ARCHIVED - Courts Administration Service - Report

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Acting Chief Administrator's Message

As the acting Chief Administrator for the Courts Administration Service, (the "Service") it is my distinct pleasure to present the Departmental Performance Report (DPR) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010. The Service provides administrative services to four federal superior courts of law. Through its management and governance structure, the Service ensures that safeguards are in place to maintain the independence of the judiciary from the executive branch of government while ensuring accountability to Parliament for the spending of funds.

Our operational priority for 2009-2010 was to improve service delivery to the clients and stakeholders of the Service, both internal and external. In that regard, the Service conducted a survey of the judiciary which confirmed a generally high level of satisfaction, and highlighted areas for improvement. These latter are being addressed through an action plan. As well, the Service moved forward in its development of a Court Records Management System (CRMS) to support the business of the four courts, despite resource pressures that delayed progress. The move to electronic capture of court documents continued, recognizing its importance for overall service improvement.

Our management priority was to strengthen internal management practices to make better informed decisions. A new operational planning exercise, a corporate risk profile and a related integrated risk management plan were rolled out. We also focused on improved planning for people management, integration of business and human resource planning and increased communication throughout the Service. Recent Management Accountability Framework (MAF) exercises and Threat and Risk Assessments (TRAs) have highlighted areas for attention, and the Service is committed to responding appropriately.

These various initiatives have enabled management to identify, analyze and address the many new challenges facing the organization. In particular, significant financial pressures that emerged during the year required a thorough and ongoing review of priorities. In reallocating its available resources, the Service sought to improve efficiency while maintaining the quality of the core services it delivers to the Courts and the Canadian public. To address these challenges the Service continues to work with central agencies and other partners, while consulting frequently with the members of the judiciary, whose independence it protect.

I would like to acknowledge the efforts of our employees whose commitment and dedication to continued provision of high quality services have allowed us to maintain our reputation for excellence notwithstanding the difficult financial challenges we faced in 2009-2010. I look forward to working with the four Chief Justices and being a part of the process of continued development, improvement and management of change as the Service moves forward.

The original version was signed by

Section I – Departmental Overview

Raison d’être and Responsibilities

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 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.”

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

The provision of administrative and registry services by an entity at arm’s length from the executive branch of the government is internationally recognized as a best practice.

The Service recognizes the independence of each Court in the conduct of its affairs and aims to provide each court with high quality administrative and registry services.

The Functions of the Service

• providing the judiciary, litigants and 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 610 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 Courts We Support

Federal Court of Appeal

The Federal Court of Appeal is a national court which regularly sits across Canada, provides its services in both of Canada’s official languages and administers the two legal systems of the common law and the civil law. The Federal Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear appeals of judgments and orders, whether final or interlocutory, of the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada. It may also review decisions of certain federal tribunals pursuant to section 27 of the Federal Courts Act and hear appeals under other acts of Parliament. Pursuant to section 5(1) of the Federal Courts Act, the full judicial complement of the Federal Court of Appeal consists of the Chief Justice and twelve judges. For further information on the Federal Court of Appeal, please refer to http://www.fca-caf.gc.ca.

Federal Court

The Federal Court is Canada’s national, bilingual and bijural trial court which hears and decides legal disputes arising in the federal domain. It is the successor to the Exchequer Court of Canada established in 1875. The jurisdiction of the Federal Court derives primarily from the Federal Courts Act, though over 100 other federal statutes also confer jurisdiction on the Court. The Federal Court has original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction over proceedings by and against the Crown (including Aboriginal law claims), and proceedings involving admiralty law and intellectual property law. It has exclusive jurisdiction to hear certain national security proceedings as well as applications for judicial review of the decisions of most federal boards, commissions and tribunals. This includes applications for judicial review of decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The full judicial complement of the Federal Court consists of the Chief Justice and 32 other full-time judges as well as six prothonotaries. For further information on the Federal Court, please refer to http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca.

Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada

Courts martial are military courts established under the National Defence Act which hear cases under the Code of Service Discipline. The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada hears appeals of decisions rendered by the courts martial. Members of this Court are Judges of the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court and any additional judges of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction who are appointed by the Governor in Council. The Court currently consists of a Chief Justice and 59 judges. For further information on the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada please refer to http://www.cmac-cacm.ca.

Tax Court of Canada

The Tax Court of Canada is a superior court of record which has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear appeals and references under fourteen acts of Parliament. Most of the appeals filed with the Court are on matters arising under the Income Tax Act, Part IX of the Excise Tax Act (GST), Part IV of the Employment Insurance Act and Part I of the Canada Pension Plan. The Court was established in 1983 pursuant to the Tax Court of Canada Act with a view to dispensing justice in tax matters. Under section 4(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Act, the court consists of a Chief Justice, an Associate Chief Justice and not more than 20 other judges. For further information on the Tax Court of Canada, please refer to http://www.tcc-cci.gc.ca.

Strategic Outcome(s) and Program Activity Architecture (PAA)

COURTS ADMINISTRATION SERVICE

Summary of Performance

2009-10 Financial Resources ($ millions)

Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
61.4	67.2	66.2

2009-10 Human Resources (FTEs)

Planned	Actual	Difference
630	609	21

The most significant variances between total authorities and planned spending are due to additional funds received for collective agreements ($2.1M), paylist requirements ($1.6M), and the operating budget carry forward ($2.2M).

The main variance between the total authorities and actual spending is due to a lapse of about $0.9M in operating budget. The lapse was principally due to translation and IT related items that were ordered but not delivered by fiscal year-end, as well as collective agreement payments received during the year but only payable in 2010 2011. The Service was informed late in the fiscal year that they would not receive Management Reserve funding for 2009 2010. As a result, the Service postponed staffing actions and also stopped certain O&M activities and projects to stay within the authorities granted.

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	2009-10 Performance
Satisfaction rate among parties participating in the judicial process at CAS	To be determined based on baseline results Improvements in subsequent years	Initial internal satisfaction survey of Judges and Registry employees conducted Satisfaction rate generally high with respect to knowledge and professionalism of employees; accuracy of document preparation and processing can be improved in some areas Action plan to address results of the survey has been developed and implemented All the significant preparatory work for the conduct of an external survey of clients completed in 2009 2010; survey to be conducted in 2010 2011 if resources allow

($ millions)

Program Activity	2008-09 Actual Spending	2009-101				Alignment to Government of Canada Outcomes
		Main Estimates	Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending2
Registry Services	26.4	26.3	26.3	28.8	26.1	The Service supports the Judicial Branch of the Government of Canada. As such, its contributions affect several of the broad outcome areas including economic affairs, social affairs, international affairs, and government affairs.
Judicial Services	16.1	19.3	19.3	21.1	20.4
Internal Services	25.6	15.5	15.8	17.3	19.7
Total	68.1	61.1	61.4	67.2	66.2

Contribution of Priorities to Strategic Outcome

Operational Priorities	Type	Status	Links to Strategic Outcome
Improve service delivery, across the three Program Activities, to CAS clients and stakeholders, both internal and external	New Priority Previously, the Service had as a priority the “Modernization of our business processes and registry services operations”; this new priority is broader, applying to the three Program Activities.	Mostly Met The Court Records Management System progressed with rollout of Phase II; work on business requirements for Phase III continued. Plan to improve and expand electronic filing was approved further to an evaluation study and initial elements  implemented. Ongoing development of framework for integrated technology-enabled registry and courtrooms; limited implementation due to financial constraints. Survey of judiciary and staff conducted; action plan developed and implemented. Draft Registry service standards monitored and operational improvements made. Streamlining registry processes for each court has started with significant advancement expected in 2010‑2011. Judicial support processes for issuance, posting and translation of decisions were centralized and redesigned resulting in significantly improved efficiency and timeliness. Increased use of electronic subscriptions and publications have allowed greater and quicker access to library resource materials by the judiciary.	This priority contributes directly to the sole Strategic Outcome of the Service: 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.

Management Priorities	Type	Status	Links to Strategic Outcome(s)
Strengthening internal management practices	New Priority	Mostly Met Internal management practices reviewed through the lens of the Management Accountibility Framework exercise. Implemented a Corporate Risk Profile, and a formal priority‑setting exercise. Developed and implemented an integrated human resource and business planning model. Launched an integrated operational planning process. Instituted a process of upward feedback from staff, and implemented a formal plan to address deficiencies noted in the 2008 Public Service Employee Survey. Threat & Risk Assessments on key areas of the Service’s operations were undertaken, and business cases prepared to address gaps.	This priority contributes directly to the sole Strategic Outcome of the Service: 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.

Risk and Opportunity Analysis

As indicated in the 2009‑2010 Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP), the Service invested significant time and energy in its operational planning and risk management efforts over the course of the year. It has developed a Corporate Risk Profile for the organization, a key step in the implementation of an Integrated Risk Management Plan. This important document strengthened priority‑setting, operational planning and budget allocation exercises for the upcoming year that will ensure the limited resources available are directed to activities that support our core business and certain pressing areas as these resources allow.

Through the planning and risk identification exercises, it became very evident that the Service is at a crossroads with respect to balancing reduced resources, and the need to address significant risk while at the same time taking advantage of opportunities. Specific areas where significant risks existed were analyzed in detail and high‑level frameworks for managing these areas were established. This analysis formed the basis for the development of formal business cases for additional funds to address:

• physical and IT security, including accommodation issues;
• enabling technologies and related service delivery improvements; and
• a permanent source of funding for certain unfunded judicial positions.

Unfortunately the Service was not successful in obtaining any additional funding for these pressures through any mechanism, despite working closely with central agencies and other partners to put the business cases forth. The loss of certain temporary funding coupled with the requirement to absorb incremental salary increases for employees in the upcoming year will have a significant impact on the Service. The Service will continue to reallocate resources internally, however there will be an impact on key projects such as the Court Records Management System (CRMS) and integrated, technology enabled courtrooms for the four courts.

The 2009-2010 RPP identified challenges and related opportunities with respect to the achievement of its strategic outcome. These are explicitly addressed below.

Accommodation, Physical and Network Security

The Service has highlighted for a number of years the benefits and efficiencies that would result from the provision of a single point of service for clients of the courts in the National Capital Region as envisaged in its enabling legislation. There are advantages with respect to courtroom design, utilization and security, implementation of new technologies, access by the public, efficiency of internal operations and employee management and development.

More significantly the physical security of the judges, employees and other parties participating in court hearings can be better assured in a single facility tailored to security requirements. Threat and risk assessments were undertaken which underscore this reality and which reinforced and assisted in the development of a National Security Strategy for the Service and the courts to ensure a consistent approach to the use of access control and protective equipment and the presence of adequately trained security guards across the country.

The Service continues to conduct its business from five (5) separate buildings in the NCR despite the fact that the Thomas D’Arcy McGee (TDM) building has been designated by Public Works and Government Services Canada as its long‑term accommodation solution. As noted, a detailed business case addressing physical and operational security included the rationale for the move of certain groups of employees to TDM and the design and construction of more efficient and secure courtrooms. Current financial resources do not allow the Service to move beyond the planning stages of this initiative.

Changing Technology and Client Expectations

This is an area of both risk and opportunity for the Service and the courts. The finalization of the common CRMS for the four courts is one of the main priorities of the Service. This system is critical in order to enable the courts to access, share and manage files in a systematic and centralized fashion, and is the foundation for the integration of other related technologies to support the concept of “e-courtrooms” and the move to complete digitization of court files. An analysis of all these enabling technologies was undertaken and a formal business case was developed to address current gaps and put the Service in a position to take advantage of the significant opportunities that exist.

As these efforts to secure resources did not bear fruit, the Service is in a very difficult position with respect to related projects including the CRMS, digital audio recording, document, image and evidence management solutions, electronic filing and capture of documents and computer equipment and connectivity in courtrooms – all of which require investment of significant funds in order to move forward. The analyses have been done and the plans are in place, but the Service cannot move forward until resources become available.

All parties to the judicial process – judges, lawyers, litigants and registry staff - have expectations with respect to the modernization of operations and introduction of new technologies which are not being met as the four federal courts fall behind similar institutions in other jurisdictions in Canada.

Accountability and Modern Management

The Service identified in the 2009‑2010 RPP its objective of strengthening and maintaining strong internal management practices in order to meet its obligations and accountabilities to Parliament, central agencies and the public. It also planned to improve the information available to make sound planning and resource allocation decisions.

The Service has successfully developed a Corporate Risk Profile and implemented an integrated operational planning exercise with related budget allocation processes for the upcoming year. These exercises have provided a high-level, strategic view of where the Service is and aims to be, balanced with the reality of reduced resources. The Service is at a crossroads, at a point of ever‑increasing expectations with respect to security, technology and service delivery while in an operating context of fiscal restraint and competing demands for scarce funds.

As a result, senior management focused its energies on the analysis of priorities and risks to develop frameworks to move forward in certain areas. The most pressing initiatives were examined at a more granular level including threat and risk assessments. Formal business cases were drawn up to address gaps and provide options. In spite of the fact that efforts to secure funds have been unsuccessful to date, the Service will continue to explore other avenues for funding and move forward once it becomes available.

Expenditure Profile

($ millions)

[D]

The decrease in the Total Authorities from 2008‑2009 to 2009‑2010 is mainly due to:

• The Service received Program Integrity Funding ($2.0M) in 2007‑2008 and 2008‑2009; this funding was not approved for 2009‑2010 resulting in the decrease in Total Authorities.
• 2008‑2009 saw a one-time relocation ($1.3M) of certain operations of the Service from 90 Elgin St. to 90 Sparks St. It should be noted that the Service reallocated an additional $0.3M of funds internally to complete this project.

Voted and Statutory Items
($ millions)

Vote # or Statutory Item (S)	Truncated Vote or Statutory Wording	2007-08 Actual Spending	2008-09 Actual Spending	2009-10 Main Estimates	2009-10 Actual Spending
30	Operating expenditures	54.6	61.9	55.0	59.3
(S)	Contributions to employee benefit plans	6.0	6.2	6.1	6.9
Total		60.6	68.1	61.1	66.2

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page