Departmental Results Report 2017–18

The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, P.C., Q.C., M.P.
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Table of Contents

Chief Administrator’s Message

Results at a glance

Raison d’être, mandate and role: who we are and what we do

• Raison d’être
• Mandate and role

Operating context and key risks

• Operating context
• Key risks

Results: what we achieved

• Programs
• Program: Judicial Services
  • Description
  • Results
• Program: Registry Services
  • Description
  • Results
• Internal Services
  • Description
  • Results

Analysis of trends in spending and human resources

• Actual expenditures
• Actual human resources
• Expenditures by vote
• Government of Canada spending and activities
• Financial statements and financial statements highlights
  • Financial statements
  • Financial statements highlights

Supplementary information

• Corporate information
  • Organizational profile
  • Reporting framework
• Supporting information on lower-level programs
• Supplementary information tables
• Organizational contact information

Appendix: definitions

Endnotes

Chief Administrator’s Message

I am pleased to present the 2017–18 Departmental Results Report (DRR) for the Courts Administration Service (CAS). This report highlights our achievements over the past fiscal year in providing administrative services to the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA), the Federal Court (FC), the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada (CMAC) and the Tax Court of Canada (TCC).

Supporting access to justice for all Canadians is the central guiding principle for all of CAS’s operations. Our commitment to this principle extends not only to providing timely and efficient services to the Courts, and enhancing the tools and resources at their disposal, but also to the legal community and Canadians alike so that they may bring matters before the Courts. Through these efforts CAS contributes to the effective functioning of Canada’s legal systems and enhances the judicial independence of the Courts.

Key among the results achieved were improvements made to front-line judicial and registry services for clients as part of relocating the local Québec City office to a more modern facility and establishing a new TCC office in Hamilton. CAS also opened the first fully-equipped e-courtroom in Toronto in support of electronic proceedings. Other ongoing priorities such as security, translation, wellness, and succession planning were also pursued throughout the year, as well as investments in technology to improve the reach and effectiveness of internal communications to better engage employees.

The investment in CAS announced in Budget 2018 will provide CAS with long term operational sustainability and allow it to respond to the needs of the Courts in a timely manner. While this is a much needed investment, CAS will continue its efforts to secure funding for other important initiatives such as a modern Courts and Registry Management System and translation of federal court decisions.

I would like to acknowledge the hard work undertaken by employees across Canada and their commitment to continued delivery of service. Without their dedication and perseverance, CAS would not have been able to realize its achievements. I will continue to count on the dedication and expertise of our employees as well as the collaboration of the Chief Justices and the members of the Courts in working with me to ensure the efficient operation of the Courts and CAS.

Daniel Gosselin, FCPA, FCA
Chief Administrator

Results at a glance

In 2017–18, CAS achieved the following major results as part of the organization’s mission to provide timely and accurate judicial, registry, and corporate services to the federal courts and their clients.

• Obtained additional funding for essential support services for the Courts and to ensure long term financial and operational sustainability. This included $2 million over two years for 2017–18 and 2018–19 for translation of court decisions; $4 million in-year funding for 2017–18 to address immediate program integrity needs; and funding of $41.9 million over five years beginning in 2018–19 and $9.3 million ongoing.
• Leveraged technology to improve the reach and effectiveness of internal communications, including a new Intranet site, the roll-out of an email-based newsletter for members of the Courts and employees, and the finalization of a new Strategic Communications Plan.
• Relocated the local Québec City office to a more modern facility and opened a new TCC office in Hamilton to support the Courts in hearing cases across Canada and improve front-line services for clients.
• Solidified its proactive security posture for members of the Courts, court users and CAS employees by continuing to enhance physical security of facilities across Canada, including the roll-out of screening equipment; establishing a new Security Operations Centre to better coordinate its services and response capabilities; and harmonizing security service standards across Canada through the Court Security Officers program and risk-based security management.
• Opened the first e-courtroom in Toronto, equipped with the necessary information technology infrastructure to allow members of the Courts, litigants and legal counsel to conduct electronic proceedings.
• Modernized the organization’s approach for information and records management, by conducting a pilot project for a new electronic document and records management system to more efficiently manage and store the organization’s records.

Total actual spending for 2017–18: $82,791,051

Total actual full-time equivalents for 2017–18: 613

For more information on the Courts Administration Service’s plans, priorities and results achieved, see the “Results: what we achieved” section of this report.

Raison d’être, mandate and role: who we are and what we do

Raison d’être

CAS was established in 2003 with the coming into force of the Courts Administration Service Act, S.C. 2002, c. 8 (CAS Act). CAS’s raison d’être is to provide administrative services to four superior courts of record — the FCA, the FC, the CMAC and the TCC. CAS recognizes the independence of the Courts in the conduct of their own affairs and aims to provide each Court with quality and efficient judicial, registry, and internal services. Placing administrative services at arm’s length from the Government of Canada safeguards judicial independence and enhances accountability for the use of public money.

Mandate and role

As stated in section 2 of the CAS Act, CAS is mandated to:

• facilitate coordination and cooperation among the FCA, the FC, the CMAC and the TCC for the purpose of ensuring the effective and efficient provision of administrative services;
• enhance judicial independence by placing administrative services at arm’s length from the Government of Canada and by affirming the roles of Chief Justices and judges in the management of the Courts; and
• enhance accountability for the use of public money in support of court administration while safeguarding the independence of the judiciary.

For more general information about the department, see the “Supplementary information” section of this report.

Operating context and key risks

Operating context

In 2017–18, the environment within which CAS operates remained complex and challenging, owing in part to the following.

Judicial independence

The CAS Act enhances judicial independence by placing administrative services at arm’s length from the Government of Canada and enhances accountability for the use of public money. Moreover, the CAS Act stipulates that services required by the judiciary, including registries, hearing-related activities, legal counsels, judicial administrators, law clerks, jurilinguists, judicial assistants, library personnel and court attendants be provided as required by each of the four Chief Justices. This leaves CAS with very limited flexibility in allocating scarce resources to meet the other unique requirements of each Court and their respective users.

Volume and increasing complexity of cases before the Courts

The volume of cases before the Courts affected the level of administrative support they required, particularly in terms of registry and judicial services. In addition, the nature and increasing complexity of the cases filed before the Courts considerably impacted the workloads of the Courts and registries, particularly in cases related to national security, intellectual property, Aboriginal claims, taxation and immigration—which exacerbated pressures on staff, including judicial and registry support. The number of motions related to individual files also increased significantly, most notably in cases where constitutional questions were raised in the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Demands for e-services and e-courts

Today, people routinely conduct business online and demand the same services from the government as they receive from private sector organizations. Members of the Courts, litigants and the legal community expect to be able to use modern technologies and electronic tools. Emerging technologies and new trends in providing e-services are key operational considerations for CAS in its service delivery; however, legacy systems currently employed by CAS offer very limited functionality to accommodate e-services and e-courts.

Service delivery capacity

CAS’s ability to provide the required administrative services to meet the operational needs of the Courts, as well as associated services to litigants and their legal counsel, is dependent on available financial and human resources. However, for a number of years, CAS has faced a critical and growing financial shortfall resulting in pressures across the organization as resources were below adequate strength to meet demands. In-year funding received in 2017–18 did address some of CAS’s more immediate pressures in both judicial and registry services. Funding received in Budget 2018 will allow CAS to further restore depleted capacity in these areas, as well as internal services.

Workforce

CAS’s ability to provide administrative services to the Courts also depends on the strength of its workforce. Much of the work undertaken at CAS requires specialized skills and strong knowledge of the legal/judicial environment, as well as technical knowledge in the respective jurisdictions of each Court. To ensure that the organization has the right people in the right place at the right time today and for the future, and as part of its sustainable human resources model, CAS is implementing a three-year Integrated Human Resources (HR) Plan.

Key risks

To effectively address corporate risks, CAS has in place an Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) process. This process is applied consistently throughout the organization and engages the most senior levels of the organization— the Chief Justices Steering Committee, the Departmental Audit Committee, the Executive Committee, and the Senior Management Committee—in the identification and evaluation of the most pertinent risks, and the determination of appropriate risk response strategies to effectively manage these risks. Identified risk owners are responsible for monitoring risks and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies, and presenting quarterly reports to the Executive Committee.

The table below provides an overview of CAS’s key risks and the strategies put in place to mitigate these risks in 2017–18.

Courts and Registry Management System

There is a risk that the system applications will be unable to meet the current and evolving requirements of the Courts and CAS.

Factors driving this risk in 2017–18 were a lack of funding for a new CRMS; the growing demand for access to modern technology in conducting business with the Courts; the incompatibility of existing legacy systems with evolving technology; and the need to address the findings of the assessment of the CAS network, infrastructure and computing environment.

As part of efforts to mitigate this risk, CAS continued to upgrade existing systems, to allow for ongoing operation and when possible, increase functionality and efficiency. Investments were also made to advance work on the five-year IT Infrastructure Management Plan, to address rust out and improve IT infrastructure, system reliability and security. In addition, a multi-branch team was established to lead the development of business requirements for a new CRMS to support a future funding proposal.

A lack of funding for a new CRMS meant that CAS was unable to reduce the likelihood and impact of this risk.

Access to Justice

There is a risk that access to justice could be compromised by insufficient funding.

Factors driving this risk in 2017–18 included reduced staff levels throughout the organization coupled with increasing workload pressures in judicial, registry and corporate services; non-discretionary work associated with the escalation in the number of multi-day hearings; a large number of self-represented litigants (SRL) across all Courts; the effects of legislative and regulatory changes and amendments to the Court Rules on workloads; the number of documents received by the Courts and the number of court decisions requiring translation; and the requirement to support Canada’s fiscal objectives.

As part of its strategies to mitigate this risk, CAS continued its efforts to seek funding to address program integrity needs. CAS obtained additional in-year funding of $4 million for 2017–18 announced in the Fall Economic Statement, to respond to immediate pressures. In addition, Budget 2018 allocated to CAS ongoing funding in the amount of $41.9 million over five years beginning in 2018–19 and $9.3 million ongoing which will provide long term financial and operational sustainability to fulfill its mandated requirements. Aside from these strategies, CAS also continued to reallocate funding and resources where necessary to manage costs associated with non-discretionary expenditures.

It is anticipated that if CAS is successful in obtaining funding for priority initiatives including a modern CRMS and for the translation of court decisions, this risk would further decrease in future years.

Security

There is a risk that security of the members of Courts, court users and IT could be compromised.

In 2017–18, the evolving security requirements and threats on the international scene and the results of a number of threat analyses continued to drive this risk.

To mitigate this risk in 2017–18, CAS continued to implement its comprehensive security programs on behalf of the Courts; made important physical security enhancements to its facilities, including the roll-out of screening equipment; established a new Security Operations Centre; and harmonized security service standards across Canada through the Court Security Officers program and risk-based security management. These are all components of CAS’s security posture which focuses on a proactive rather than a reactive security stance. CAS also maintained its ongoing collaboration with the law enforcement community, central agencies and other strategic partners to develop its response capabilities to ensure business continuity and protect the safety of the Courts and their users.

The mitigation strategies adopted were successful in decreasing the likelihood and impact of this risk by the end of the fiscal year.

Information Management

There is a risk of loss of hard copy and digital records.

Factors driving this risk in 2017–18 included a changing and complex business environment; the need to improve the efficiency of business processes; the need to implement a modern document management system for CAS and the Courts; the demand for new technological services and solutions; and the growing volume of paper documents.

As part of its strategies to mitigate this risk, CAS conducted a pilot project using the Government of Canada standard electronic document and records management systems to identify the necessary considerations (i.e. training, data migration, metadata standards, etc.) for the roll-out of such a system across the organization. CAS also worked with the Courts to review document retention standards for court and judicial information and optimize storage space at the Court records storage facility to allow for the storage of two more years’ worth of archival records.

The mitigation strategies adopted were successful in decreasing the likelihood and impact of this risk by the end of the fiscal year.

Human Resources

There is a risk that lack of succession planning may lead to insufficient knowledge transfer and in turn, negatively impact the organization’s resource capacity.

Factors driving this risk in 2017–18 included the need to ensure qualified resources were available to fill positions as they became vacant; high employee departure rates; high average rate of employee sick leave; limited resources available for training; and challenges with workload and workplace wellness.

As part of its efforts to mitigate this risk, CAS completed the first phase and launched the second phase of its Succession Planning Strategy to identify positions where there may be an associated risk should a vacancy arise. CAS also made significant progress in completing the review of work descriptions and a number of initiatives aimed at promoting employee workplace wellness were implemented, including those in support of mental health, harassment prevention, values and ethics and occupational health and safety. In addition, CAS also worked with certain colleges to develop agreements to include curriculum to train future judicial assistants. Also, following the receipt of in-year funding, priority was given to completing staffing actions to quickly fill critical positons.

Due to the success of the mitigation strategies employed, this risk was reassessed as being stable at the end of the fiscal year.

Results: what we achieved

Programs

Program: Judicial Services

Description

The Judicial Services program provides legal services and judicial administrative support to assist members of the FCA, the FC, the CMAC and the TCC in the discharge of their judicial functions. These services are provided by legal counsels, judicial administrators, law clerks, jurilinguists, judicial assistants, library personnel and court attendants.

Results

In 2017–18, the Judicial Services program provided key strategic management and legal advice to the Chief Justices and members of the Courts to support the proper functioning of the justice system.

As part of CAS’s ongoing efforts to provide members of the Courts, litigants and legal counsel access to e-services, the first e-courtroom was opened in Toronto. The e-courtroom is equipped with a variety of information technology tools—including videoconferencing, digital screens, computer workstations, network and Internet connectivity, and digital audio recording systems—providing valuable and modern electronic support in court proceedings. Moreover, the lessons learned will provide a model for the future roll-out of additional e-courtrooms across Canada. The initial version of the FC’s electronic judicial calendar was implemented in 2017–18. This new application facilitates the electronic scheduling of cases, replacing previous manual and paper-based processes. Further enhancements to electronic services such as e-trials, e-filing and e-scheduling would be maximized should CAS be able to secure funding to implement a modern CRMS.

The timely translation of court decisions remained a key priority for CAS and the Courts. New approaches, including new technologies were explored as CAS refines its translation model to be more responsive to requirements. To address translation requirements, CAS secured an additional $2 million over two years (for 2017–18 and 2018–19) for translation services as announced in Budget 2017. While this enabled short-term improvements, CAS’s translation budget remains inadequate to fully address the large volume of decisions issued by the Courts that must be posted in a timely manner on the Courts’ websites. Work will progress in 2018–19 to develop a future funding request to allow for the timely posting of court decisions in both official languages.

As part of the organization’s approach to refine its information and records management, Judicial Services continued to work with the Courts to clearly define what constitutes a “court record” to serve as a basis to develop approaches to manage such records. This is important for CAS as document storage requirements, for both electronic and paper-based records, continue to increase. To meet storage demands, CAS optimized space at the court records facility which is expected to facilitate two more years of court records storage. A protocol was also established with the FC on the disposal of certain court records older than 15 years.

Finally, Judicial Services continued to provide ongoing support to the Federal Courts Rules Committee’s initiative to make substantive amendments to the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-106 through participation in meetings of the committee and sub-committees.

Program: Registry Services

Description

Registry services are delivered under the jurisdiction of the FCA, the FC, the CMAC and the TCC. The registries process legal documents, provide information to litigants on court procedures, maintain court records, participate in court hearings, support and assist in the enforcement of court orders, and work closely with the offices of the four Chief Justices to ensure that matters are heard and decisions are rendered in a timely manner. Registry services are offered in every province and territory through a network of permanent offices and agreements with provincial and territorial partners.

Results

In 2017–18, the Registry Services program continued to deliver timely services to litigants and the Courts across Canada despite facing high-volume workloads and financial constraints. For several years, the registries of the federal courts have had to manage resource and capacity constraints in the face of an ever increasing workload. During the period covered by this report, CAS sought additional resources in order to address its ongoing pressure and to ensure the organization’s long-term financial and operational viability.

To support the needs of the registries and other program areas, ensure access to justice for Canadians, and better support the federal courts, CAS received in-year funding for 2017–18 which alleviated immediate resource pressures, particularly in registry services. In addition, funding committed in Budget 2018 will further address the program integrity issues of the Courts and CAS, beginning in 2018–19. The latter will primarily provide for added front-line registry and judicial staffing resources.

Registry Services also worked to improve front-line service delivery for Canadians. To this end, Registry Services adapted its processes and procedures over the course of 2017–18 to respond to new legislative and regulatory requirements, and changes to the Federal Court Rules. These updated processes and procedures were also reflected in operational training materials for registry staff. Front-line support was provided to SRLs to enable them to more effectively evaluate their own chances of success when initiating matters before the Courts.

In addition, the local Québec City office was relocated to a more modern facility which will support the Courts’ requirements and better serve clients. A new local TCC office was also opened in Hamilton to address a growing volume of proceedings in the area and to enhance court and registry services in Southern Ontario. While this office will exclusively serve the TCC in the immediate term, services will be expanded to the other Courts in the future.

As part of planning efforts to prepare for the future implementation of a modern CRMS, a multi-branch team was established to lead the development of business requirements necessary to support a funding proposal.

While the target was not met, results were comparable to those in 2016–17 and 2015–16. This variance is due to the organization’s program integrity situation where resource pressures necessitated the redirection of resources to other more critical areas.

Internal Services

Description

Internal Services are those groups of related activities and resources that the federal government considers to be services in support of programs and/or required to meet corporate obligations of an organization. Internal Services refers to the activities and resources of the 10 distinct service categories that support Program delivery in the organization, regardless of the Internal Services delivery model in a department. The 10 service categories are: Management and Oversight Services; Communications Services; Legal Services; Human Resources Management Services; Financial Management Services; Information Management Services; Information Technology Services; Real Property Services; Materiel Services; and Acquisition Services.

Results

In 2017–18 CAS continued to work with the Courts to seek additional funding for essential support services for the Courts and for ongoing operational sustainability. As previously noted, CAS was successful in securing additional funding for translation services and in-year funding for 2017–18. In addition, Budget 2018 committed ongoing funding beginning in 2018–19. While a large portion of these funds will be used to address resource shortages in judicial and registry services, funding will also be allocated to support the delivery of internal services including ensuring sufficient special purpose space, lifecycle management and repairs of court facilities across Canada; ensuring accessibility and ergonomic requirements are met; mitigating health and safety risks; providing adequate training; and implementing much-needed business tools. In anticipation of a ramp-up of resources, CAS worked with the Courts to put in place a proactive staffing plan to minimize delays so additional staff can be brought on as soon as possible.

Efforts were exerted to further improve the proactive security posture for the Courts and CAS. Building on work carried out in previous years, CAS continued to make investments in physical security enhancements, court screening equipment, and harmonize the delivery of security services at all locations across Canada. To better coordinate its response capabilities and centralize services, a new Security Operations Centre was also established.

A number of enhancements were also made to improve internal communications within CAS and better utilize technological solutions. This included the launch of a new Intranet site, the roll-out of an email-based newsletter for members of the Courts and employees, and the finalization of a new Strategic Communications Plan that establishes a more progressive approach for internal communications activities, identifying and putting into practice new tools and client service standards.

New technological solutions were also implemented during the last fiscal year as part of the CAS IT infrastructure plan. This included completing necessary planned upgrades last fiscal year to fully address IT systems rust-out. Additionally, CAS conducted a pilot project for a new electronic document and records management system to identify the necessary considerations for roll-out for such a system across the organization to create, store and manage information resources of business value. Various projects were also undertaken in 2017–18 identified in the National Accommodation Strategic Plan to ensure the special purpose accommodations requirements of the Courts in support of access to justice for Canadians are met. CAS also continued to address occupational health and safety, duty to accommodate and universal accessibility requirements to the extent possible.

In moving forward with the implementation of the three-year integrated HR plan, CAS diligently advanced its Succession Planning Strategy to identify positions where there may be an associated risk should a vacancy arise. Significant progress was also made in the review of work descriptions and a number of initiatives aimed at promoting employee workplace wellness including those in support of mental health, harassment prevention, values and ethics and occupational health and safety.

Analysis of trends in spending and human resources

Actual expenditures

Departmental spending trend graph

Note:

The increase in actual spending for 2017–18 is largely due to one-time off-cycle funding of $4 million in 2017–18 to address urgent program integrity issues to help ensure the smooth functioning of the Courts and to promote greater access to justice for all Canadians.The increase is also due to funding announced in Budget 2017 of $2 million over two years to enhance the federal courts’ ability to make decisions available in both official languages, funding announced in Budget 2016 of $7.9 million over five years to invest in IT infrastructure upgrades to safeguard the efficiency of the federal courts system, as well as up to $2.6 million over two years to help relocate the Québec City federal courts facility, and funding announced in Budget 2015 of $19 million over five years for investment in physical and IT security.

Fiscal years 2015–16 through 2017–18 also include other salary related payments for existing employee benefits such as severance and maternity pay, the option offered to employees to convert severance pay entitlements into cash, and lump sum payments for collective agreements which fluctuate year to year and are not included in planned spending figures for 2018–19 to 2020–21.

Note:

The $10,428,595 variance between 2017–18 planned spending and 2017–18 total authorities available for use is primarily the result of differences between the planned spending reported in the 2017–18 Departmental Plan and actual funding subsequently received through allocations from Treasury Board Central Votes. Specifically, in 2017–18, CAS received one-time funding of $3,793,308 for program integrity to ensure the smooth functioning of the Courts and to promote greater access to justice for all Canadians and $1,000,000 to support the translation of decisions of the Courts. Also, CAS received compensation for collective bargaining increases of $1,846,755. Funding received in relation to the operating budget carry-forward from 2016–17 amounted to $3,062,116 and transfers received from Treasury Board for paylist requirements amounted to $811,209. Furthermore, CAS’s contributions to employee benefit plans were $110,579 lower than estimated amounts due to adjustment from central agencies. CAS also had $21,908 available proceeds from the disposal of surplus Crown assets and $3,878 refunds of amounts credited to revenues in previous years.

The variance between 2017–18 total authorities and 2017–18 actual spending represents a lapse of $2,885,243. The lapse is due to a combination of factors, mainly delays in project delivery and the timing of expenditures and funding received.

Planned Spending for 2018–19 and 2019–20 are not applicable in the above table as CAS will be reporting against the Departmental Results Framework (DRF) starting in 2018-19. The introduction of the new DRF will represent a reduction in internal services and a corresponding increase in “Administration services for the federal courts,” due to realignment of security services and e-courts resources under the latter core responsibility.

Actual human resources

Note:

Fiscal years 2015–16 to 2017–18 reflect actual full-time equivalents, while fiscal years 2017–18 to 2019–2020 are meant to reflect planned full-time equivalents based on approved level of funding at the time the 2017–18 Departmental Plan was produced. Actual 2017–18 full-time equivalents are lower due to the program integrity pressures which have forced CAS to reduce its full-time equivalent capacity to control salary costs and manage expenditures such as retroactive payments made in 2017–18 as part of the compensation for collective bargaining increases.

Fiscal years 2015–16 to 2017–18 include full-time equivalents for renewed funding related to Division 9 proceedings. Fiscal years 2018–19 and 2019–20 show a decrease in full-time equivalents, pending a decision on the renewal of the Division 9 sunset funding. The increase in Internal Services in 2016–17 is primarily attributable to funding received for IT infrastructure and physical and IT security.

Contingent on the appointment of a judge, full-time equivalents are expected to increase from 2018–19 to 2019–20 as a result of immigration and refugee cases and the related judicial support required for the citizenship revocation cases referred to the FC.

Planned full-time equivalents for 2018–19 and 2019–20 are not applicable in the above table as CAS will be reporting against the DRF starting in 2018–19. The introduction of the new DRF will represent a reduction in internal services and a corresponding increase in “Administration services for the federal courts”, due to realignment of security services and e-courts resources under the latter core responsibility.

Expenditures by vote

For information on the Courts Administration Service’s organizational voted and statutory expenditures, consult the Public Accounts of Canada 2017–2018^{Footnote 1}.

Government of Canada spending and activities

Information on the alignment of the Courts Administration Service’s spending with the Government of Canada’s spending and activities is available in the GC InfoBase^{Footnote 2}.

Financial statements and financial statements highlights

Financial statements

The Courts Administration Service’s financial statements (unaudited) for the year ended March 31, 2018, are available on the departmental website^{Footnote 3}.

Financial statements highlights

Note:

The 2017–18 planned results are those reported in the Future-Oriented Statement of Operations^{Footnote 4} included in the 2017–18 Departmental Plan.

Expenses: CAS’s total expenses were $108,735,899 in 2017–18 ($101,101,357 in 2016–17). The largest components of the increase of $7,634,542 (7.55%) were increases in salaries and wages, machinery and equipment and professional and special services.

• Salaries and employee benefits: Salaries and employee benefits expense was $59,335,570 in 2017–18 ($54,401,270 in 2016–17). The $4,934,300 (9.07%) variance is due to increases of $3,706,472 in salaries and wages, $618,488 in the provision for severance benefits, $405,375 in employer contribution to the health and dental insurance plans (related party transaction), and $203,965 in employer contributions to employee benefit plans. More than half (55%) of CAS’s total expenses in 2017–18 consisted of salaries and employee benefits.
• Operating: Operating expenses totalled $49,400,329 in 2017-18 ($46,700,087 in 2016–17). The $2,700,242 (5.78%) variance is mainly attributable to increases of $1,424,380 in machinery and equipment, $1,188,097 in professional and special services, $358,570 in rentals, $274,574 in the amortization of tangible capital assets, $147,440 in information technology, $77,424 in transportation and telecommunications, $26,184 in materials and supplies and $98,409 in other miscellaneous operating expenses. These increases were partly offset by decreases of $476,365 in accommodations and $418,471 in repairs and maintenance.

Revenues: The majority of CAS’s revenues are earned on behalf of Government. Such revenues are non-respendable, meaning that they cannot be used by CAS, and are deposited directly into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. CAS earns a small amount of respendable revenue from the sale of Crown assets. CAS’s gross revenues were $2,559,619 in 2017–18 ($3,069,931 in 2016–17) and net revenues were $14,122 in 2017–18 ($7,786 in 2016–17).

Note:

Liabilities: CAS’s net liabilities as at March 31, 2018 were $27,286,444 ($17,654,744 as at March 31, 2017). The increase of $9,631,700 (55%) is the result of the following:

• Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (52% of total liabilities): Increase of $6,410,599 mainly due to a $4,328,679 increase in external accounts payable and $1,953,366 increase in other government departments accounts payable primarily due to timing of equipment and services delivered.
• Vacation pay and compensatory leave (10% of total liabilities): Increase of $453,412 mainly due to a $319,464 increase in vacation pay.
• Deposit accounts (30% of total liabilities): Increase of $2,732,712. Because they reflect decisions of the Courts, deposits cannot be projected and the balance in the deposit accounts can vary significantly from year to year.
• Employee future benefits (8% of total liabilities): Increase of $34,977 due to increases in salaries following the signature of the new collective agreements.

Assets: The composition of CAS’ financial and non-financial assets is the following:

• Financial assets:
  • Due from the CRF $19,157,373 (46% of gross assets)
  • Accounts receivable and employee advances $3,826,692 (9% of gross assets)
• Non-financial assets:
  • Tangible capital assets $18,106,444 (43% of gross assets)
  • Prepaid expenses $768,135 (2% of gross assets)

Net financial assets: This is comprised of financial assets net of accounts receivable held on behalf of the Government. Accounts receivable held on behalf of the Government consist primarily of accounts receivable from other governmental organizations. The increase of $9,476,459 is mainly due to an increase in the amount due from the CRF due to the timing of expenses and funds received, as well as a small increase in accounts receivable and advances.

Non-financial assets: The increase of $6,026,359 is mainly due to tangible capital assets related to physical and IT security, and IT infrastructure, as well as a smaller increase in prepaid expenses.

Departmental net debt: This provides a measure of the future authorities required to pay for past transactions and events.

Departmental net financial position: This represents the net resources (financial and non-financial) that will be used to provide future services to the Courts and thereby to benefit Canadians.

Supplementary Information

Corporate information

Organizational Profile

Appropriate minister: The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, P.C., Q.C., M.P.

Institutional head: Daniel Gosselin, Chief Administrator

Ministerial portfolio: Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Enabling instrument: Courts Administration Service Act, S.C. 2002, c. 8^{Footnote 5}

Year of incorporation / commencement: 2003

Reporting framework

The Courts Administration Service’s Strategic Outcome and Program Alignment Architecture of record for 2017–18 are shown below.

1. 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

• 1.1 Program: Judicial Services
• 1.2 Program: Registry Services
• Internal Services

Supporting information on lower-level programs

CAS does not have any lower-level programs

Supplementary information tables

The following supplementary information tables are available on the Courts Administration Service’s website^{Footnote 6}

• Internal audits

Organizational contact information

Additional Information

Further information on the strategic planning portion of this document can be obtained by contacting:

Director, Strategic Planning, Communications and Corporate Secretariat
Courts Administration Service
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H9
Info@cas-satj.gc.ca

Further information on the financial portion of this document can be obtained by contacting:

Director General, Finance and Contracting Services
Courts Administration Service
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H9
Info@cas-satj.gc.ca

Appendix: definitions

appropriation (crédit)

Any authority of Parliament to pay money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

budgetary expenditures (dépenses budgétaires)

Operating and capital expenditures; transfer payments to other levels of government, organizations or individuals; and payments to Crown corporations.

Departmental Plan (plan ministériel)

A report on the plans and expected performance of an appropriated department over a three year period. Departmental Plans are tabled in Parliament each spring.

Departmental Results Report (rapport sur les résultats ministériels)

A report on an appropriated department’s actual accomplishments against the plans, priorities and expected results set out in the corresponding Departmental Plan.

evaluation (évaluation)

In the Government of Canada, the systematic and neutral collection and analysis of evidence to judge merit, worth or value. Evaluation informs decision making, improvements, innovation and accountability. Evaluations typically focus on programs, policies and priorities and examine questions related to relevance, effectiveness and efficiency. Depending on user needs, however, evaluations can also examine other units, themes and issues, including alternatives to existing interventions. Evaluations generally employ social science research methods.

experimentation (expérimentation)

Activities that seek to explore, test and compare the effects and impacts of policies, interventions and approaches, to inform evidence-based decision-making, by learning what works and what does not.

full time equivalent (équivalent temps plein)

A measure of the extent to which an employee represents a full person year charge against a departmental budget. Full time equivalents are calculated as a ratio of assigned hours of work to scheduled hours of work. Scheduled hours of work are set out in collective agreements.

gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) (analyse comparative entre les sexes plus [ACS+])

An analytical approach used to assess how diverse groups of women, men and gender-diverse people may experience policies, programs and initiatives. The “plus” in GBA+ acknowledges that the gender-based analysis goes beyond biological (sex) and socio-cultural (gender) differences. We all have multiple identity factors that intersect to make us who we are; GBA+ considers many other identity factors, such as race, ethnicity, religion, age, and mental or physical disability. Examples of GBA+ processes include using data disaggregated by sex, gender and other intersecting identity factors in performance analysis, and identifying any impacts of the program on diverse groups of people, with a view to adjusting these initiatives to make them more inclusive.

government-wide priorities (priorités pangouvernementales)

For the purpose of the 2017–18 Departmental Results Report, those high-level themes outlining the government’s agenda in the 2015 Speech from the Throne, namely: Growth for the Middle Class; Open and Transparent Government; A Clean Environment and a Strong Economy; Diversity is Canada’s Strength; and Security and Opportunity.

horizontal initiative (initiative horizontale)

An initiative where two or more departments are given funding to pursue a shared outcome, often linked to a government priority.

Management, Resources and Results Structure (structure de gestion, des ressources et des résultats)

A comprehensive framework that consists of an organization’s inventory of programs, resources, results, performance indicators and governance information. Programs and results are depicted in their hierarchical relationship to each other and to the Strategic Outcome(s) to which they contribute. The Management, Resources and Results Structure is developed from the Program Alignment Architecture.

non budgetary expenditures (dépenses non budgétaires)

Net outlays and receipts related to loans, investments and advances, which change the composition of the financial assets of the Government of Canada.

performance (rendement)

What an organization did with its resources to achieve its results, how well those results compare to what the organization intended to achieve, and how well lessons learned have been identified.

performance indicator (indicateur de rendement)

A qualitative or quantitative means of measuring an output or outcome, with the intention of gauging the performance of an organization, program, policy or initiative respecting expected results.

performance reporting (production de rapports sur le rendement)

The process of communicating evidence based performance information. Performance reporting supports decision making, accountability and transparency.

plan (plan)

The articulation of strategic choices, which provides information on how an organization intends to achieve its priorities and associated results. Generally a plan will explain the logic behind the strategies chosen and tend to focus on actions that lead up to the expected result.

planned spending (dépenses prévues)

For Departmental Plans and Departmental Results Reports, planned spending refers to those amounts that receive Treasury Board approval by February 1. Therefore, planned spending may include amounts incremental to planned expenditures presented in the Main Estimates.

A department is expected to be aware of the authorities that it has sought and received. The determination of planned spending is a departmental responsibility, and departments must be able to defend the expenditure and accrual numbers presented in their Departmental Plans and Departmental Results Reports.

priority (priorité)

A plan or project that an organization has chosen to focus and report on during the planning period. Priorities represent the things that are most important or what must be done first to support the achievement of the desired Strategic Outcome(s) or Departmental Results.

program (programme)

A group of related resource inputs and activities that are managed to meet specific needs and to achieve intended results and that are treated as a budgetary unit.

Program Alignment Architecture (architecture d’alignement des programmes)

A structured inventory of an organization’s programs depicting the hierarchical relationship between programs and the Strategic Outcome(s) to which they contribute.

result (résultat)

An external consequence attributed, in part, to an organization, policy, program or initiative. Results are not within the control of a single organization, policy, program or initiative; instead they are within the area of the organization’s influence.

statutory expenditures (dépenses législatives)

Expenditures that Parliament has approved through legislation other than appropriation acts. The legislation sets out the purpose of the expenditures and the terms and conditions under which they may be made.

Strategic Outcome (résultat stratégique)

A long term and enduring benefit to Canadians that is linked to the organization’s mandate, vision and core functions.

sunset program (programme temporisé)

A time limited program that does not have an ongoing funding and policy authority. When the program is set to expire, a decision must be made whether to continue the program. In the case of a renewal, the decision specifies the scope, funding level and duration.

target (cible)

A measurable performance or success level that an organization, program or initiative plans to achieve within a specified time period. Targets can be either quantitative or qualitative.

voted expenditures (dépenses votées)

Expenditures that Parliament approves annually through an Appropriation Act. The Vote wording becomes the governing conditions under which these expenditures may be made.