Legislative Services Branch Evaluation

Appendix B: File Review Templates

Drafting Files

Overview

1. Assigned File Code Number:

  • Any related file code numbers:

2. Date request sent: (mm/dd/yy)

3. Date file opened/work started: (mm/dd/yy)

4. Date file closed/work ended: (mm/dd/yy)

5. Section of LSB DASG in charge of file:

  • Legislation Section
  • HQ Regulations Section
  • Transport Canada Regulations Section
  • Health Canada Regulations Section
  • National Defence Canada Regulations Section

6. a) Request initiated by:

  • Justice Canada
    • Specify area:
  • Other government department/agency. Specify:

b) Other departments involved in the drafting process:

  • Yes [Specify in the space provided below]
  • No

7. Legal issue advised on and brief description of the nature of the type of advice required (e.g., name of bill/regulation, any info from cover page, evidence of previous work on same issue). Do not reference any information that would waive solicitor-client privilege.

8. Did the drafting counsel (French) change over the course of the file?

  • Yes
  • No

b) Did the drafting counsel (English) change over the course of the file?

  • Yes
  • No

Drafting Request

9. Reason for request

  • New regulations
    • Yes
    • No
  • New legislation
    • Yes
    • No
  • Revisions to existing regulations
    • Yes
    • No
  • Revisions to existing legislation
    • Yes
    • No

10. Drafting instructions:

  • Date provided to LSB:
  • Language of instructions:
    • French
    • English
    • Both French and English
  • Enabling authority identified:
    • Yes
    • No
  • Pre-drafting authority identified:
    • Yes
    • No

11. Level of detail included in the initial instructions

  • MC provided
    • Yes
    • No
  • RIAS provided
    • Yes
    • No
  • Critical path provided
    • Yes
    • No
  • Legislative Counsels requested additional information from the client
    • Yes
    • No
  • Other evidence of level of detail:

12. Instructions were revised/changed significantly over the course of the file

  • Yes.
    • # times
  • No

13. a) Discussion with client on instrument choice

  • Yes
  • No

b) Did the request change as a result of the discussion?

  • Yes
  • No

c) If yes, describe change:

Drafting Information

14. a) Deadline for completion of the drafting contained in request

  • Yes
  • No

b) Deadline request made by:

  • Central agency:
  • Other government dept:

15. Deadlines Set/Changed (enter all deadlines identified in the file):

  • Deliverable/Date deadline assigned
  • Deadline Date
  • New deadline date (if changed)
  • Reason for change
  • Deadline Met?
    • Yes
    • No
  • Reason not met

16. a) Based on the documentation in the file, did drafting counsel identify issues that should be referred to other areas within LSB or within Justice?

  • Yes, to other areas of LSB. Specify:
  • Yes, Public Law Services
  • Yes, Litigation Unit
  • Yes, Legal Services Unit
  • Yes, to other areas of Justice. Specify:
  • None identified

Consultation Activities

17. Evidence of involvement with PCO/TBS or the PMO on drafting issues or instructions, or related matters:

  • Yes
  • No

18. Legal advice/consultation sought (Note: consultations can include oral/written updates or discussions of possible strategies, options, approaches to the file (please check the most appropriate choice):

  • Other NHQ LSB area
  • Yes.
    • Specify area:
  • No
  • Unable to assess

If yes, reason for consultation within LSB:

  • Identifying and assessing legal risk
  • The potential impact of legal risk
  • Ensuring consistent approach across government
  • Potential legal options
  • Potential litigation strategies
  • Seeking policy direction
  • Sharing information
  • Technical expertise
  • Legal advice/opinion
  • Consequentials
  • Authority to enact
  • Conforms to Charter
  • Incorporation by reference
  • Other:

b) Regional office

  • Yes.
    • Specify:
  • No
  • Unable to assess

If yes, reason for consultation with Regional office:

  • Identifying and assessing legal risk
  • The potential impact of legal risk
  • Ensuring consistent approach across government
  • Potential legal options
  • Potential litigation strategies
  • Seeking policy direction
  • Sharing information
  • Technical expertise
  • Legal advice/opinion
  • Consequentials
  • Authority to enact
  • Other

c) DLSU

  • Yes.
    • Specify:
  • No
  • Unable to assess

If yes, reason for consultation with DLSU:

  • Identifying and assessing legal risk
  • The potential impact of legal risk
  • Ensuring consistent approach across government
  • Potential legal options
  • Potential litigation strategies
  • Seeking policy direction
  • Sharing information
  • Technical expertise
  • Legal advice/opinion
  • Consequentials
  • Authority to enact
  • Other:

d) Other units within Justice

  • Yes
    • Specify:
  • No
  • Unable to assess

If yes, reason for consultation with other Justice Units:

  • Identifying and assessing legal risk
  • The potential impact of legal risk
  • Ensuring consistent approach across government
  • Potential legal options
  • Potential litigation strategies
  • Seeking policy direction
  • Sharing information
  • Technical expertise
  • Legal advice/opinion
  • Consequentials
  • Authority to enact
  • Conforms to Charter
  • Incorporation by reference
  • Constitutional issues
  • Administrative law issues
  • Privacy/access to information
  • Other

e) Other

  • Yes
  • No
  • Unable to assess
    • Specify:

If yes, reason for consultation with other government departments:

  • Identifying and assessing legal risk
  • The potential impact of legal risk
  • Ensuring consistent approach across government
  • Potential legal options
  • Seeking policy direction
  • Sharing information
  • Technical expertise
  • Consequentials
  • Authority to enact
  • Other

Quality Assurance Processes

19. Quality control processes completed evident in the file documentation (Check all that apply):

  • Peer review
  • Editing (French)
  • Editing (English)
  • Jurilinguistic review
  • Bijural review
  • Drafting notes (from Deskbook)
  • References to similar legislation/regulations
  • Other:

20. Evidence of research into wording of regulation/legislation

  • Yes
  • No

21. Evidence on file that comments were taken into account (i.e., revised draft or discussed reason not to revise)

  • Yes
  • No

b) If no, is there a record on file to explain why some comments were not accepted by the Legislative Counsels?

  • Yes
  • No

22. Challenges or issues related to language/wording of regulation/legislation (Check all that apply):

  • Client objections
  • Consistency between F/E
  • Clarity of language
  • Precedence/similar wording
  • Other government department, P/T, or Aboriginal group objections
  • References to similar legislation/regulations
  • Other:

Factors Contributing to File Complexity

23. a) Is there a discussion/indication of risk level indicated in the file?

  • Yes
  • No

b) If yes, was the risk described as:

  • High
  • Medium
  • Low

c) If yes, was the risk communicated to the client?

  • Yes
  • No

24. Factors that characterise the file/challenges faced (select all):

  • Case involves regulatory and legislative components
    • Yes
    • No
  • Pre-drafting authority obtained
    • Yes
    • No
  • Exception to pre-publication
    • Yes
    • No
  • Fiscal/economic implications /Royal Recommendation required
    • Yes
    • No
  • Related regulatory/legislative/litigation files to the file
    • Yes
    • No
  • Motions to amend
    • Yes
    • No
  • Changes to be made prior to publication in CGII
    • Yes
    • No
  • High priority file
    • Yes
    • No
  • Media coverage
    • Yes
    • No
  • Order in Council required
    • Yes
    • No
  • Public Feedback/Input
    • Yes
    • No
  • Consequentials to the drafting
    • Approximate # identified [enter 0, if none]
  • Other
    • Specify:

iCase information

25. How many hours did drafting counsel and other LSB staff spend on the file?

  • Type LA0
    • # Hours for
      • 1:
      • 2:
      • 3:
      • 4:
      • 5:
  • Type LA1
    • # Hours for
      • 1:
      • 2:
      • 3:
      • 4:
      • 5:
  • Type LA2A
    • # Hours for
      • 1:
      • 2:
      • 3:
      • 4:
      • 5:
  • Type LA2B
    • # Hours for
      • 1:
      • 2:
      • 3:
      • 4:
      • 5:
  • Type LA3A
    • # Hours for
      • 1:
      • 2:
      • 3:
      • 4:
      • 5:
  • Type LA3B
    • # Hours for
      • 1:
      • 2:
      • 3:
      • 4:
      • 5:
  • Type LA3C
    • # Hours for
      • 1:
      • 2:
      • 3:
      • 4:
      • 5:
  • Type Other
    • # Hours for
      • 1:
      • 2:
      • 3:
      • 4:
      • 5:

Advisory Files

1. Assigned File Code Number:

  • Any related file code numbers:

2. Date request sent: (mm/dd/yy)

3. Date file opened/work started: (mm/dd/yy)

4. Date file closed/work ended: (mm/dd/yy)

5. Section of LSB in charge of file:

  • Advisory and Development Services Section
  • Bijural Revision Services Unit

6. a) Request initiated by:

  • LSB
    • Which area of LSB?
  • JUS
    • Which area of JUS?
  • PCO
  • CRA
  • FIN
  • Other (Specify):

7. Nature of the request:

  • Legal Opinion
    • Yes
    • No
  • Litigation Support
    • Yes
    • No
  • Interpretation/review
    • Yes
    • No
  • Other [specify]:

8. Where did the request originate (type of file, i.e. drafting, litigation, policy)?

9. At what point in the process was the request made?

10. Security level of the file:

11. Materials provided as background information needed to provide legal opinion (e.g., legislation, Gazette, memos/correspondence, opinions, affidavits, pleadings, etc.):

File Information

12. a) Deadline for opinion contained in request

  • Yes
  • No

b) Deadline request made by:

  • Requesting Client
  • JUS
  • Court
  • Central agency (specify):
  • Other government dept (specify):

c) Reason for deadline:

d) Was the advice/opinion provided within the requested deadline?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Unable to assess

13. Risk level identified in the file

  • Yes (Specify level)
  • No

Consultation Activities

14. Based on the documentation in the file, did counsel consult with other areas within LSB?

a) Bijuralism Team

  • Yes
  • No

If yes, reason for consultation with the Bijuralism Team:

  • Identifying and assessing legal risk
  • The potential impact of legal risk
  • Ensuring consistent approach across government
  • Potential legal options
  • Potential litigation strategies
  • Seeking policy direction
  • Sharing information
  • Technical expertise
  • Legal advice/opinion
  • Authority to enact
  • Other
  • Unable to assess

b) Jurilinguistic Team

  • Yes
  • No

If yes, reason for consultation with the Jurilinguistic Team:

  • Ensuring consistent approach across government
  • Potential legal options
  • Potential litigation strategies
  • Seeking policy direction
  • Sharing information
  • Technical expertise
  • Legal advice/opinion
  • Other
  • Unable to assess

c) Legislation Section

  • Yes
  • No

If yes, reason for consultation with the Legislation Section:

  • Identifying and assessing legal risk
  • The potential impact of legal risk
  • Ensuring consistent approach across government
  • Potential legal options
  • Potential litigation strategies
  • Seeking policy direction_
  • Sharing information
  • Technical expertise
  • Legal advice/opinion
  • Authority to enact
  • Other
  • Unable to assess

d) Regulations Section

  • Yes
  • No

If yes, reason for consultation with the HQ Regulations Section:

  • Identifying and assessing legal risk
  • The potential impact of legal risk
  • Ensuring consistent approach across government
  • Potential legal options
  • Potential litigation strategies
  • Seeking policy direction
  • Sharing information
  • Technical expertise
  • Legal advice/opinion
  • Authority to enact
  • Other
  • Unable to assess

15. Based on the documentation in the file, did counsel consult with other areas within Justice?

a) PLS

  • Yes
  • No

If yes, reason for consultation with PLS:

  • Identifying and assessing legal risk
  • The potential impact of legal risk
  • Ensuring consistent approach across government
  • Potential legal options
  • Potential litigation strategies
  • Seeking policy direction
  • Sharing information
  • Technical expertise
  • Legal advice/opinion
  • Authority to enact
  • Constitutional issues
  • Administrative law issues
  • Privacy/access to information
  • Other
  • Unable to assess

b) DLSU

  • Yes
  • No

If yes, reason for consultation with DLSU:

  • Identifying and assessing legal risk
  • The potential impact of legal risk
  • Ensuring consistent approach across government
  • Potential legal options
  • Potential litigation strategies
  • Seeking policy direction
  • Sharing information
  • Technical expertise
  • Legal advice/opinion
  • Authority to enact
  • Subject matter expertise
  • Other
  • Unable to assess

c) Other Justice Unit(s). Specify:

If yes, reason for consultation with other Justice units:

  • Identifying and assessing legal risk
  • The potential impact of legal risk
  • Ensuring consistent approach across government
  • Potential legal options
  • Potential litigation strategies
  • Seeking policy direction
  • Sharing information
  • Technical expertise
  • Legal advice/opinion
  • Subject matter expertise
  • Other
  • Unable to assess

16. Based on the documentation in the file, did counsel consult with PCO?

  • Yes
  • No

If yes, reason for consultation with PCO:

  • Identifying and assessing legal risk
  • The potential impact of legal risk
  • Ensuring consistent approach across government
  • Sharing information
  • Technical expertise
  • Seeking policy direction
  • Consultation required
  • Notice of objection filed/follow-up required
  • Department affected by legislation/regulations
  • Other
  • Unable to assess

17. Evidence of consultation with other central agencies: Specify

If yes, reason for consultation with other central agencies:

  • Identifying and assessing legal risk
  • The potential impact of legal risk
  • Ensuring consistent approach across government
  • Sharing information
  • Technical expertise
  • Seeking policy direction
  • Consequentials
  • Consultation required
  • Notice of objection filed/follow-up required
  • Department affected by legislation/regulations
  • Other
  • Unable to assess

18. Evidence of consultation with other government departments. Specify:

If yes, reason for consultation with other government departments:

  • Identifying and assessing legal risk
  • The potential impact of legal risk
  • Ensuring consistent approach across government
  • Sharing information
  • Technical expertise
  • Seeking policy direction
  • Consultation required
  • Notice of objection filed/follow-up required
  • Department affected by legislation/regulations
  • Other
  • Unable to assess

19. Evidence of consultation with litigation groups

If yes, reason for consultation with litigation groups:

  • Identifying and assessing legal risk
  • The potential impact of legal risk
  • Ensuring consistent approach across government
  • Sharing information
  • Technical expertise
  • Seeking policy direction
  • Consequentials
  • Consultation required
  • Notice of objection filed/follow-up required
  • Department affected by legislation/regulations
  • Other
  • Unable to assess

20. Is there evidence of briefings to senior managers or other potential stakeholders as the legal advice was being developed?

  • Yes. Specify:
  • No

Quality Assurance Processes

21. Quality control processes completed evident in the file documentation (Check all that apply):

  • Peer review (members of LSB advisory group)
  • Review of draft opinion by client
  • Review of draft opinion by DLSU
  • Review of draft opinion by Litigator
  • Review of draft opinion by Chief Legislative Counsel
  • References to legal precedents (either prior opinions or court decisions)
  • References to acts, regulations, memos, opinions, correspondence (past and present)
  • Other (specify)

Challenges

22. a) Is there a discussion/indication of risk level indicated in the file?

  • Yes
  • No

b) If yes, was the risk communicated to the client?

  • Yes
  • No

iCase information

23. What was the level of the primary counsel?

  • LA0
  • LA1
  • LA2A
  • LA2B
  • LA3A
  • Can’t tell

24. How many hours did drafting counsel and other counsel spend on the file?

  • Type LA0
    • # Hours for
      • 1:
      • 2:
      • 3:
      • 4:
      • 5:
  • Type LA1
    • # Hours for
      • 1:
      • 2:
      • 3:
      • 4:
      • 5:
  • Type LA2A
    • # Hours for
      • 1:
      • 2:
      • 3:
      • 4:
      • 5:
  • Type LA2B
    • # Hours for
      • 1:
      • 2:
      • 3:
      • 4:
      • 5:
  • Type LA3A
    • # Hours for
      • 1:
      • 2:
      • 3:
      • 4:
      • 5:
  • Type LA3B
    • # Hours for
      • 1:
      • 2:
      • 3:
      • 4:
      • 5:
  • Type LA3C
    • # Hours for
      • 1:
      • 2:
      • 3:
      • 4:
      • 5:
  • Type Other
    • # Hours for
      • 1:
      • 2:
      • 3:
      • 4:
      • 5:
Date modified: