is a project management approach applied to major cases/files
    • use of alternative dispute resolution practices and early resolution strategies, when appropriate
    • other tools or practices used to improve the efficiency of legal services
  3. To your knowledge, do CAP/LSU counsel make effective use of the paralegals to support them in their work? Why or why not?
  4. What, if any, suggestions do you have for improving the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of legal services provided by the CAP/LSU? [Q 4.1, 4.3]
Conclusion
  1. Do you have any further comments relating to your work with the CAP/LSU?

Thank you for your participation

Case studies

Case Study Guide — Representatives of the Central Agencies Portfolio

The Department of Justice hired Prairie Research Associates Inc. (PRA), a research company, to support the evaluation of the legal services provided by the Central Agencies Portfolio (CAP), through the:

The evaluation comprises a number of data sources, including ten case studies that focus on specific files involving counsel from the CAP. These case studies are providing a unique opportunity to better understand the work of the CAP and its Legal Services Units (LSUs) at an operational level.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form only. Interview notes will not be shared outside of PRA and the Evaluation Division of Justice Canada. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections or additions.

We understand that some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know if a question is not applicable to you, and we will skip it.

Introduction
  1. Please describe the key legal issues raised in the file we selected for our discussion today.
  2. How were the roles and responsibilities among the various legal counsel involved in this file distributed? What role did you specifically play? In your opinion, were the roles and responsibilities clearly defined and well understood by those involved in the file? Why or why not? [Q 2.2, 4.2]
Effectiveness (achievement of expected outcomes)
Legal risk management
  1. How was the legal risk assessed on this file? Who was responsible for assessing the legal risk, and what process was used to complete the assessment? [Q 3.1.1]
  2. How was the legal risk communicated to the client department or agency? How well did the client department or agency understand the legal risks involved in the file? To what extent did CAP/LSU advice increase the clients’ awareness or understanding of the legal risks on this file? [Q 3.1.1]
  3. Was the CAP/LSU involved in providing risk management or mitigation options to the client on this file? If yes, to what extent did the client use CAP/LSU legal advice to manage and mitigate legal risks? [Q 3.2.2]
  4. What challenges, if any, did you face in assessing or communicating the legal risk associated to this file? [Q 3.1.1, 3.2.2]
Provision of timely, responsive, high-quality legal services
  1. Do you believe that the CAP/LSU provided high-quality legal services on this file? Why or why not? What feedback, if any, did the CAP/LSU team receive from the client on your legal services? [Q 3.1.1]
  2. Were you in a position to deliver your services in a timely, responsive manner? What challenges, if any, did you face in attempting to meet the time frame required by the client department or agency on this file? [Q 3.1.4]
  3. Were you assisted in your work on this file by any tools and/or resources provided by, or available through, the CAP/LSU? If so, please specify which tools and/or resources you used. Were they helpful? Why or why not? What, if anything, could be improved to make these tools and/or resources more useful to you in your work? [Q 3.1.2]
Consultation and communication
  1. How often, and for what purposes, did the CAP/LSU consult with the client on this file? To what extent was the client actively involved in the file? In your view, was this involvement sufficient? Why or why not? [Q 3.1.2, 3.1.4]
  2. What other legal counsel, within CAP or in other areas of Justice (e.g., regional offices, specialized units from the Public Law Sector, Legislative Services Branch, or Civil Litigation Branch), were involved on this file? What processes were used to coordinate the work of legal counsel? Based on your experience, what worked well with these processes and what challenges, if any, did you encounter? [Q 3.1.2]
Supporting decision making
  1. How would you describe the impact of the legal services you provided on the decisions made by the client department or agency? [Q 3.2.1]
Efficiency and economy (deployment of resources)
  1. What, if any, resources challenges (human, financial, technical) did you experience in your work on this file? How were these challenges managed? [Q 4.3]
  2. Since 2012, the Department of Justice has been implementing a number of strategies to increase the efficiency of its resource utilization (such as those initiatives related to process optimization and benchmarking). To your knowledge, what, if any, impact did these initiatives have on the management of, or work carried out on, this file? [Q 4.2]
  3. To your knowledge, were paralegals engaged to support the work of counsel on this file? Why or why not? In your view, were paralegals used to their full potential on this file? Please explain.
  4. In your opinion, were the appropriate resources assigned to this file (in the extent to which sufficient resources were assigned in relation to the nature, risk, or complexity of the file, level of expertise, etc.)? [Q 4.2]
  5. If applicable, please comment on the use of alternative dispute resolution practices on this file. Were early resolution strategies identified and used when appropriate? Why or why not? If they were used, what caused them to be successful or unsuccessful in resolving the file? [Q 4.2]
  6. Please describe what changes, if any, could have been done to achieve a greater level of efficiency in managing this file? [Q 4.2]
Conclusion
  1. Do you have any further comments relating to this file?

Thank you for your participation.

Case Study Guide — Representatives of Regional Offices

The Department of Justice hired Prairie Research Associates Inc. (PRA), a research company, to support the evaluation of the legal services provided by the Central Agencies Portfolio (CAP), through the

The evaluation comprises a number of data sources, including ten case studies that focus on specific files involving counsel from the CAP. These case studies are providing a unique opportunity to better understand the work of the CAP and its Legal Services Units (LSUs) at an operational level.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form only. Interview notes will not be shared outside of PRA and the Evaluation Division of Justice Canada. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections or additions.

We understand that some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know if a question is not applicable to you, and we will skip it.

Introduction
  1. Please describe the key legal issues raised in the file we selected for our discussion today.
  2. How were the roles and responsibilities among the various legal counsel involved in this file distributed? Please describe your role as a regional litigator on this file. Probe: How were you engaged and for what reason(s)? In your opinion, were the roles and responsibilities clearly defined and well understood by those involved in the file? Why or why not? [Q 2.2, 4.2]
Effectiveness (achievement of expected outcomes)
Legal risk management
  1. How was the legal risk assessed on this file? Who was responsible for assessing the legal risk, and what process was used to complete the assessment? (To the extent possible, please consider both your own role as well as the role of CAP/LSU counsel in assessing legal risk on this file.) [Q 3.1.1]
  2. To what extent, if any, did you collaborate/coordinate with CAP/LSU counsel in communicating with the client about legal risk?In your view, did CAP/LSU advice increase the clients’ awareness or understanding of the legal risks on this file? Why or why not? [Q 3.1.1]
  3. Was the CAP/LSU involved in providing risk management or mitigation options to the client on this file? If yes, to what extent did the client use CAP/LSU legal advice to manage and mitigate legal risks? [Q 3.2.2]
Provision of timely, responsive, high-quality legal services
  1. Do you believe that the CAP/LSU provided high-quality legal services on this file? Why or why not? [Q 3.1.1]
  2. In your view, were CAP/LSU services on this file provided in a timely, responsive manner? To the best of your knowledge, what factors, if any, affected the CAP/LSU’s ability to respond in good time to requests? [Q 3.1.4]
Consultation and communication
  1. Please discuss your working relationship with CAP/LSU counsel on this file. In your response, please consider factors such as the frequency and mode of communication, any processes (formal or informal) used for consulting, and the nature of consultations.
  2. How often, and for what purposes, did you consult with the client on this file? Were CAP/LSU counsel involved in these consultations? Why or why not? [Q 3.1.2, 3.1.4]
  3. To what extent was the client actively involved in the file? In your view, was this involvement sufficient? Why or why not? [Q 3.1.2, 3.1.4]
  4. What other legal counsel (if any) (e.g., specialized units from the Public Law Sector, Legislative Services Branch, or Civil Litigation Branch) were involved on this file? What processes were used to coordinate the work of legal counsel? Based on your experience, what worked well with these processes and what challenges, if any, did you encounter? [Q 3.1.2]
Supporting decision making
  1. How would you describe the impact of the legal services provided on the decisions made by the client department or agency? [Q 3.2.1]
Efficiency and economy (deployment of resources)
  1. What, if any, resources challenges (human, financial, technical) did you experience in your work on this file? Are you aware of any resource challenges faced by CAP counsel? Please explain. How were these challenges managed? [Q 4.3]
  2. Since 2012, the Department of Justice has been implementing a number of strategies to increase the efficiency of its resource utilization (such as those initiatives related to process optimization and benchmarking). To your knowledge, what, if any, impact did these initiatives have on the management of, or work carried out on, this file? [Q 4.2]
  3. To your knowledge, were paralegals engaged to support the work of counsel on this file? Why or why not? In your view, were paralegals used to their full potential on this file? Please explain.
  4. In your opinion, were the appropriate resources assigned by the CAP/LSU to this file (in the extent to which sufficient resources were assigned in relation to the nature, risk, or complexity of the file, level of expertise, etc.)? [Q 4.2]
  5. If applicable, please comment on the use of alternative dispute resolution practices on this file. Were early resolution strategies identified and used when appropriate? Why or why not? If they were used, what caused them to be successful or unsuccessful in resolving the file? [Q 4.2]
  6. Please describe what changes, if any, could have been made to achieve a greater level of efficiency in the management of this file? [Q 4.2]
Conclusion
  1. Do you have any further comments relating to this file?

Thank you for your participation.

Case Study Guide — Representatives of client departments and agencies

The Department of Justice hired Prairie Research Associates Inc. (PRA), a research company, to support the evaluation of the legal services provided by the Central Agencies Portfolio (CAP), through the

The evaluation comprises a number of data sources, including ten case studies that focus on specific files involving counsel from the CAP. These case studies are providing a unique opportunity to better understand the work of the CAP and its Legal Services Units (LSUs) at an operational level.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form only. Interview notes will not be shared outside of PRA and the Evaluation Division of Justice Canada. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections or additions.

We understand that some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know if a question is not applicable to you, and we will skip it.

Introduction
  1. Please describe the key legal issues raised in the file we selected for our discussion today.
  2. To your knowledge, which legal counsel (i.e., counsel from CAP headquarters, Departmental Legal Service Units, regional offices, other specialized sections within the Department of Justice) was involved in the file? Are you aware of how the roles and responsibilities were divided among the various legal counsel involved in the file? What role did you play in this file? In your opinion, were the roles and responsibilities clearly defined and well understood by those involved in the file? Why or why not? [Q 2.2, 4.2]
Effectiveness (achievement of expected outcomes)
Legal risk management
  1. Were you involved in the identification and assessment of legal risk on this file? What was the involvement of legal counsel in the identification and assessment of legal risk, and how effective/important was this involvement? [Q 3.1.1]
  2. To the best of your recollection, how was the legal risk communicated to your department or agency? In your view, did CAP/LSU advice help to increase the awareness or understanding of the legal risks on this file within your department or agency? Why or why not? [Q 3.1.1]
  3. Was the CAP/LSU involved in providing risk management or mitigation options to your department or agency on this file? If yes, to what extent did your department or agency use CAP/LSU legal advice to manage and mitigate legal risks? [Q 3.2.2]
Provision of timely, responsive, high-quality legal services
  1. In general, were you satisfied with the quality of legal services provided by the CAP/LSU on this file? Why or why not? [Q 3.1.2]
  2. Were CAP/LSU services provided to your department or agency in a timely, responsive manner? To the best of your knowledge, what factors, if any, affected the CAP/LSU’s ability to respond in good time to requests from your department or agency? [Q 3.1.4]
Consultation and communication
  1. How often, and for what purposes, did the CAP/LSU consult with your department or agency on this file? Was the consultation/collaboration between the CAP/LSU and your department of agency on this file effective? Why or why not? In your view, was your department or agency kept up to date on this file?
  2. In your opinion, did the CAP/LSU counsel working on this file have a good understanding of your department’s/agency’s policy and program objectives? Please explain. Did the CAP/LSU offer your department or agency options for meeting these objectives within the confines of the law? Why or why not?
  3. How often, and for what purposes, did the CAP/LSU consult with your department or agency on this file? To what extent was your department or agency actively involved in the file? In your view, was this involvement sufficient? Why or why not? [Q 3.1.2, 3.1.4]
  4. Are you aware of any processes used to coordinate the work of legal counsel on this file? In your response, please consider the involvement of counsel from CAP headquarters, LSUs, regional offices, and/or other groups within Justice Canada (e.g., specialized units from the Public Law Sector, Legislative Services Branch, or Civil Litigation Branch) as applicable.
    1. In your opinion, was the work of legal counsel well coordinated? Why or why not?
    2. If regional counsel and/or counsel from specialized units within Justice Canada were consulted, please comment on the value, if any, that these consultations brought to the file. [Q 3.1.2]
Supporting decision making
  1. How would you describe the impact of the legal services provided on the decisions made by your department or agency? In your view, how useful was CAP/LSU advice in supporting decision making within your department or agency? [Q 3.2.1]
Efficiency and economy (deployment of resources)
  1. Were you aware of any resource challenges (human, financial, technical) faced by the CAP/LSU in their work on this file? How were these challenges managed? [Q 4.3]
  2. In your opinion, were appropriate counsel assigned to this file (considering the years of experience of the counsel and the level of complexity of the file)? Did the CAP/LSU assign adequate resources to undertake the work required? In your response, please consider the number of counsel assigned to the file, as well as the use of other resources, such as paralegals. [Q 4.2]
  3. To your knowledge, were paralegals engaged to support the work of counsel on this file? Why or why not? In your view, were paralegals used to their full potential on this file? Please explain.
  4. If applicable, please comment on the use of alternative dispute resolution practices on this file. In your view, were early resolution strategies identified and encouraged by CAP/LSU counsel when appropriate? Why or why not? If early resolution strategies were used, what caused them to be successful or unsuccessful in resolving the file? [Q 4.2]
  5. In your opinion, was this file handled in a cost-effective manner? What, if anything, could have been done differently by the CAP/LSU and/or your department/agency to reduce costs? [Q 4.2]
Conclusion
  1. Do you have any further comments relating to this file?

Thank you for your participation.

Survey

Evaluation of the Legal Services provided by the Central Agencies Portfolio (CAP)
Survey Questionnaire — CAP Legal Counsel

Welcome to the survey of CAP counsel. This survey includes counsel from all areas within the Portfolio, namely, the Assistant Deputy Minister’s Office and the following legal services units (LSUs):

The survey should take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Participation in the survey is voluntary. You may leave the survey at any time and come back later to complete the questions. If you do leave the survey prior to completion, we ask that you wait approximately 15 minutes to re-enter, in order to give the survey a chance to refresh. The survey will be online until October 8, 2015.

Background

The following questions will be used to establish a profile of survey respondents.

1. When did you first join the Department of Justice Canada?

2. How long have you worked/been working in a position that is part of the Central Agencies Portfolio?

3. What is your current classification?

4. The table below lists different types of legal services performed by CAP counsel. Please read the statements below and indicate the extent to which you perform each type of service in your work for your Portfolio LSU.

In my work for my LSU,
I perform the following services…		 Frequently
(in 80-100%
of files)		 Regularly
(in 50-79%
of files)		 Occasionally
(in 25-49%
of files)		 Rarely
(in 1-24%
of files)		 Never
(in 0%
of files)
Litigation services          
Advisory services          
Legislative drafting          
Other (please specify___________)          

CAP design and structure

5. Please read each statement below regarding the structure and design of the CAP, and check the response that best represents your opinion. [Q 2.2, 2.4]

Structure and administration Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neutral
(neither agree nor disagree)		 Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
The roles and responsibilities of counsel are clearly defined within your Portfolio LSU            
Counsel within your LSU have sufficient understanding of their roles and responsibilities            
Client departments/agencies have sufficient understanding of the roles and responsibilities of counsel working within your LSU            
CAP LSUs effectively coordinate their work when files involve more than one client department/agency            
The Portfolio’s objectives are clear to, and well known by, counsel            

6. Do you have any suggestions for how the organization and/or operation of the CAP could be improved to better assist the Portfolio in providing timely, responsive, high-quality, coordinated legal services to client departments/agencies? [Q 2.4]

CAP performance (achievement of expected outcomes)

7. In your view and based on the files you have been involved with in the last two years, how often were the following goals achieved? [Q 3.1.2]

Goals Frequently
(in 80-100%
of files)		 Regularly
(in 50-79%
of files)		 Occasionally
(in 25-49%
of files)		 Rarely
(in 1-24%
of files)		 Never
(in 0%
of files)		 Not applicable to my work Don’t know/ information not available
Responding to legal service requests by clients in a timely manner              
Meeting internal Department of Justice deadlines              
Providing legal services in both official languages as necessary              
Providing clients with ongoing feedback              
Involving clients in the development of legal strategies and positions              
Developing legislative and regulatory drafting options appropriate to clients’ policy and program objectives              
Identifying means to prevent and resolve legal disputes at an early stage              
Identifying opportunities to implement policies or programs by administrative, as opposed to legislative or regulatory, means              
Assessing legal risk on files in a timely manner              
Reassessing legal risk on files when appropriate and necessary (e.g., when factors affecting risk level changed)              

8. Thinking of the files you have been involved with in the last two years, how often have you or a member of the legal team on the file... [Q 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1]

How often have you Frequently
(in 80-100%
of files)		 Regularly
(in 50-79%
of files)		 Occasionally
(in 25-49%
of files)		 Rarely
(in 1-24%
of files)		 Never
(in 0%
of files)		 Not applicable to my work Don’t know/ information not available
Consulted with the client department to understand the nature of the legal problem?              
Provided the client department with updates/progress reports?              
Involved the client department in the development of legal strategies, positions, and/or options?              
Worked with the client department to identify legal risks, their impact, and/or options to manage them?              
Consulted with specialized sectors within the Department of Justice (i.e., Public Law, Legislative Services, Civil Litigation)?              
Consulted with other potentially affected departments/agencies?              

9. Thinking of the files you have been involved with in the last two years, how would you assess the work of your LSU in the following areas?

Areas Excellent Above average Average Below average Poor Not applicable to my work Don’t know/ information not available
Involving/consulting with specialized sectors within the Department of Justice (e.g., Public Law, Legislative Services, Civil Litigation)              
Involving/consulting with regional offices when appropriate              
Involving/consulting with other potentially affected departments/ agencies              

10. Considering your collaborations/consultations on CAP files with other areas of the Portfolio and the Department of Justice within the past two years, please assess the quality of your experience working with the following groups: [Q 3.1.2, 3.1.4]

Groups Excellent Above average Average Below average Poor Do not work with this area Don’t know/ information not available
Portfolio
Office of the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADMO)              
Department of Finance General Legal Services (GLS) LSU              
Department of Finance - Tax Counsel Division (TCD) LSU              
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) LSU              
Public Service Commission (PSC) LSU              
Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) LSU              
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) LSU              
Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) LSU              
Department of Justice
Regional litigators              
Public Law Sector              
Civil Litigation Branch              
Legislative Services Branch              
Other Portfolios or sectors              
DM and or other ADM offices              

11. Please provide your level of agreement with the following statements. The CAP… [Q 3.1.2, 3.1.4]

The CAP… Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neutral
(neither agree nor disagree)		 Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
Has structures in place to ensure that Justice provides consistent legal advice            
Has structures in place to ensure that consistent legal positions are adopted nationally            
Has structures in place to ensure that risks are assessed in a consistent manner across portfolios and regions            

12. To what extent do you find the following tools, structures, and processes to be useful to your work? [Q 3.1.2, 3.1.3]

Tools, structures and processes Very useful Somewhat useful Neutral Not very useful Not at all useful N/A -do not use
Legal risk management (LRM) assessment grid/matrix            
Practice directives            
Justipedia            
Drafting protocols, procedures, and tools            
Departmental policies            
eDiscovery software            
Internal mentoring practices            
Practice groups            
Other (please specify:)            
Other (please specify:)            

13. How would you describe the training opportunities available to counsel from your LSU, in terms of…

How would you describe Excellent Very good Adequate Fair Poor Not applicable to my work Don’t know/ information not available
The amount of training available?              
The relevance of training opportunities to your work?              

14. In your opinion, what training gaps, if any, exist for counsel from your LSU?

15. Please read each statement below regarding the identification, assessment, and management of legal risks on your CAP files, and select the response that best represents your opinion. [Q 3.1.1, 3.2.2]

Statements Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neutral (neither agree nor disagree) Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
The Portfolio and client have processes in place that support their collaboration on identification and assessment of risk            
Clients are actively engaged in developing options to manage legal risks            
Client departments’/agencies’ understanding of their legal risks and the implications of these risks has improved over the last two years            

16. Please explain what (if anything) could be done to improve the Portfolio’s contributions to legal risk identification, assessment, and/or management. [Q 3.1.1, 3.2.2]

17. Use of Dispute Resolution (DR) includes negotiated settlement of files, as well as other DR processes such as mediation and pre-trial settlement. Thinking of the litigation files you have been involved with in the last two years, how often have you or a member of the litigation team on the file… [Q 3.1.4]

Frequency Frequently
(in 80-100%
of files)		 Regularly
(in 50-79%
of files)		 Occasionally
(in 25-49%
of files)		 Rarely
(in 1-24%
of files)		 Never
(in 0%
of files)		 Not applicable to my work Don’t know/ information not available
Considered using DR options?              
Used neutral evaluation (or non-binding arbitration) to try to resolve/settle a file?              
Used negotiation to try to resolve/settle a file?              
Used court-mandated mediation to resolve/settle a file?              

18. In your opinion, are dispute resolution processes…

If 01 is selected: Please explain why you feel this way:

If 03 is selected: Please explain why you feel this way, noting any obstacles that may exist in the use of DR:

CAP efficiency and economy

19. Thinking of files you have been involved with in the last two years, how often… [4.1, 4.2]

Frequency Frequently
(in 80-100%
of files)		 Regularly
(in 50-79%
of files)		 Occasionally
(in 25-49%
of files)		 Rarely
(in 1-24%
of files)		 Never
(in 0%
of files)		 Not applicable to my work Don’t know/ information not available
Were files completed in a timely manner without undue delays within the CAP/your LSU’s control?              
Were files conducted in a cost-effective manner?              
Were files assigned to the appropriate level of counsel, given the legal risk/complexity of the file?              
Were tasks allocated appropriately (level and experience) within the team assigned to manage the file?              
Was the appropriate number of counsel assigned to undertake the work required by the file?              
Were appropriate levels of mentoring and/or supervision provided to support the management of your files?              
Were paralegals used to their full potential on files?              

20. Thinking of files you have been involved with in the last two years, how often have you worked with the client to monitor and/or conserve costs by:

Frequency Frequently
(in 80-100%
of files)		 Regularly
(in 50-79%
of files)		 Occasionally
(in 25-49%
of files)		 Rarely
(in 1-24%
of files)		 Never
(in 0%
of files)		 Not applicable to my work Don’t know/ information not available
Providing an estimate of expected costs?              
Sharing the work (e.g., having the client do initial drafts of documents)?              
Other? (Please specify:)              

21. What factors contribute to the CAP’s ability to provide timely, high-quality, cost-effective legal services?

22. What factors constrain the CAP’s ability to provide timely, high-quality, cost-effective legal services?

23. Do you have any other suggestions for improving the legal services provided by the CAP?

24. Do you have any further comments relating to your work with the CAP?

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.

File review

Evaluation of the legal services of the Central Agencies Portfolio (CAP)
File Review

Overview

  1. File Number:
  2. Date file opened: (mm/dd/yy)
    Date file closed: (mm/dd/yy)
  3. Lead counsel
    Organizational unit:
    • 1 - Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) Legal Services Unit
    • 2 - Department of Finance — General Legal Services (GLS)
    • 3 - Department of Finance — Tax Counsel Division (TCD)
    • 4 - Public Service Commission (PSC) Legal Services Unit
    • 5 - Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) Legal Services Unit
    • 6 - Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) Legal Services Unit
    • 7 - Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) Legal Services Unit
    • 8 - Regional office (provide location):
  4. Other counsel involved in the file:
    Organizational unit:
    • 1 - LSU (provide name):
    • 2 - Regional office (provide location):
    • 3 - Public Law Sector
    • 4 - Legislative Services Branch
    • 5 - Litigation Branch
    • 66 - Other:
  5. Client department/agency:
  6. File type:
    • 1 - Litigation
    • 2 - Advisory
    • 3 - Legislative and regulatory drafting
    • 4 - Litigation support
  7. Brief description of the legal issue of the file (without waiving solicitor-client privilege):
  8. What legal services were requested? (Check all that apply): [Q 1.1, 3.1.3]
    • 1 - Litigation services (i.e., legal representation)
    • 2 - Provision of advice to support litigation
    • 3 - Provision of advice to support policy development
    • 4 - Direct drafting of bills, regulations, or statutory instruments
    • 5 - Preparation of federal budget
    • 6 - Provision of advice related to compliance with legislation
    • 7 - Provision of advice related to drafting of bills, regulations, or statutory instruments
    • 66 - Other, please specify
  9. If selected 1 to Q8: please indicate the level of court.
    • 01 - Supreme Court of Canada
    • 02 - Federal Court of Appeal
    • 03 - Federal Court
    • 04 - Provincial Court of Appeal
    • 05 - Provincial/Territorial Superior Court
    • 06 - Provincial Court
    • 07 - Administrative Tribunal
    • 66 - Other, please specify
  10. Brief description of the file’s outcome/results: [Q 1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.4]

Achievement of expected outcomes [information from the file]

  1. Did legal counsel miss any client-imposed hard deadlines? [Q 3.1.2, 3.1.4]
    • 1 - Yes
    • 0 - No
    • 8 - Unable to assess
  2. (If yes to Q11) How many times, and for what reason(s) (if an explanation to the client is available on file)? [Q 3.1.2, 3.1.4]
  3. Is there documented evidence that timelines were negotiated with clients?
    • 1 - Yes
    • 0 - No
    • 8 - Unable to assess
  4. (If yes to Q11) What evidence is there in the files?
  5. (Litigation files only) Did legal counsel miss any court deadlines? [Q 3.1.4]
    • 1 - Yes
    • 0 - No
    • 8 - Unable to assess
  6. (If yes to Q15) How many times?
  7. (If yes to Q15) Were additional court procedures required (e.g., motions)?
    • 1 - Yes
    • 0 - No
    • 8 - Unable to assess
  8. How did CAP legal counsel consult with client department(s)? Consultations can include oral/written updates or oral/written discussions of possible strategies, options, approaches to the file. [Q 3.1.2]
    • 7 - Not applicable, file handled by early resolution
    • 8 - Unable to assess

    (GO TO Q22)

  9. Is there documentation in the file that shows what the client department(s) was consulted about? (Check all that apply.) (If none apply, go to Q22.) [Q 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.4]
    • 01 - Identifying and assessing legal risk
    • 02 - Options to manage legal risk
    • 03 - Developing legal strategies and positions
    • 04 - To discuss the impact of legal risk
    • 05 - To discuss possible settlement (including early resolution)
    • 66 - Other
  10. (If identify any categories listed in Q19) What evidence is there in the files?
  11. Have client department(s) expressed any concerns relating to a lack of consultation? [Q 3.1.2, 3.1.4]
    • 1 - Yes
    • 0 - No
    • 8 - Unable to assess
  12. Is there any indication in the file that CAP counsel did not respond to client requests in a timely manner? [Q 3.1.4]
    • 1 - Yes
      • If yes, please explain:
    • 0 - No
    • 8 - Unable to assess
  13. Was the file brought to the attention of other Justice officials/ structures? [Q 3.2.5]
    • 1 - Yes
    • 0 - No
    • 8 - Unable to assess
  14. (If yes to Q23) Which ones?
  15. Did counsel consult with specialized sections within Justice? [Q 3.2.5]
    • 1 - Yes
    • 0 - No
    • 8 - Unable to assess
  16. (If yes to Q25), which one(s)? [Q 3.1.3, 3.2.3, 3.2.5]
    • 01 - Public Law Sector
    • 02 - Litigation Branch
    • 03 - Legislative Services Branch
    • 66 - Other (please specify):
  17. (If yes to Q25), what were the specialized sections consulted about? (Check all that apply): [Q 3.2.3, 3.2.5]
    • 01 - Identifying and assessing legal risk
    • 02 - Managing legal risk
    • 03 - Potential legal options
    • 04 - Preparation of legislation or regulations
    • 05 - Questions of law
    • 06 - Potential litigation strategies
    • 66 - Other (please specify):
    • 08 - Unable to asses
  18. Were other potentially affected departments and agencies consulted? [Q 3.2.5]
    • 1 - Yes
      • If yes, which ones:
    • 0 - No
    • 8 - Unable to assess
  19. (If yes to Q28) What were other departments and agencies consulted about? (Check all that apply):
    • 01 - Identifying and assessing legal risk
    • 02 - Managing legal risk
    • 03 - Potential legal options
    • 04 - Preparation of legislation or regulations
    • 05 - Questions of law
    • 06 - Potential litigation strategies
    • 66 - Other (please specify):
    • 08 - Unable to asses

Questions 30-32 are for litigation files only.

  1. At what stage were dispute resolution options considered? (Check all that apply.) [Q 3.2.4]
    • 00 - DR not considered (GO TO Q33)
    • 01 - Post-pleading
    • 02 - Post-production of documents
    • 03 - Post-discovery
    • 04 - Just prior to trial or hearing
    • 66 - Other (please specify)
    • 88 - Don’t know/can’t tell
  2. At what stage was dispute resolution used? [Q 3.2.4]
    • 01 - Post-pleading
    • 02 - Post-production of documents
    • 03 - Post-discovery
    • 04 - Just prior to trial or hearing
    • 66 - Other (please specify)
    • 88 - Don’t know/can’t tell
  3. What dispute resolution options were used? [Q 3.2.4]
    • 01 - Negotiation
    • 02 - Voluntary mediation
    • 03 - Court-mandated mediation
    • 04 - Neutral evaluation
    • 66 - Other (please specify)
    • 88 - Don’t know/can’t tell
  4. Does the file documentation provide evidence of the preparation or use of any standardized tools or resources (e.g., risk assessment tools, toolkits, practice directives, communications tools such as Early Warning Notes or Briefing Notes)? [Q 3.1.2]
    • 1 - Yes
      • If yes, please specify the tool(s)/resources documented:
    • 0 - No
    • 8 - Unable to assess

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

  1. What was the potential impact on the client (e.g., effect on fiscal resources of client or government; effect on programs/policies/initiatives of client or government; effect on law/regulations of client or government; effect on human rights, personnel, access and privacy, gender, or diversity issues; effect on the Charter or Constitution; legal issues or events that may be controversial or attract media attention; effect on relations with Aboriginal people, Métis; etc.)? [Q 3.2.2]
    • 77 - Not applicable
    • 88 - Unable to assess
  2. Briefly explain the legal risks identified in the file (e.g., constitutional or Charter issue; new/novel or controversial legal issue; significant media interest or involvement of prominent figures; issue with availability of affiants, witnesses):
    • 77 - Not applicable
    • 88 - Unable to assess
    Note: Only include if there is documentation that specifies risks (in iCase or in file); do not try to interpret information (e.g., counsel indicates difficult facts in memo in file; the researcher should not make their own decision that facts are difficult). You do not have to enter risks that are already listed under potential client impact in iCase (see Q34). 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.
  3. Is there a discussion/indication of risk level indicated in the file? [Q 3.1.1]
    • 1 - Yes
    • 0 - No (GO TO Q43)
  4. What is the initial (or only) risk level (1-9 or Low-Medium-High)?
    • 88 - Can’t tell
  5. Date of initial (or only) risk assessment: (mm/dd/yy)
    • 88 - Can’t tell
  6. (Litigation only) At what stage in the case was the initial (or only) risk assessment done? [Q 3.1.1, 3.2.2]
    • 01 - Post-pleadings
    • 02 - Post-discovery
    • 03 - Pre-scheduled trial date
    • 04 - After decision
    • 05 - After appeal filed
    • 06 - Leave stage
    • 07 - Post-leave stage
    • 08 - Prior to judicial review hearing
    • 09 - Post-hearing
    • 10 - Prior to decision on the judicial review
    • 66 - Other, please specify
    • 88 - Can’t tell
  7. Was risk reassessed? [Q 3.1.1, 3.2.2]
    • 1 - Yes
    • 0 - No (GO TO Q43)
    • 8 - Unable to assess (GO TO Q43)
  8. (Litigation only) At what stage in the case was the risk reassessed? [Q 3.1.1, 3.2.2]
    • 01 - Post-pleadings
    • 02 - Post-discovery
    • 03 - Pre-scheduled trial date
    • 04 - After decision
    • 05 - After appeal filed
    • 66 - Other, please specify
    • 88 - Can’t tell
  9. If case was reassessed to a higher risk level, did any of the following occur after the reassessment? [Q 3.2.2]
    • 01 - Increased number of counsel on file
    • 02 - Assignment of senior counsel to file
    • 03 - Consideration of dispute resolution process
    • 04 - Use of dispute resolution process
    • 05 - Increased consultations
    • 06 - Increased reporting
    • 66 - Other, please specify
    • 88 - Can’t tell
  10. What was the complexity level of the file?
    • 1 - Low
    • 2 - Medium
    • 3 - High
    • 4 - Mega
    • 7 - Not applicable
    • 8 - Can’t determine

Conclusion

  1. Any additional comments? (indicate applicable Q, if appropriate).