ARCHIVED - Courts Administration Service

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Chief Administrator’s Message

I am pleased to present the Departmental Performance Report (DPR) for the Courts Administration Service (the “Service”) for the period ending March 31, 2009. The Service is a model for the administration of court services that is unique internationally and has garnered attention from jurisdictions from around the world.  We provide services to four separate, independent federal superior Courts of record and their clients while maintaining the independence of the Courts from the executive branch of the government.

The broad priorities for the Service for 2008-2009 related to reviewing and harmonizing our processes, and continuing to develop a work environment that will meet our needs in the years to come.  Much progress was made in these areas, yet more work lies ahead. This report presents a balanced account of the performance of the organization against the priorities established in the Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP).

This past year was an eventful one for the Service. The government passed Bill C-3 (An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) with the resulting creation of the position of Special Advocates for which the Service was required to provide accommodation and administrative support.

The Service continued the design and development of a new Case Management System (CMS) that will support the business of the four Courts and serve as the foundation for expanded use of new technologies.  Phase one was implemented in May 2008. Our ultimate goal is to make completely electronic court files available to litigants and the judiciary.

The Service participated in the Round VI assessment by the Treasury Board Secretariat under the Management Accountability Framework (MAF) exercise.  This was an intensive, highly useful exercise - the results of which served to inform the 2009-2010 planning exercise.  The assessment also underscored the fact that smaller departments and agencies such as the Service have limited capacity and resources to meet all of the management expectations, reporting obligations and policy requirements coming from the centre.  We must therefore be strategic in our approach to meeting our MAF objectives.

Significant progress continues to be made in the areas of integrated human resource planning, talent management, continuous learning and competency development.  We must continue to attract and retain the right people with the right skills to maintain our outstanding service to the Courts and the public.

I am proud of our achievements and look forward to the coming year to further build on our successes.

The original version was signed by

R.P. Guenette

 

Section I - Overview

Raison d’être

The Courts Administration Service was established on July 2, 2003 with the coming into force of the Courts Administration Service Act, S.C. 2002, c. 8 (the Act). The Actserved to amalgamate the former registries and corporate services of the Federal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada.

The role of the Service is to provide effective and efficient registry, judicial and corporate services to four Courts of law — the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada. The Service also enhances judicial independence by placing the judiciary at arm’s length from the federal government while ensuring greater accountability for the use of public money.

The four Courts served by the Service are superior Courts of record. The Courts were created by the Parliament of Canada pursuant to its authority under section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to establish courts “for the better administration of the Laws of Canada”.

This unique model of court administration – the provision of consolidated administrative and registry services to multiple courts by an entity at arm’s length from the executive branch of the government – is internationally recognized as a best practice. The Service has been actively participating in several international judicial exchange programs, notably with various courts in Russia, Ukraine and China. In addition, regular visits by foreign delegations seeking to benefit from the Canadian experience have built a reputation of excellence for the Service and admiration for the functioning of Canadian courts at the federal level.

One of the objectives of the Courts Administration Service Act is to facilitate coordination and co-operation among the four Courts for the purpose of ensuring the effective and efficient provision of administrative services to those Courts. While attempting to harmonize administrative and registry services wherever possible, the Service must also take into account the independence that each Court enjoys in the conduct of its affairs.

In that context, the Chief Administrator meets regularly and works closely with the four Chief Justices in order to strike the appropriate balance between harmonization, efficiency and independence.

The sole strategic outcome for the Service reads as follows:

Strategic Outcome and Program Activity Architecture (PAA)

In its PAA, the Service has only one strategic outcome supported by three Program Activities.  These Program Activities mirror the organizational structure of the Service:

Figure 1 - Text equivalent

Responsibilities

What We Do

The Service supports the four Courts and makes it easy for individuals, companies, organizations and the Government of Canada to submit disputes and other matters to the Courts. The Service also enables the Courts to hear and resolve the cases before them fairly, expeditiously and as efficiently as possible.

The Functions of the Service

The Service plays a key role in:

• providing the judiciary, litigants and their counsel with services relating to court hearings;
• informing litigants about rules of practice, court directives and procedures;
• maintaining court records;
• acting as liaison between the judiciary, the legal profession and lay litigants;
• processing documents filed by or issued to litigants;
• recording all proceedings;
• serving as the entity where individuals seeking enforcement of decisions made by the courts and federal administrative tribunals, such as the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, may file pertinent documents;
• providing judges, prothonotaries and staff with library services, appropriate facilities and security; and
• providing support services to the judiciary.

To facilitate accessibility to the Courts by parties, the Service has approximately 630 employees in ten (10) permanent offices in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. In addition, registry services and courtrooms in other locations are provided through agreements with provincial and territorial partners in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon.

The broad priorities of the Service for 2008-2009, as described in the RPP, were to modernize our administrative processes and registry service activities, and to establish a well designed, dynamic and fully integrated work environment to enhance our service delivery to clients and the judiciary.

The Courts We Support

The Federal Court of Appeal (FAC) has jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada and certain other statutory appeals. It also has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for judicial review of decisions of 16 federal boards, commissions and tribunals listed in section 28 of the Federal Courts Act. Parties to a proceeding in the Federal Court of Appeal may be granted leave, or permission, to appeal a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada if the case involves a question of public importance. For further information on the Federal Court of Appeal, please refer to http://www.fca-caf.gc.ca.

The Federal Court (FC) is a court of first instance. It has original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction over cases by and against the Crown (including Aboriginal law claims), and proceedings involving admiralty law and intellectual property law. It also has exclusive jurisdiction over national security proceedings and appeals under 110 federal statutes, as well as applications for judicial review of the decisions of all federal boards, commissions and tribunals other than those over which the Federal Court of Appeal has jurisdiction. This jurisdiction includes, in particular, applications for judicial review of decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board. For further information on the Federal Court, please refer to http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca.

The main function of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada (CMAC) is to hear appeals from courts martial, which are military courts established under the National Defence Act and which hear cases under the Code of Service Discipline found in Parts III and VII of that Act. Judges of the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court, as well as certain incumbent trial and appellate judges of the provincial superior courts are members of this Court.  For further information on the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, please refer to http://www.cmac-cacm.ca.

The Tax Court of Canada (TCC) is a specialized court of law that decides matters involving taxpayers and the federal taxation authorities. The Court enables taxpayers and businesses to resolve disputes arising from such issues as payment of income tax and goods and services tax, and whether employment is insurable and pensionable for the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Pension Plan. For further information on the Tax Court of Canada, please refer to http://www.tcc-cci.gc.ca.

Program Activities - Expected Results

Strategic Outcome	The public has timely and fair access to the litigation processes of the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada
Program Activity	Expected Results
Registry Services	Awareness and understanding of the litigation processes in order to ensure that the public and parties have access to the Courts Access to the Courts as quickly as possible with as little burden as possible through client service, quality of advice, efficient and timely processing, and impartial service delivery Smooth and appropriate functioning of hearings A sustainable system of services to the Courts that make better use of technology, optimize resources and ensure value for money spent
Judicial Services	Judges have the tools and resources they need to perform their functions in a timely manner Members of the Bar and litigants have an increased understanding and awareness of how the Courts work Key stakeholders and the general public have timely information about the status of court proceedings and about judgments rendered Better response to the needs of the Bar and litigants due to a better understanding of their needs
Internal Services	Not applicable

Program Activities Architecture 2008-2009

Courts Administration Service

STRATEGIC OUTCOME
The public has timely and fair access to the litigation processes of the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada
THREE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Registry Services	Judicial Services
Federal Court of Appeal and Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada Registry Operations Federal Court Registry Operations Tax Court of Canada Registry Operations Regional Registry Operations – Québec & Atlantic, Ontario, and Western Best Practices & Modernization	Judicial Executives Services Judicial Assistants Services Law Clerk Program Library Services
Internal Services
Management and Oversight Services Human Resources Management Services Financial Management Services Supply Chain Management Services Facilities and Assets Management Services Information Management Services Information Technology Services Internal Audit Services Other Support Delivery Services Chauffeurs and Court Attendants Services Translation Services

The Service’s 2009-2010 PAA was modified to better reflect the sub-activities of the program activities http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2009-2010/inst/caj/caj01-eng.asp#t1.2

Summary of Performance

2008-09 Financial Resources ($ millions)

Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
62.7	71.2	68.1

Number may not add up due to rounding.

The most significant variances between Total Authorities and Planned Spending are due to additional funds received for collective agreements ($3.4M), operating budget carry forward ($2.5M), program integrity ($2.0M), the move to consolidate registry operations from the Lorne Building to the Thomas D’Arcy McGee Building in Ottawa ($1.3M) and paylist shortfalls ($0.9M) which include benefits paid to employees for maternity leave and severance allowances.

It should be noted that the most significant variance of $3.4M above results from collective agreements that were signed with the majority of bargaining agents late in fiscal 2008-2009. These agreements included significant retroactive settlements as well as substantial signing bonuses of up to $4K per employee.

The aforementioned $2.0M program integrity variance is funding related to prothonotary salaries, deputy judges’ travel and fees, as well as support costs for these judicial officers. Funding is received through the Management Reserve on a year by year basis. As such, a significant amount of funding is received through Supplementary Estimates every year as opposed to through Main Estimates. The Service is currently working with central agencies to resolve this issue on a permanent basis.

The two main variances between the Total Authorities and Actual Spending are due to:

(a) Delays in staffing amounting to $1.8M and;

(b) Funding of $1M approved for the relocation of certain facilities in 2008-2009. The expected relocation was delayed as the department that was to move out of the facilities destined for the Service in 2008-2009 was delayed eight months. Once the Service was made aware of this issue by Public Works and Government Services, a reprofile of the $1M was requested in fall 2008 and Treasury Board accepted this request.

2008–09 Human Resources (FTEs)

Planned	Actual	Difference
630	595	35

FTE – Full time equivalent

The variance between Planned and Actual FTE’s can be attributed to delays in staffing vacant positions.

Performance Summary

Strategic Outcome: The public has timely and fair access to the litigation processes of the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada.
Performance Indicators	Targets	2008–09 Performance
Level of satisfaction of clients and the judiciary with services provided	85% satisfaction rate for clients and judges	Draft client service satisfaction surveys were developed in 2008-2009 and will be administered in 2009-2010

($ millions)

Program Activity	2007-08 Actual Spending	2008-09				Alignment to Government of Canada Outcomes
		Main Estimates	Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
Registry Services	38	36.2	39.5	44	42.2	Government Affairs The Service’s strategic outcome is aligned with the area of government affairs of the Government of Canada Outcomes as it provides support to the Courts which, by their decisions, assist the machinery of government, while maintaining judicial independence.
Judicial Services	22.6	21.6	23.1	27.2	25.9
Total	60.6	57.8	62.7	71.2	68.1

Number may not add up due to rounding.

As the variances explained in the previous table essentially impact both Registry Services and Judicial Services equally, the variances between Planned Spending, Total Authorities and Actual Spending by Program Activity will be related to the same factors described above.

Contribution of Priorities to Strategic Outcome

Operational Priority	Type	Links to Strategic Outcome	Description
Modernization of our business processes and registry services operations Development of new Case Management System (CMS) Electronic capture of documents Review and harmonization of internal processes	Previously committed to	Successfully met expectations Significant progress made in the development of a new CMS Increased use of electronic filing, scanning and electronic distribution of judgments Request for proposals for digital recording was developed Processes and procedures across the four Courts were reviewed and draft service standards developed	Strategic Outcome – Public has timely and adequate access to the litigation processes of the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada. Reviewing and harmonizing processes, adopting new technologies and development of a new CMS contribute directly to the provision of higher quality and more timely services to Canadians and better access to the Courts. Implementing the new CMS and integrating the various related technologies will be the next major challenge for the Service.

Management Priority	Type	Links to Strategic Outcome	Description
Implementation of a comprehensive, dynamic and fully integrated work environment to support the delivery of our services to clients and the judiciary Human Resources Planning (HR) Implementation of Public Service Modernization Act (PSMA) Supporting Public Service Renewal Consolidation of physical offices in the National Capital Region (NCR)	Previously committed to	Mostly Met expectations Capacity of HR Services significantly increased Three-year, integrated HR Plan developed PSMA training delivered and authorities delegated to managers People Management Plan developed Development of competency profiles Thomas D’Arcy McGee (TDM) Building in Ottawa designated as long term NCR accommodation solution for the Service Registry Operations of the Federal Court of Appeal, Federal Court and Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada co-located with a common service counter for the public Implementation of Bill C-3	Strategic Outcome –  Public has timely and adequate access to the litigation processes of the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada. The quality of services delivered to Canadians and the Courts is dependent on a full complement of highly qualified employees.  While significant progress was made in this area, it is an ongoing challenge that requires sustained attention and action. The results of the 2008 Public Service Employee Survey will be analyzed and an Action Plan developed in the coming year. The complete consolidation of staff in the NCR will take place over a period of several years, as space in the TDM Building becomes available.

Risk Analysis

Physical Security

Ensuring an appropriate level of physical security for the judges of the Courts, the staff of the Service and other parties at hearings is an ongoing challenge for the organization. Recent incidents have heightened the need to enhance the security profile in offices and hearing locations across the country.

The MAF assessment for the Service also indicated areas where additional attention is required with respect to security. A comprehensive national security strategy and related business case is under development which will address areas such as security screening at hearings, personal security of the judiciary, business continuity planning, Information Technology security and other related areas. The Service is working to secure the resources necessary for this important initiative.

Challenges Facing Small Organizations

The Service participated in a Treasury Board Secretariat exercise under Round VI of the MAF assessment process in the Fall of 2008. This comprehensive review was very instructive and served as an important driver when planning for 2009-2010. However, it also highlighted the inherent lack of capacity for relatively small organizations such as the Service to meet all the management and reporting requirements stipulated by the various central agencies.

The Service, therefore, has chosen to focus on strengthening certain key management areas identified through the MAF exercise and these are outlined in its RPP for fiscal year 2009-2010.  Notably, the implementation of a formal risk management régime for the Service has been identified as a corporate priority for the coming year.

In addition, discussions with the Office of the Comptroller General regarding an appropriate model for the Internal Audit function are currently underway and the outcome will be implemented in the coming year.

Funding to support established plans that will strengthen areas such as Information Management and Security Services and to support the consolidation of the Services’ accommodations in the NCR will be sought as the organization simply lacks the resources internally for these key initiatives.

Our People

The highly operational nature of the business of the Service leads to a requirement for employees with very specific and specialized skills and experience which take time to develop. In addition, the size of the organization often precludes significant opportunities for career advancement within Registry, Judicial and Corporate Services. The risk of losing qualified employees is ever present and a significant ongoing challenge for the Service.

Attracting, training, developing and retaining qualified staff was a priority in 2008-2009.  The first step was to significantly enhance the capacity of the Human Resources Services which had suffered from understaffing for a considerable period of time. This was fully accomplished in 2008-2009, which laid the foundation for moving forward with the development of a three-year integrated Human Resources Plan. This Plan includes a comprehensive People Management Strategy and supports the Public Service Renewal initiative in the areas of planning, recruitment, employee development and enabling infrastructure.

The Service has in place an Operational Training unit which continues to deliver customized, in-house courses to Registry staff on the jurisdiction, rules and procedures of the four Courts it supports.

Workload

The workload of the Courts, and by extension the Service, is impacted by the volume of incoming matters. This can be affected by changes to the economic climate nationally and internationally as well as the volume of decisions rendered by boards and tribunals such as the Immigration Refugee Board (IRB). An increase in the volume of immigration matters instituted with the Federal Court in the last quarter of 2008-2009 may indicate a related increase in decisions rendered by the IRB which will be monitored closely throughout the coming year.

The coming into force of Bill C-3, which amended the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and instituted the Special Advocates régime, has had a significant impact on the Service. The Service now accommodates and provides administrative support to Special Advocates in their review of classified material on its premises. The volume of designated proceedings matters has increased sharply, requiring qualified Registry staff with Top Secret clearance to be diverted from the regular business of the Courts.

Opportunities

Technology

The Service continues to respond to the changing expectations of both litigants and the judiciary by renewing its service delivery and taking advantage of new technologies wherever possible. The ultimate goal is to make available to staff, the judges and the public complete electronic files. The implementation of a common Case Management System will support electronic filing, scanning of documents, electronic fax receipt, digital audio recording of court proceedings and electronic dissemination of decisions. Our focus on electronic filing has paid significant dividends with the number of documents received electronically more than doubling to 15,020 from 6,673 the previous year. Phase one of the new system was rolled out in May 2008 and significant work was undertaken especially in Phase II and the other phases. CMS is expected to be completed in 2010-2011.

The Service is also exploring the general concept of the e-courtroom, whereby related technologies in the areas of document and evidence management, videoconferencing, digital audio recording and others are completely integrated. A needs assessment and examination of best practices in other jurisdictions will be undertaken in the coming year and will result in the development of an action plan for the future.

Consolidation of offices in the National Capital Region (NCR)

The creation of the Service in 2003 brought together two different organizations with completely different systems, rules, policies, processes and cultures.  The new Service has devoted much time and energy to bringing them together with a view to creating the “single point of service” envisaged by the enabling legislation. 

The greatest obstacle to integration to this point, however, has been the fact that the judiciary as well as registry and corporate staff within the NCR are housed in five different buildings across the downtown area. With a view to maximizing the efficient use of human and financial resources in supporting the four Courts, a priority has been to co-locate all NCR employees in one location.

Senior management worked collaboratively with PWGSC, with the result that the Thomas D’Arcy McGee Building has been identified as the long-term accommodation solution for the judiciary and the Service. Space will be made available to the Service over the coming years as existing tenants are relocated.

A common registry operations location will allow for increased cross-training of staff in the rules and procedures of the four Courts. This will lead to greater flexibility in responding to fluctuations in workload across the Courts and improved service to clients. In the longer term, the centralization of Internal Services staff with the judiciary and registry staff will result in more timely and efficient service delivery to our internal clients.

Expenditure Profile

Figure 2 - Text equivalent

Variance explanations:

• Actual spending increased from $60.6M in 2007-2008 to $68.1M in 2008-2009 and this variance is described under “Summary of Performance”.
  It should be noted that in 2006-2007, the Service received approximately $4.5M of one time funding to consolidate its Toronto business operations in one facility, as well as its warehousing facility in Gatineau, Quebec.
  
• Total Authorities increased from $63.8M in 2007-2008 to $71.2M in 2008-2009. Variance of $7.4M is mainly due to collective agreements signed in 2008-2009 ($3.4M),  funds received in 2008-2009 for the changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act whereby the Service agreed to support newly appointed Special Advocates ($3.1M), and the move to consolidate CAS registry operations from the Lorne Building to Thomas D’Arcy McGee Building ($1.3M).
  

Voted and Statutory Items
($ millions)

Vote # or Statutory Item (S)	Truncated Vote or Statutory Wording	2006-07 Actual Spending	2007-08 Actual Spending	2008-09 Main Estimates	2008-09 Actual Spending
30	Program expenditures	60.5	54.6	51.6	61.9
(S)	Contributions to employee benefit plans	6.1	6.0	6.2	6.2
Total		66.6	60.6	57.8	68.1

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page