Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Evaluation

The Evaluation of the Centres of Expertise (hereafter Centres) was part of the Department of Justice Canada’s (hereafter Justice) Five-Year Departmental Evaluation Plan, and was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board’s Policy on Results (2016). The primary purpose of this evaluation report is to provide an overview of the findings and recommendations for the eight Centres as a whole and their strategic role within Justice.

1.2 Evaluation Objectives and Scope

The evaluation included a broad assessment of the design and delivery of legal services by the eight Centres, including their mandates and service delivery models. It also examined the success of the implementation of the Centres and identified where opportunities exist to integrate good practices and lessons learned.

The evaluation included an assessment of eight Centres (see Table 2), and covered the fiscal years (FY) 2015-2016 to FY 2019-2020.1 Based on consultations with senior managers within Justice, the evaluation included a more in-depth examination of four Centres: CLEL, CLS, ALC, and CIPL.

Table 2: Eight Centres, by portfolio and sector

Centres

Portfolio/Sector

Centre for Labour and Employment Law (CLEL)

CAP

Commercial Law Section (CLS)

BRLP

Aboriginal Law Centre (ALC)

AAP

Centre of Information and Privacy Law (CIPL)

PLLSS

Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section (CAILS)

PLLSS

Human Rights Law Section (HRLS)

PLLSS

Official Languages Directorate (OLAD)

PLLSS

Centre of Expertise in Procurement Law (CoEPL)

BRLP

Note: The Trade Law Bureau is Justice’s ninth Centre. It has been excluded from the evaluation given the complexity of its joint structure with Global Affairs and current ongoing work.

Various aspects of the service delivery models were explored from the initial request to the Centres, to the legal advice provided to the client, the follow-up activities from the Centres (e.g., knowledge sharing products and training), as well as the funding and staffing models. Policy related legal advice and activities provided by the Centres were also examined where relevant. In addition, the evaluation identified common elements related to success among the eight Centres. Good practices and lessons learned were also identified to provide a comprehensive perspective of what is working well, any challenges, and potential areas of improvement.

Footnotes

1 The CoEPL and CLEL were established during FY 2017-2018; therefore, activities and data cover the previous three FYs (2017-2018 to 2019-2020).