Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
Symbol of the Government of Canada

ARCHIVED - Courts Administration Service


Warning This page has been archived.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.

Section I - Overview

Acting Chief Administrator’s Message

As Acting Chief Administrator, I am pleased to present the Report on Plans and Priorities of the Courts Administration Service ("CAS" also referred to as the "Service") for 2008-2009.

The Service is an independent body created to facilitate coordination and co-operation among the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada (the "Courts"), and to enhance judicial independence by providing administrative services to these four Courts. The Chief Administrator is accountable for the use of public money while safeguarding the independence of the judiciary.

The purpose of this report is to provide Parliament with consistent, comprehensive, balanced and reliable information on the priorities, expenditure plans, expected results and the means to be used to achieve them over the next three fiscal years.

It also presents a detailed picture of results-based planning which we intend to implement in order to fulfill our mandate and progress towards achieving our strategic objective. To that end, the organizational priorities of the Service are as follows:

  • modernizing our administrative processes and registry service activities; and,
  • establishing a well designed, dynamic and fully integrated work environment that will enhance our service delivery to clients and the judiciary.

I am proud of the progress we have made since the Service was created in July 2003, following the consolidation of the administrative services of the Courts. However, we still have to overcome challenges in order to successfully complete the transition. To improve service delivery, the organization is actively involved in a number of modernization projects, namely:

  • establishing service delivery using a one-stop-shop approach for the Courts we serve; and,
  • adopting new technologies to improve access to our services, particularly a new case management system; electronic filing; and filing by fax.

The Service will also face additional challenges this year with the anticipated passage of Bill C-3 (An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) and the creation of the position of Special Advocate. In this eventuality, the Service's exact role will have to be specified.

The Service is committed to promoting the Federal Government’s priorities of increasing accountability and transparency in the sound management of the authorities entrusted to it. In addition, the efforts made to continually improve our management processes have given the Service the organizational skills needed to effectively and efficiently respond to a constantly changing environment. They have also allowed us to develop a certain flexibility which will help us deal with any risks that may arise. Thus, over the next three years, we will continue our efforts to:

  • integrate the principal elements of the key management frameworks, specifically the Management Accountability Framework; the Management, Resources and Results Structure; and the establishment of a human resources plan that is integrated into our activities; and,
  • develop the concept of measurement, including performance indicators, targets, and service standards.

The skill of our highly qualified and devoted staff is the key to our success. Thanks to the work of our employees in support of our organizational priorities, the Service will gain recognition as a national and international model of excellence in the administration of justice, giving everyone fast, efficient and fair access to the Courts.

The Service is committed to implementing the measures necessary to ensure that it achieves the results described in this report.

R.P. Guenette

Management Representation Statement

I submit for tabling in Parliament, the 2008-2009 Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP) for Courts Administration Service.

This document has been prepared based on the reporting principles contained in Guide for the Preparation of Part III of the 2008–09 Estimates: Reports on Plans and Priorities and Departmental Performance Reports:

It adheres to the specific reporting requirements outlined in the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s guidance;

It is based on the organization’s strategic outcome(s) and Program Activity Architecture that had been approved by the Treasury Board;

It presents consistent, comprehensive, balanced and reliable information;

It provides a basis of accountability for the results achieved with the resources and authorities entrusted to it; and

It reports finances based on approved planned spending numbers from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Name: Raymond P. Guenette
Title: Acting Chief Administrator

Raison d’être

The mandate of the Service is to provide efficient administrative services to the following four courts: the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada. The Service thus enhances judicial independence by placing their judges at arm’s length from the federal government, while ensuring greater accountability for the use of public money.

In keeping with our client-based approach, the Service simplifies the requisite steps for litigants bringing their disputes to one of these courts. The Service also facilitates that the cases before these courts are treated fairly, quickly and efficiently.

The Courts

The Courts served by the Service are superior courts of record. They were established 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 Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) has jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions of the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada and certain statutory appeals from federal administrative tribunals as stated in legislation. It also has exclusive jurisdiction to hear applications for judicial review of decisions of 14 federal boards, commissions and tribunals listed in section 28 of the Federal Courts Act (see http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-7/index.html). Parties to a proceeding in the Federal Court of Appeal may be granted leave, or permission to appeal the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada if the case involves a question of public importance. 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. On December 31, 2007, the Federal Court of Appeal consisted of a Chief Justice, nine judges and three supernumerary judges. For further information on the Federal Court of Appeal, please refer to http://www.fca-caf.gc.ca.

The Federal Court (FC) is both a court of first instance and a judicial review court. It has original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction over cases in which the Crown is a party (including aboriginal law claims) and proceedings involving admiralty law and intellectual property law. It also has jurisdiction over appeals under approximately 100 federal statutes, national security proceedings and 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 (see above). Thus, it is the Federal Court that hears applications for judicial review of decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Pursuant to subsection 5.1(1) of the Federal Courts Act, the Federal Court consists of the Chief Justice and thirty-two full-time judges. On December 31, 2007, it consisted of the Chief Justice and twenty-eight full-time judges, three supernumerary judges, five deputy judges and five prothonotaries. For more information about the Federal Court, please refer to http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca.

The main function of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada (CMACC) 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 incumbent trial and appellate judges of the provincial superior courts, are members of this Court. On December 31, 2007, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada consisted of a Chief Justice and sixty-two judges. 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) has exclusive, original jurisdiction to hear appeals and references under many different Acts of Parliament. Most of the appeals made to the Court relate to income tax, the goods and services tax, or employment insurance. While many appeals are subject to procedures similar to those of the Federal Court, appeals under what is known as the “informal procedure” are heard as informally and expeditiously as circumstances and considerations of fairness permit. Pursuant to subsection 4(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Court consists of a Chief Justice, an Associate Chief Justice and up to twenty judges. On December 31, 2007, the Tax Court of Canada consisted of a Chief Justice, an Associate Chief Justice, eighteen judges, five supernumerary judges and six deputy judges. For further information on the Tax Court of Canada, visit http://www.tcc-cci.gc.ca.

In order to facilitate the public’s access to the Courts, the Service has offices in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. In addition, registry services and courtrooms are provided through agreements with the governments of New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territory and Nunavut. The Service is present in all Canadian provinces and territories, making it accessible and available to all its clients in a decentralized way.

Organizational Information

Organizational Information Chart

FCA/CMAC
Federal Court of Appeal
Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada

Power of the Chief Administrator

Subsections 7(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Courts Administration Service Act set out the powers, duties and functions of the Chief Administrator as follows:

(1) The Chief Administrator is the chief executive officer of the Service and has supervision over and direction of its work and staff.

(2) The Chief Administrator has all the powers necessary for the overall effective and efficient management and administration of all court services, including court facilities and libraries and corporate services and staffing.

(3) The Chief Administrator, in consultation with the chief justices of the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada, shall establish and maintain the registry or registries for those courts in any organizational form or forms and prepare budgetary submissions for the requirements of those courts and for the related needs of the Service.

(4) The powers of the Chief Administrator do not extend to any matter assigned by law to the judiciary.

Subsection 9(1) adds the following:

A chief justice may issue binding directions in writing to the Chief Administrator with respect to any matter within the Chief Administrator’s authority.

Executive Committee

Purpose

The Chief Administrator of the Service is supported by an Executive Committee in making decisions leading to effective and efficient management and administration of all court services. This committee is the highest-level decision-making body within the organization. The Executive Committee serves as a forum for establishing the strategic direction of the Service and for identifying requirements impacting on the priorities and resources of the Service.

Senior Management Committee

Purpose

The Chief Administrator is assisted in his duties by the Senior Management Committee which is the executive forum tasked to discuss financial, operational, procedural, policy and change management issues and to make recommendations on these matters to the Executive Committee.

Registry Services Management Committee

Purpose

Chaired by the Deputy Chief Administrator, Registry Services, this new committee will provide advice and recommendations to the Executive Committee and the Chief Administrator on key operational issues and activities pertaining to the Registry of the four courts. This committee will also be the forum for discussing all horizontal management issues relating to the Registry Services.

Human Resources Management Committee

Purpose

The Human Resources Management Committee addresses issues emerging in managing human resources; provides recommendations to the Senior Management Committee; promotes best practices; and reviews HR-related policies and practices. It also provides support to the Employment Equity and Official Languages Champions. The committee evaluates strategic training and development activities and focuses on retention issues, career paths, knowledge transfer and succession planning. It advises on the development and implementation of awards and recognition programs, and reviews requests for educational leave.

National Modernization Committee

Purpose

The National Modernization Committee (NMC) is a forum where partners from offices across the Service who are involved at the operations level meet to present their projects, discuss operational issues and try to harmonize procedures. Their recommendations are presented to the Registry Services Management Committee for consideration.

Program Activity Architecture

Department/Agency
Courts Administration Service
Strategic Results
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 1. Registry Services 2. Judicial Services 3. Internal Services
Program Sub-Activity 1.1 Federal Court of Appeal and Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada Registry Operations 2.1 Judicial Executives Services 3.1 Management and Oversight Services
  1.2 Federal Court Registry Operations 2.2 Judicial Assistants Services 3.2 Human Resources, Management Services
  1.3 Tax Court of Canada Registry Operations 2.3 Law Clerk Program 3.3 Financial Management Services
  1.4 Regional Registry Operations – Quebec & Atlantic, Ontario, and Western 2.4 Library Services 3.4 Supply Chain, Management Services
  1.5 Best Practices and Modernization   3.5 Facilities and Assets, Management Services
      3.6 Information, Management Services
      3.7 Information, Technology Services
      3.8 Internal Audit Services
      3.9 Other Support Delivery Services
Program Sub-Sub-Activity     3.9.1 Chauffeurs and Court Attendants Services
      3.9.2 Translation Services

Strategic Relationships

The Service maintains five main strategic relationships:

  • The Department of Justice and other Federal Departments or Organizations

Because of the nature of the work, we are maintaining relationships with the Department of Justice and other federal departments or organizations. For example, the Department of Justice is a party to all cases heard by the TCC. With respect to the work done by committees, the Attorney General of Canada designates representatives from the legal profession to sit on the Rules Committees of the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada. Two senior representatives from the Department of Justice also sit on the Rules Committee of the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.

Lastly, the Department of Justice in particular, but also, on occasion, other federal departments or organizations initiate, legislation and policies that are eventually adopted and have a direct bearing on the workload of the Courts. Consequently, these changes have a direct impact on the workload of the Service. For that reason, we pay particular attention to our external environment and continue to monitor new needs.

  • Provinces and Territories

Because of our service agreements with our partners, we have eight offices where provincial/territorial employees ensure the presence of the Service. These agreements also allow us to use some provincial/territorial courtrooms and libraries. These partners are strategically very important for us because they enable us to deliver a decentralized and economical service while increasing accessibility to the Courts across Canada.

  • The Canadian Bar Association and Provincial Law Societies

Our relationships with these organizations enable us to obtain very useful feedback on processes and procedures, so that we can provide high-quality and even more effective services. These organizations also make us aware of certain realities and specific regional needs, such as matters related to admiralty, employment insurance, immigration and income tax, so that we can better respond to them.

  • Quasi-Judicial Tribunals and Boards

The Service’s ongoing efforts to achieve cost savings include the sharing of facilities and courtrooms across the country with federal tribunals, boards, commissions and the provinces while keeping in mind sensitivities relating to judicial independence of all Courts.

  • Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)

A large portion of the workload of the Federal Court is tied to the number of immigration cases being referred from CIC and the IRB. For this reason, we remain particularly vigilant and maintain a close relationship with these organizations in order to follow the development of their workflow, and accordingly, periodically revisit our operational planning.

Voted and Statutory Items Displayed in the Main Estimates


Vote or Statutory Item Truncated Vote or Statutory Wording 2008–09 Main Estimates 2007–08 Main Estimates
30 Program expenditures 51.6 51.3
(S) Contributions to employee benefit plans 6.2 6.5
  Total Department or Agency 57.8 57.7

Numbers in tables may not add up due to rounding.

Departmental Planned Spending Table and Full-Time Equivalents


($ millions) Forecast Spending 2007–08(1) Planned Spending 2008–09 Planned Spending 2009–10 Planned Spending 2010–11
Provide Registry Services (2) 37.2 36.2 36.1 36.1
Provide Judicial Services (2) 20.6 21.6 21.5 21.5
Budgetary Main Estimates (gross) 57.7 57.8 57.5 57.5
Total Main Estimates 57.7 57.8 57.5 57.5
Adjustments        
Supplementary Estimates        
Program Integrity Funding (3) 3.0      
Implementation of Public Service Modernization Act 0.6 0.3    
Other (4)        
Internal Audit – TB Vote 10 0.1      
Collective Bargaining Agreements – TB Vote 15 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3
Operating Budget Carry-Forward – TB Vote 22 1.7      
Paylist Requirement for Shortfalls – TB Vote 23 1.5      
Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision – a bill to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Bill C-3)   3.8 3.7  
Federal Accountability Action Plan 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.3
Total Adjustments 7.1 4.9 4.3 0.6
Total Planned Spending 64.8 62.7 61.8 58.1
Less: Non-respendable revenue (5) 8.0 4.5 4.5 4.5
Plus: Cost of services received without charge 24.7 25.7 25.6 25.7
Total Departmental Spending 81.5 83.9 82.9 79.3
Full-Time Equivalents 630 630 630 630

(1) Reflects the best estimate of total forecast departmental spending to the end of the fiscal year, including employee benefits.

(2) The Internal Services Program Activity has been reallocated to the remaining program activities on a pro rata basis.

(3) This funding is required for the additional fees for deputy judges, prothonotaries’ salaries and their administrative support.

(4) Treasury Board Vote 10 is funding for horizontal government initiatives. In this case, it is principally related to the establishment of an independent Audit Committee and additional audit work. Treasury Board Vote 15 is for compensation for collective bargaining agreements. Treasury Board Vote 22 is a newly created vote to increase transparency for an organization’s normal carry forward from a previous fiscal year. Treasury Board Vote 23 is a newly created vote to increase transparency in the funding of an organization’s pay list shortfalls such as parental benefits, severance pay or vacation pay on departure from the Public Service.

Amounts for the Federal Accountability Action Plan were provided to CAS by the Treasury Board Secretariat. The Courts Administration Service was not involved in the development of this horizontal initiative, therefore CAS cannot comment on the validity of these numbers to meet the Government’s intended objectives.

(5) See table “Sources of Respendable and Non-Respondable Revenue” for more information.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2008-2009/info/info-eng.asp

Numbers in tables may not add up due to rounding.

Summary Information

Financial Resources


2008–09 2009–10 2010–11
$62.7M $61.8M $58.1M

Human Resources


2008–09 2009–10 2010–11
630 630 630

Departmental Priorities


Name Type
1.Program Priority
Modernization of our business processes and registry services operations.
ongoing
2.Management Priority
Implementation of a comprehensive, dynamic and fully integrated work environment to support the delivery of our services to clients and the judiciary.
ongoing

Program Activities by Strategic Outcome


($ millions) Expected Results14 Planned Spending Contributes to the following priority
2008–2009 2009–2010 2010-2011
Strategic Outcome: The 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. Priorities 1 & 2
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.
39.5 39.0 36.4 Priority 1 & 2
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 court proceedings and about judgments rendered;

Better response to the needs of the bar and litigants due to a better understanding of their needs.
23.1 22.8 21.7 Priority 2

Organisational Plans and Priorities

Rationale behind the Priorities

Priority 1:
Modernization of our business processes and registry services operations.

The Service will continue to explore and make use of new technologies to provide more effective, efficient and timely services to the Judiciary and the public. The trend in courts nationally and internationally is to move towards automated case management systems where all incoming documentation and information is captured digitally and managed electronically, in addition to maintaining the official physical court file.

To that end, the Service is undertaking the design and development of a modern case management system that will support the four Courts and their clients. Capturing incoming documents and other information digitally necessitates investments in the areas of electronic filing, document scanning, electronic receipt of faxes, digital recording of court proceedings, electronic distribution and publication of judgments and other similar technologies.

The design phase provides the Service with a perfect opportunity to review internal business processes, harmonize the way business is conducted across the four Courts, and suggest changes to legislation and the Rules of the Courts to allow for improvements in service delivery.

The realization of this ambitious goal will result in improved and timely access to information by both internal and external clients, and will facilitate access to the judiciary in general.

Furthermore, as part of the Service’s mission to consolidate services for the Courts, a central Assessment Section was recently established with responsibility for assessing costs awarded to litigants by the four Courts.

Priority 2:
Implementation of a comprehensive, dynamic and fully integrated work environment to support the delivery of our services to clients and the judiciary.

Since the Service was created in July 2003, we have made much progress in the area of integrating and aligning administrative services. However, we still have to overcome challenges in order to successfully complete this transition and establish service delivery that is based on a single-window model.

The Service therefore continues its involvement in a number of modernization projects, namely:

  • adopting new technologies to improve access to our services, particularly a new case management system, electronic filing, and filing by fax:
  • geographically consolidating our registry operations and corporate services in the Ottawa region;
  • developing and delivering operational training sessions for registry staff that serve the Courts.

Another key element will, of course, be human resources planning that is integrated with our financial resources and activities. We expect to complete this task in the fiscal year 2008-2009. At the same time, efforts will be made to implement and operationalize the Public Service Modernization Act, in such areas as staffing, policy and procedures development, and competency profile development.

We will place special emphasis on developing and using integrated management tools that allow us to ensure greater accountability and improve transparency in our use of public funds to achieve our expected results; such tools include the management performance framework, performance and resource management system, management framework, and so on.

Finally, in 2008/09, the Service may have to undertake a large project to support Bill C-3 which will amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) provisions dealing with security certificates and special advocates. In this case, the Service will be working closely with its partner, Public Works and Government Services for the construction of additional facilities and will also be hiring additional staff to implement this proposed Government Bill.

Operational Environment

Challenges and Risk Management:

  • Small Organization:

Some of the challenges that the Service faces are inherent in its status as a small organization within the public service. Our resources are relatively limited and, consequently, our flexibility is restricted.

For example, the government established a number of measures and reviews in resource management that require the sustained attention of departments and organizations. The implementation and completion of projects such as the expenditure review, the modernization of the public service, the Management Accountability Framework, the improvement of internal audits and the evaluation functions, require specialized expertise. Although our internal resources are not yet developed, we must comply with the same requirements and expectations of the central agencies as large departments. To respond to these demands, we have to use outside firms, which increases the internal pressures on our financial resources. In addition, these firms are not able to adequately identify our organizational culture and our complex operational reality, which exposes us to conclusions that do not always accurately reflect the Service.

  • Human Resources:

Being a small organization also means that the possibilities for advancement within the Service are fairly limited. This situation causes serious problems in the recruitment and retention of employees, particularly in some occupations that are already facing labour shortages in the public service. For example, recruiting professionals in finance, staffing and compensation is a pressing problem for us. This situation can only get worse with numerous people retiring, a trend that is accelerating throughout the entire public service. That is why the Service will put the emphasis on developing a plan that integrates human resources with activities and identifies optimum strategies for recruiting, retaining and training our work force.

  • Specialized Nature of the Work:

In addition to succession, the specialized nature of the work at the Registry creates a challenge. The work of registry officers requires skills and particular knowledge that are acquired over a number of years. These employees, therefore, need to have access in a timely manner to orientation and training programs to accelerate the process of knowledge transfer. The operational training section was established to respond to this need and will continue to offer essential basic training to all our officers across the country.

  • Perception of Judicial Independence:

The Service continues to be the link between litigants and the judges so as to ensure judicial independence. The public perception of judicial independence is fundamental to the proper functioning of the Canadian judicial system. Accordingly, the Service will continue to participate in different joint committees with its partners and to meet with various stakeholders so that the general public can better understand its role.

  • Statutory and Concurrent Jurisdictions:

The Service serves four courts that have statutory jurisdiction. This implies, among other things, that our workload is affected by possible legislative changes. In addition, some of the Courts we serve have concurrent jurisdiction with superior courts. Thus, in some cases, clients have the choice of the judicial forum in which to bring their disputes.

We have very little control over these two factors that directly impact our operations. This results in an uncertain and unpredictable workload. In order to respond more effectively to these changing external conditions, we plan to adopt a solid risk management program that will make the Service more flexible and adaptable. We also remain vigilant and are sensitive to our external environment.

The Service is also affected by government-wide initiatives. With the anticipated passage of Bill C-3 and the institution of a Special Advocates regime, the Service has agreed to accommodate and provide administrative support to Special Advocates in the context of their review of classified material on the Service’s premises. This will not only put pressure on the Service’s operations, but will also require the Service to see to it that such provision does not hinder the Service from accomplishing its main objective, which is to support the judiciary.