Criminal Law Policy Function Evaluation

Appendix C: File Review Template

Criminal Law Policy Evaluation File Review Guide

Overview

1. File title:

2. File number:

3. Any related file code numbers:

4. Date file opened:

Date file closed:

5. Security level of the file:

6. CLPS Team in charge of file:

  • Sentencing
  • Cabinet & Legislative Agenda
  • External Relations
  • Security, Terrorism and Governance
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Social and Moral Issues
  • High-Tech & Investigative Powers
  • Organized Crime

7. What was the level of the primary counsel?

  • LA0
  • LA1
  • LA2A
  • LA2B
  • LA3A
  • Unable to assess

8. Did the primary counsel change over the life of the file?

  • Yes
  • No

If yes, level of other primary counsel assigned to the file:

  • LA0
  • LA1
  • LA2A
  • LA2B
  • LA3A
  • Unable to assess

9. File type:

  • Policy
  • Advisory
  • General

10. Client:

11. Brief description of nature of file (i.e. general / high level description of the file, without information related to the advice provided):

Advisory Services

12. Nature of the request:

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

13. Request initiated by:

  • JUS
    • Which area of JUS?
  • Other (Specify):

14. At what point in the process was the request made (e.g. policy development stage, drafting of legislation)?

15. What information was provided to CLPS when the request was made (e.g. background information to support services requested)?

16. Deadline for advice contained in request:

  • Yes
  • No

17. Deadline request made by:

18. Reason for deadline:

19. Was the advice/opinion provided within the requested deadline?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Unable to assess

20. Is there evidence on file that:

  • the advice was given
  • the client considered the advice
  • the client did not consider the advice

Quality Assurance Processes

21. Quality assurance processes completed evident in the file documentation (e.g. peer review, editing, consultations with Public Law Sector, management review, committee review):

Risk and Complexity Assessment

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

  • Yes
  • No
  • If yes, specify:

23. Were any changes made as a result of the risk and/or complexity assessment (e.g. more senior counsel assigned to a high risk/complexity file)? If yes, specify:

Research

24. Is there evidence on file that research was used?

  • Yes
  • No
  • If yes, specify (e.g. source, context for use):

Consultation Activities

25. Based on the documentation on file, did counsel consult with other areas within CLPS? (Note: can include oral/written updates or discussions of possible strategies, options, approaches to the file, peer review)

  • No
  • Yes
    • Specify section:
  • If yes, reason for consultation:

26. Based on the documentation in the file, did counsel consult and/or work with other areas within Justice?

PLS

  • No
  • Yes

LSB

  • No
  • Yes

DLSU:

  • No
  • Yes

Portfolio:

  • No
  • Yes

Regional Office:

  • No
  • Yes

Other:

  • No
  • Yes

If yes, reason(s) for consultation/work with other Justice Units:

27. Evidence of consultation with central agencies:

  • No
  • Yes
    • Specify:
    • Specify:
    • Specify:
    • Specify:
    • Specify:

If yes, reason(s) for consultation with central agencies:

28. Evidence of consultation with other federal departments:

  • No
  • Yes
    • Specify:
    • Specify:
    • Specify:
    • Specify:
    • Specify:

If yes, reason(s) for consultation with other federal departments:

29. Evidence of consultation with internal or external committees:

CCSO Working Groups:

  • No
  • Yes

Departmental committees:

  • No
  • Yes

Federal committees

  • No
  • Yes

Other

  • No
  • Yes

If yes, reason(s) for consultation with committees:

30. Evidence of consultation with outside organizations:

governmental

  • No
  • Yes

non-governmental

  • No
  • Yes

provincial

  • No
  • Yes

territories

  • No
  • Yes

If yes, reason(s) for consultation with outside organizations:

31. Were any other key actors involved?

  • No
  • Yes
    • Specify
    • Specify
    • Specify

If yes, how?

32. Is there evidence on file that briefings were made?

  • Yes
  • No

If yes, specify (e.g. at what level, by who, context)

33. Did CLPS miss any client-imposed deadlines?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Unable to assess

If yes, how many times and for what reason(s) (if an explanation to the client is available on file)?

34. Did CLPS consult/brief the client at key points on the file? (e.g. Approximately, how often did CLPS consult with the client?

iCase information

35. How many hours did CLPS lead counsel spend on the file?

36. How many additional counsel or paralegals (and at what level) worked on the file and how many hours have they spent on the file?

  • Level
    • Number of hours
  • Level
    • Number of hours
Date modified: