Evaluation of the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Initiative

5. Conclusions

The following points summarize the key findings of the evaluation.

Relevance

According to findings, the Initiative is aligned with the priorities of the Department of Justice and the federal government. The Initiative is also in line with the Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages, which references the Justice Information Hubs and justice training. The Initiative is covered in the JUS PAA and 2016-17 RPP.

According to documentation, the federal government has a legitimate and necessary role in the area of access to justice in both official languages from the perspective of the Canadian official languages legal framework. The basis of the legal framework is the Constitution, Part XVII of the Criminal Code, Part VII of the Official Languages Act, and sections 16 to 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As confirmed in the Beaulac decision, the federal government has the responsibility to ensure that individuals accused of a criminal offense have judicial proceedings in the official language of their choice. In other areas of law, the use of both official languages in the court system varies greatly from one province and territory to another. For this and other reasons, key informants believed that the federal government has a leadership role in promoting access to justice in both official languages.

According to the evidence, there is an ongoing need to support language training for legal professionals, and a need to provide legal information to Canadians living in minority language communities. Multiple sources indicate the need for more bilingual capacity among judges. Key informants indicated that there is an ongoing need to train and support other legal professionals to ensure equal access to justice in both official languages. There is also a need for actions to ensure that OLMCs in general, and specific populations within those OLMCs such as recent immigrants, become aware of their rights and obligations, as well as a need to provide legal information in both languages, especially to support self-represented litigants.

Effectiveness

Effectiveness of Information pillar

Most projects under this pillar center on the provision of legal information to legal system users, either through online information sources, or in-person individual or group sessions. The in-person delivery model involves the provision of legal information and referrals to other professionals, including law professionals, as well as those in other sectors such as social work and health. According to the findings, the in-person delivery model also involves a wide range of information, including information about areas with shared jurisdiction (such as family law). These services are provided to many users, including middle-class Canadians who do not have access to legal aid and/or who cannot afford to retain a lawyer. Information is generally deemed useful and tailored to the needs of groups and subgroups within OLMCs, such as newcomers to Canada.

The reach of the online sources appears to be increasing, as indicated by the number of users. However, there were concerns about the amount of regional-specific legal information, which is lower than expected, and the challenge of updating the information in the future. Despite efforts in the area, additional work is needed to coordinate the various projects, especially those delivered online. A needs study may help the Department and partners to have a clearer picture of the needs of OLMCs and to make decisions about these projects in the future.

Effectiveness of Training pillar

Training activities funded by the Initiative were targeted towards justice professionals (judges, clerks and attorneys) to improve their second language skills. Training is mostly targeted towards individuals who already have some knowledge of their second language and includes both in-person and online sessions. Although most respondents indicated that these mechanisms were effective, there are no language assessments conducted following the completion of the courses to demonstrate this effectiveness. Some respondents also expressed concerns that generally, the training does not reach private sector lawyers. The RNFJ is deemed effective in connecting the various stakeholders involved in legal training.

The jurilinguistics centres have been effective in producing materials serving legislative authorities, translators and the academic community. The dictionaries, tools and templates developed through the jurilinguistics projects are used by the community, even though there have been challenges obtaining templates. Questions were raised as to whether some of their activities could be funded by other groups.

The evaluation assessed the adequacy of performance monitoring and found that the reporting template used by funding recipients has a number of limitations leading to inconsistent reporting. Despite these limitations, the reports provided by recipients allow the program to meet accountability requirements (i.e. reporting back to JUS and PCH).

The evaluation assessed the appropriateness and effectiveness of the Gs&Cs selection process. Most respondents said that the program documentation, the selection process and application forms are clear, useful and easily accessible. Program staff assistance was deemed useful, with respondents indicating that the staff is eager to help applicants understand the Initiative and the funding application process.

Respondents mentioned that the two consultation structures (i.e. the Advisory Committee and the FPT Working Group on Access to Justice in Both Official Languages) were conducive to cooperation between partners. The Advisory Committee meetings are good opportunities for JUS and members of the community to share ideas and obtain feedback on these ideas. They also provide networking opportunities. The FPT Working Group increases interjurisdictional cooperation and helps the participants understand concerns about a number of issues in certain provinces/territories, and potential solutions. However, because travel costs are not covered by the Initiative, most external participants attend the meetings by telephone. Telephone participants are less involved and this has affected the effectiveness of the meetings.

Overall, most respondents said that the two pillars were complementary. They said that the activities under both pillars lead to networking and partnerships between organizations and training participants, resulting in less siloed activities and other positive impacts on the projects and the communities.

Efficiency

Most of the recipients indicated that the Gs&Cs agreements were appropriate and that the level of funding was adequate. From the perspective of JUS, the agreements limit the Department’s capacity to share content created with Support Fund resources between recipients due to the restrictive intellectual property clauses used in the Gs&Cs agreements. There is also an opportunity to have more specific calls and agreements to allow for a more integrated approach.

The AJEFs also used to receive core funding in the past and were critical of the Department’s decision to replace this type of funding with project-specific funding. Respondents representing or knowledgeable about the AJEFs mentioned that the transitional funding used to ease the transition from core funding to project funding was deemed useful. However, most AJEF representatives agreed that the loss of core funding has affected the AJEFs’ capacity to promote access in both official languages. The challenge from the perspective of the Department is that core funding, as a funding mechanism, is not an efficient tool to ensure proper alignment between departmental objectives and priorities of the Initiative and activities undertaken by the organizations receiving core funding. The fact that these organizations continue to have access to similar (or greater) levels of funding through contribution agreements, coupled with the fact that the project-based funding model allows for greater oversight by the Department to ensure that funds are being spent in accordance with the objectives of the Initiative, lead this evaluation to conclude that the current funding model is appropriate.

The Initiative has been in an underspending situation over the three years of the period covered by the evaluation for which expenditure data was available. However, the percentage of program costs dedicated to administration is deemed acceptable.

Respondents said that the Advisory Committee and the FPT Working Group meetings were efficient. The Advisory Committee meetings involve JUS coverage of travel costs, but respondents felt that these amounts were limited given the size of the program, and were justified given the added benefits of holding these meetings in person, including the exchange of ideas and information. The FPT Working Group meetings, which do not involve travel costs to JUS, were considered efficient. However, the teleconference format, for those who choose not to travel, affects the quality of the interactions between participants. Following the decision to cease to cover the travel costs of provincial and territorial members, participation in the Working Group meetings has been declining.

According to findings, the Advisory Committee structure and mandate could be updated to increase its reach, including the participation of representatives of other disciplines and other federal departments involved in justice issues.