Departmental Results Report 2016–17

The Departmental Results Report (DRR) is published in PDF and HTML formats.

 PDF Version (0.8MB)

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

Operating context and key risks

Results: what we achieved

Analysis of trends in spending and human resources

Supplementary Information

Appendix A: Definitions

Endnotes


Chief Administrator’s Message

I am pleased to present the 2016–17 Departmental Results Report (DRR) for the Courts Administration Service (CAS). In 2016–17, CAS remained committed to the delivery of services in support of 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 (the Courts).

Over the course of 2016–17, CAS implemented several projects as part of its ongoing priority to provide service delivery excellence to the Courts and their clients. Key among the results achieved last year was physical security enhancements at CAS offices to protect all who work in, attend or visit the Courts. As well, work was undertaken to update critical information technology infrastructure. In addition, CAS defined the special accommodation requirements of the Courts in both the short- and long-term.

With an increasing workload and complexity of case files, it is important that CAS has the resources necessary to support the Courts and Canadians in the administration of justice. While efforts have been made to realize efficiencies and to best utilize resources, it is recognized that additional resources are required to ensure the ongoing integrity of CAS’ programs and services. Therefore, CAS will continue to work with the government to seek additional funding to ensure ongoing operational sustainability as well as invest in required technological systems.

At the centre of all of our achievements in 2016–17 was the work performed by our employees across the country. Our employees remain one of our most important priorities as a healthy and engaging workplace is critical to the ongoing success of the Courts and CAS. I am very proud of our achievements and I will continue to count on the dedication and expertise of our employees as well as the invaluable collaboration of the Chief Justices and the members of the Courts, as we continue to address the many challenges ahead.

I invite you to read this report to learn more about CAS’ results on its priorities in 2016–17.


Daniel Gosselin, FCPA, FCA
Chief Administrator


Results at a glance

In 2016–17, CAS achieved the following major results.

  • Investments in physical security enhancements were made at CAS offices across Canada. This included a number of facilities improvements, security equipment, and new procedures to protect all who work in, attend or visit the Courts.
  • As part of its focus on providing the Courts with an enabling, modern and fully integrated Information Management and Information Technology (IM/IT) environment, CAS updated critical legacy systems. Work also continued to develop a strategy and plan to modernize supporting IT infrastructure and mitigate technological risks to support the ongoing requirements of the Courts and robust access to justice.
  • CAS refined elements of its project management framework, as well as associated policies, procedures and tools, to ensure direction is clear and the framework continues to be aligned with the scope and risks of CAS projects.
  • A new National Accommodation Strategic Plan was finalized to clearly define the immediate and long-term special purpose accommodations requirements of the Courts. Advancements were also made in the development of plans to address issues related to the storage of judicial records.

Total actual spending for 2016–17: $72,277,248

Total actual full-time equivalents for 2016–17: 637

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

The Courts Administration Service (CAS) was established in 2003 with the coming into force of the Courts Administration Service Act (the Act). The role of CAS is to provide effective and efficient registry, judicial and corporate services to four superior courts of record – the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada (the Courts). The 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.

Mandate and role

CAS recognizes the independence of the Courts in the conduct of their own affairs and aims to provide each Court with quality and efficient administrative and registry services. Pursuant to section 2 of the Act, CAS is mandated to:

  • facilitate coordination and cooperation among the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada 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

CAS is mandated by its enabling legislation to provide judicial registry and corporate services to the four federal superior courts of record: the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada. The 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.

While CAS is required to function at arm’s length from government in providing support to the Courts, it is a government department for purposes of the Financial Administration Act.

Judicial Independence – Judicial independence is a cornerstone of the Canadian judicial system. Under the Constitution, the judiciary is separate from, and independent of the executive and legislative branches of the Government of Canada. Judicial independence is a fundamental constitutional principle that guarantees that judges will be able to make decisions free of influence and based solely on facts and law. It has three components: security of tenure, financial security and administrative independence.

Separate and Distinct Requirements of the Courts – The environment within which CAS operates remains increasingly complex and challenging. The individual and unique requirements of each of the four Courts, the distinct nature of the Courts’ business, the characteristics of the Canadian judicial system and CAS’ governance structure are all factors that can pose challenges to the effective management of business priorities.

Risks Management Approach – To help meet the requirements and priorities of each Court, CAS’ management continually analyze and interpreted its risks and ensure the annual risks assessment and the development of its Enterprise Risk Management Framework (ERMF). This stringent process includes management participation at the highest levels of the organization. Applied consistently throughout CAS, the process empowers management to better identify and evaluate the pertinent risks for business while maintaining appropriate controls to ensure effective and efficient operations.

Key risks

In 2016–17, CAS continued to implement strong risk management practices which supported accountability, strategic decision-making and operational efficiency at all levels. The following table provides an overview of CAS’ key risks and the strategies put in place to mitigate these risks.

Key risks
Risk Mitigating strategy and effectiveness Link to the department’s Programs Link to departmental priorities

Access to Justice
There is a risk that access to justice could be impacted by competing priorities for available resources.

Expenditure Review:

  • Continued to conduct frequent reviews of expenditures, commitments and staffing actions to rapidly identify pressures and efficiencies, and to reallocate funding where most needed.

Program Integrity Funding:

  • Maintained discussions with central agencies to identify funding to address critical program integrity issues.
  • Continued to support application for program integrity funding.

Non-discretionary Expenditures:

  • Maintained discussions with central agencies to identify appropriate mechanism to fund nondiscretionary expenditures including translation costs.
Programs – Judicial Services and Registry Services

Information Management and Information Technology (IM/IT)

Federal Judicial Facilities

Human Resources

Security

Information Technology  – There is a risk that the systems applications and IT infrastructure will be unable to meet the current and evolving requirements of the courts and CAS.

Judicial and Registry Systems:

  • Updates were made to critical systems.
  • Developed e-court strategy.
  • Formulated plans to modernize the Court and Registry Management System (CRMS) including e-filing.
  • Made application for funding for new CRMS.

Infrastructure: Implement plans to address the IT Architecture and Computing Environment Assessment:

  • Advanced plans to optimize IT infrastructure to support electronic courts.

End User Support:

  • Made key improvements to end user support.

IT Security:

  • Made enhancements to IT security.

Programs – Judicial Services and Registry Services

Information Management and Information Technology (IM/IT)

Security – There is a risk that the security of the members of the Courts, court users, and CAS employees, facilities, information and IT could be compromised.

Court Security:

  • Continued to implement comprehensive physical security programs.
  • Enhanced security controls and response capabilities.
  • Continued to harmonize security service standards across Canada.
  • Made physical security upgrades to facilities.
  • Continued to adopt strategic risk based approaches to security management.
  • Updated Business Continuity Plan.
  • Continued to implement Health and Safety Plan.
  • Continued collaboration with law enforcement community, central agencies and other strategic partners to strengthen risk response capabilities.
  • Continued review of CAS' security awareness and preparedness.

Programs – Judicial Services and Registry Services

Security

Information Management and Information Technology (IM/IT)

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

Document Management System:

  • Investment in a Document Management System was delayed due to insufficient resources.
  • Identified issues related to storage space and occupational health and safety at the court records storage facility, and initiated plans to address them.

Programs – Judicial Services and Registry Services

Information Management and Information Technology (IM/IT)

Access to Justice

There is a risk that access to justice could be impacted by competing priorities for available resources.

As with the previous year, this risk continued to be driven by: the scope and complexity of the Courts system; the increasing workload of the courts; the growing demands on the limited resources; the requirement to support Canada’s fiscal objectives; government-wide rules and legislative changes; amendments to the Courts Rules; technological advancements; public demands for online services; the non-discretionary work associated with the escalation in the number of multi-day hearings; the yearly increases in the number of documents received by the Courts; and the increase in the number of self-represented litigants.

To mitigate this risk, CAS continued its efforts to identify a more appropriate funding model. CAS also continued to review its expenditures, commitments and staffing actions to rapidly identify pressures and reallocate funding, in order to ease the pressure on available resources. In addition, CAS continued its application for funding to support critical program integrity needs.

Information Technology

There is a risk that the systems applications and IT infrastructure will be unable to meet the current and evolving requirements of the courts and CAS.

In 2016–17, this risk was driven by a number of factors including the ongoing public demand for increased e-services; the incompatibility of existing legacy systems with evolving technology; and the results of risks assessments.

To mitigate this risk, CAS balanced its efforts between the maintenance of existing legacy systems and plans to seek additional funding to invest in a new Courts and Registry Management System (CRMS) given that a source of funds has not yet been identified for this requirement. CAS also began implementing its multi-year IT infrastructure plan, funded in Budget 2016, to address outstanding rust-out, improve IT security and enhance enabling technology to better meet the requirements of the Courts. These enhancements will establish a solid foundation for a modern CRMS.

Security

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

The results of risks assessments continued to drive this risk over the course of 2016–17. In response, CAS continued to implement its comprehensive security programs on behalf of the Courts; made important physical security updates to its facilities; continued to harmonize security service standards across Canada and enhanced its security controls and response capabilities. CAS’ Business Continuity and Health and Safety plans were also updated; while CAS maintained its collaboration with the law enforcement community, central agencies and other strategic partners to develop its response capabilities to ensure business continuity and safety of the Courts.

Information Management

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

This risk is driven by the changing and complex business environment; the need to improve the efficiency of business processes; the two distinct governance structures for information management – for CAS and the Courts; the need to update and implement a modern electronic document management system capable of meeting CAS’ needs; regulatory requirements; the need to deliver new services; and stakeholders' demand for new technological solutions.

To mitigate this risk in 2016–17 and ensure the proper alignment of information management with modern principles, practices, and standards CAS developed a plan to adopt and implement, in a phased approach, a new document management system (DMS) for the creation, storage, maintenance and disposition of information. However, due to limited resources, plans for the deployment of a new DMS were not pursued in 2016–17.

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 Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada in the discharge of their judicial functions. These services are provided by legal counsel, judicial administrators, law clerks, jurilinguists, judicial assistants, library personnel and court attendants.

Results

In 2016–17, the Judicial Services program addressed critical needs to support the proper functioning of the judicial system.

Building on work that occurred in the previous year, Judicial Services took further steps in 2016–17 to increase the e-services capacity of the Courts and to make resources more readily available to self-represented litigants. In particular, considerable efforts were employed to address and adapt to the impacts of accelerating technological change on the Courts and their operations. However, due to a shortfall in funding, the Courts and CAS continue to lag behind in their modernization efforts.

The volume of court decisions requiring translation continued to increase in 2016–17. In response, Judicial Services explored new approaches, including new technologies to meet translation requirements and invested in increased revision capacity to better meet demands. Funding was announced in Budget 2017 to partially address ongoing pressure in translation for2017–18 and 2018–19.

Judicial Services also invested significant time and effort over the last fiscal year in addressing the impacts of increases in the number of complex and lengthy intellectual property, Aboriginal claims and taxation trials on workload. Efforts were also utilized to implement the Aboriginal Litigation Practice Guidelines, which set out procedural options and best practices to assist the Courts and lawyers and the parties they represent in this area of law.

Plans to seek resources to enhance information available for self-represented litigants (SRLs) also advanced in 2016–17. SRLs, which represent close to a third of all litigants, require more support and time from the Courts and registries than do those represented by lawyers. Additional resources would be used to create materials to better inform SRLs and to enable them to more effectively evaluate their own chances of success when initiating new matters. This in turn would help them save cost and time spent on their cases.

Judicial Services also augmented its logistical support due to the increase in the number of court committees and working groups supporting the Rules and Bar Liaison Committees.

Results achieved
Expected Results Performance
Indicators
Target Date to
achieve
target
2016–17
Actual
results
2015–16
Actual
results
2014–15
Actual
results
Members of the courts have the legal services and administrative support they require to discharge their judicial functions. % of final court decisions posted on the Courts’ websites within established timeframes. 95% March 31, 2017 95.4% 99% 100%
Budgetary financial resources (dollars)
2016–17
Main Estimates
2016–17
Planned
Spending
2016–17
Total authorities
available for use
2016–17
Actual spending
(authorities used)
2016–17
Difference
(actual minus
planned)
27,994,392 27,994,392 28,775,462 26,457,368 (1,537,024)
Human resources (full-time equivalents)
2016–17
Planned
2016–17
Actual
2016–17
Difference
(actual minus planned)
191 182 (9)

Program: Registry Services

Description

Registry services are delivered under the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada. 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 2016–17, the Registry Services program continued to deliver timely services to litigants and the Courts across Canada despite facing increasing workloads and demands.

To manage the high-volume workload over the course of the year, efforts were deployed to address impacts resulting from an increasing complexity of case files on registry resources. Where possible, resources were reallocated to provide additional support in validating and processing intellectual property, Aboriginal claims, taxation, and immigration files. Additional resources were also deployed to assist with the exponential increase in motions, particularly in cases where constitutional questions were being raised in the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In addition, sustained pressure on the Courts from legal professionals and litigants to facilitate the delivery of services within an electronic environment continued to impact the work of the registries and the Courts. In an effort to move towards a digital environment to replace the paper-based systems currently used, CAS continued in 2016–17 to develop requirements for a fully integrated CRMS and explored funding options. A modern CRMS would allow for efficiencies resulting from e-filing of court documents and automating workflows. It would also improve the gathering of data to support CAS’ performance measures.

The re-engineering of operational training also remained a top priority for the registries in 2016–17. The new approach to training helped address workload pressures, incorporated best practices and emerging trends, addressed scheduling issues, and introduced changes in format and delivery methods to more aptly meet evolving operational requirements within the registries. Work was also done to streamline, modernize and improve the quality of training nationwide and to ensure that employees had the up-to-date knowledge of the rules and processes required to enhance service delivery levels. New delivery mechanisms were also explored to better meet registry training requirements.

Results achieved
Expected Results Performance
Indicators
Target Date to
achieve
target
2016–17
Actual
results
2015–16
Actual
results
2014–15
Actual
results
Public has access to information regarding Courts’ processes across Canada. % of reviewed court documents that are processed accurately. 95% March 31, 2017 92% 93% 89%
Budgetary financial resources (dollars)
2016–17
Main Estimates
2016–17
Planned
Spending
2016–17
Total authorities
available for use
2016–17
Actual spending
(authorities used)
2016–17
Difference
(actual minus
planned)
24,278,931 24,278,931 24,585,943 24,509,338 230,407
Human resources (full-time equivalents)
2016–17
Planned
2016–17
Actual
2016–17
Difference
(actual minus planned)
291 290 (1)

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 2016–17, CAS continued to manage its available resources in a financially prudent manner allocating funds to the most pressing priorities. However, despite all possible efforts, CAS’ limited resources represented an ongoing challenge. As such, CAS continued to work with the government to seek additional funding for essential support services for the Courts and for ongoing operational sustainability.

Over the course of 2016–17, investments in physical security enhancements were made at CAS offices across Canada. This included a number of facilities improvements, security equipment, and new procedures to protect all who work in, attend or visit the courts. To enhance the organization’s security response capabilities, emergency plans were reviewed and strategic partnerships were established.

CAS refined elements of its project management framework, as well as associated policies, procedures and tools, to ensure direction is clear and the framework continues to be aligned with the scope and risks of CAS projects. In 2016–17, CAS also revised its Directive on Project Management to provide additional clarification in areas previously subject to interpretation. The directive, which applies to all proposals requiring investment of funds and/or resources, is a key component in project management at CAS.

A new National Accommodation Strategic Plan (NASP) was finalized to clearly define the immediate and long-term special purpose accommodations requirements of the Courts. The NASP will also allow CAS to meet its program accommodation requirements in a more efficient and cost effective manner. Advancements were also made in the development of plans to address issues related to the storage of judicial records.

CAS made progress on its IT infrastructure plan, funded in Budget 2016, to address outstanding rust-out, improve IT security and enhance enabling technology in order to better meet the requirements of the Courts. The plan establishes priorities for needed IT infrastructure remediation, enhancements and replacements over a five-year period and ongoing.

Work also progressed over the year to finalize a new three-year integrated HR plan to be implemented in 2017–18. This plan will enable CAS to have a structured approach in the planning of human resources activities in order to have the right people in the right place at the right time today and for the future. In addition, to support the management of human resources across the organization, progress was made in 2016–17 towards succession planning and the establishment of an organizational learning and development plan. These initiatives will support CAS in having a skilled and effective workforce to maintain the strength of the organization’s core business.

CAS also continued to address occupational health and safety, duty to accommodate and universal accessibility requirements in 2016–17 to the extent possible. These efforts supported CAS’ commitment to ensuring the well-being of members of the Courts and employees and demonstrate the organization’s efforts to provide accessibility for the mobility impaired.

Budgetary financial resources (dollars)
2016–17
Main Estimates
2016–17
Planned
Spending
2016–17
Total authorities
available for use
2016–17
Actual spending
(authorities used)
2016–17
Difference
(actual minus
planned)
20,078,320 20,078,320 22,294,032 21,310,542 1,232,222
Human resources (full-time equivalents)
2016–17
Planned
2016–17
Actual
2016–17
Difference
(actual minus planned)
160 165 5

Analysis of trends in spending and human resources

Actual expenditures

Departmental Spending Trend
Description of the image

Departmental Spending Trend

This graph represents the spending trend: the Actual, Forecast and Planned Spending, from 2014-15 to 2019-20

  • In 2014–15, actual spending was $62.1M voted and $7.0M statutory.
  • In 2015–16, actual spending was $65.6M voted and $6.7M statutory.
  • In 2016–17, forecasted spending is $65.6M voted and $6.7M statutory.
  • In 2017–18, planned spending is $68.6M voted and $6.7M statutory.
  • In 2018–19, planned spending is $63.1M voted and $6.4M statutory.
  • In 2019–20, planned spending is $63.1M voted and $6.4M statutory.

Note:

The increase in actual spending for 2015–16 is largely due to funding announced in Budget 2015 of $19 million over five years for investment in physical security enhancements such as additional cameras, security personnel and screening tools that will help ensure the Courts remain secure. It also enabled IT security enhancements to protect judicial confidentiality, personal privacy and sensitive information. Fiscal years 2014–15 through 2016–17 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 funding for collective agreements which fluctuate year to year and are not included in planned spending figures for 2017–18 to 2019–20.

Also, increases in fiscal years 2015–16 to 2017–18 are due to an increase in the renewed funding related to Division 9 proceedings of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act aimed at addressing challenges in the management of security inadmissibility cases, protection of classified information in immigration proceedings, and obtaining diplomatic assurances of safety for inadmissible individuals facing a risk of torture. Subject to government decision, fiscal years 2018–19 and 2019–20 include the anticipated renewal of the Division 9 sunset funding. Starting in fiscal year 2016–17, forecasted and planned spending includes funding to invest in IT infrastructure upgrades to safeguard the efficiency of the Courts system. In addition, fiscal years 2016–17 and 2017–18 include funding to relocate the Québec City Federal Court facility, thereby ensuring continued presence in the city. Furthermore, funding for support of additional judicial appointments for the Mexico visa lift initiative is included in the planned spending levels but is not available to CAS until these appointments are made. As of the end of 2016–17, no judicial appointments have been made.

Budgetary Performance Summary for Program(s) and Internal Services (dollars)
Program(s) and Internal Services 2016–17
Main Estimates
2016–17
Planned Spending
2017–18
Planned Spending
2018–19
Planned Spending
2016–17
Total Authorities Available for Use
2016–17
Actual Spending (authorities used)
2015–16
Actual Spending (authorities used)
2014–15
Actual Spending (authorities used)
Judicial Services 27,994,392 27,994,392 24,689,653 24,198,534 28,775,462 26,457,368 27,134,101 21,961,589
Registry Services 24,278,931 24,278,931 27,475,819 26,927,414 24,585,943 24,509,338 23,639,751 25,696,130
Subtotal 52,273,323 52,273,323 52,165,472 51,125,948 53,361,405 50,966,706 50,773,852 47,657,719
Internal Services 20,078,320 20,078,320 23,082,227 22,627,583 22,294,032 21,310,542 21,520,818 21,492,687
Total 72,351,643 72,351,643 75,247,699 73,753,531 75,655,437 72,277,248 72,294,670 69,150,406

Note:

The $3,303,794 variance between 2016–17 planned spending and 2016–17 total authorities available for use is primarily the result of differences between the actual funding received through allocations from Treasury Board Central Votes and the estimated funding amounts in the 2016–17 Report on Plans and Priorities. Specifically, in Budget 2016 CAS received $1,325,292 to invest in information technology infrastructure upgrades to safeguard the efficiency of the Courts system. Also, CAS received $910,515 on a cash basis to help relocate the Québec City Federal Court facility. Funding received in relation to the operating budget carry-forward from 2015–16 amounted to $1,460,414. In addition, funding received in relation to collective bargaining was $112,900. The above increases were offset by CAS’ contributions to employee benefit plans that were $505,327 lower than estimated amounts.

The variance between 2016–17 total authorities and 2016–17 actual spending represents a lapse of $3,378,189. Of this amount, $376,532 is related to funding set aside by Treasury Board, within CAS’ budget, to support the reform of Canada's refugee determination system. CAS is not authorized to use these funds until a new judicial appointment is made and Treasury Board President approval is received; also, $95,000 was frozen for the professional services, advertising and travel budget reductions. The remaining lapse of $2,906,657 is due to a combination of factors including funds set aside to cover retroactive pay resulting from the anticipated ratification of collective agreements, as well as delays in some security projects.

Actual human resources

Human resources summary for Programs and Internal Services (full time equivalents)
Programs and Internal Services 2014–15
Actual
2015–16
Actual
2016–17
Forecast
2016–17
Actual
2017–18
Planned
2018–19
Planned
Judicial Services 181 185 191 182 182 182
Registry Services 277 280 291 290 280 280
Subtotal 458 465 482 472 462 462
Internal Services 138 155 160 165 148 148
Total 596 620 642 637 610 610

Expenditures by vote

For information on the Courts Administration Service’s organizational voted and statutory expenditures, consult the Public Accounts of Canada 2017Footnote i.

Alignment of spending with the whole-of-government framework

Alignment of 2016–17 actual spending with the whole-of-government frameworkFootnote ii (dollars)
Program Spending area Government of Canada
activity
2016–17
Actual spending
Judicial Services Government affairs Strong and independent democratic institutions 26,457,368
Registry Services Government affairs Strong and independent democratic institutions 24,509,338
Total spending by spending area (dollars)
Spending Area Total planned spending Total actual spending
Economic affairs 0 0
Social affairs 0 0
International affairs 0 0
Government affairs 52,273,373 50,966,706

Financial statements and financial statements highlights

Financial statements

The Courts Administration Service’s financial statements [unaudited] for the year ended March 31, 2017, are available on the departmental website.

Financial statements highlights

Condensed Statement of Operations (unaudited) for the year ended March 31, 2017 (dollars)
Financial Information 2016–17
Planned
results
2016–17
Actual
2015–16
Actual
Difference
(2016–17
actual
minus
2016–17
planned)
Difference
(2016–17
actual
minus
2015–16
actual)
Total expenses 97,825,423 101,101,357 101,941,788 3,275,934 (840,431)
Total revenues 2,783 7,786 2,875 5,003 4,911
Net cost of operations before government funding and transfers 97,822,640 101,093,571 101,938,913 3,270,931 (845,342)

Note:

The 2016–17 planned results are those reported in the Future-Oriented Statement of Operations included in the 2016–17 Report on Plans and Priorities.

Expenses: CAS’ total expenses were $101,101,357 in 2016–17 ($101,941,788 in 2015–16). The largest components of the decrease of $840,431 (0.82%) were decreases in professional and special services, as well as accommodations.

  • Salaries and employee benefits: Salaries and employee benefits expense was $54,401,270 in 2016–17 ($53,678,562 in 2015–16). The $722,708 (1.35%) variance is mainly due to an increase of 17 full-time equivalents, resulting in increases of $1,016,871 in salaries and wages and $357,514 in employer contribution to the health and dental insurance plans (related party transaction). These increases were partly offset by decreases of $629,794 in the provision for severance benefits and $21,883 in employer contributions to employee benefit plans. Part of the increase in full-time equivalents was to deal with additional work and compensatory controls to address over and under payments resulting from the Phoenix Pay System. More than half (53%) of CAS’ total expenses in 2016–17 consisted of salaries and employee benefits.
  • Operating: Operating expenses totalled $46,700,087 in 2016–17 ($48,263,226 in 2015–16). The $1,563,139 (3.24%) variance is mainly attributable to decreases of $1,894,393 in professional and special services, $896,428 in accommodations, $344,912 in machinery and equipment and $70,304 in materials and supplies. The decrease in professional and special services was largely driven by a decrease in translation and interpretive services, compared to 2015–16 when additional funds were allocated to these services. These decreases were partly offset by increases of $667,293 in the amortization of tangible capital assets, $449,958 in repair and maintenance, $369,724 in rentals, $169,719 in transportation and telecommunications. Other smaller variances resulted in a net decrease of $13,796.

Revenues: The majority of CAS’ 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’ gross revenues were $3,069,931 in 2016–17 ($2,979,168 in 2015–16) and net revenues were $7,786 in 2016–17 ($2,875 in 2015–16).

Condensed Statement of Financial Position (unaudited) as at March 31, 2017 (dollars)
Financial Information 2016–17 2015–16 Difference
(2016–17 minus
2015–16)
Total net liabilities 17,654,744 17,487,777 166,967
Total net financial
assets
12,456,579 11,812,008 644,571
Departmental net debt 5,198,165 5,675,769 (477,604)
Total non-financial
assets
12,848,216 10,527,383 2,320,833
Departmental net
financial position
7,650,051 4,851,614 2,798,437

Note:

Liabilities: CAS’ net liabilities as at March 31, 2017 were $17,654,744 ($17,487,777 as at March 31, 2016). The increase of $166,967 (1%) is the result of the following:

  • Accounts payable and accrued liabilities (43% of total liabilities): Increase of $1,891,011 mainly due to a $923,217 increase in external accounts payable, primarily due to timing of equipment and service delivery, and $798,305 increase in OGD accounts payable.
  • Vacation pay and compensatory leave (13% of total liabilities): Increase of $292,221 mainly due to a $217,851 increase in vacation pay.
  • Deposit accounts (32% of total liabilities): Decrease of $1,432,754. Because they reflect many separate 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 (12% of total liabilities): Decrease of $583,511 due to a decrease in the percentage factor used to calculate severance benefits.

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

  • Financial assets:
    • Due from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (42% of gross assets)
    • Accounts receivable and employee advances (9% of gross assets)
  • Non-financial assets:
    • Tangible capital assets (47% of gross assets)
    • Prepaid expenses (2% of gross assets)

Net financial assets: This is comprised of financial assets net of accounts receivable held on behalf of Government. Accounts receivable held on behalf of Government consist primarily of accounts receivable from other governmental organizations. The increase of $644,571 is mainly due to an increase in the accounts receivable and advances.

Non-financial assets: The increase of $2,320,833 is mainly due to the acquisitions of tangible capital assets, mostly related to the physical 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

Year of incorporation / commencement: 2003

Reporting framework

The Courts Administration Service’s Strategic Outcome and Program Alignment Architecture of record for 2016–17 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:

Organizational contact information

Additional Information

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

Director, 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 A: 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.
Core Responsibility (responsabilité essentielle)
An enduring function or role performed by a department. The intentions of the department with respect to a Core Responsibility are reflected in one or more related Departmental Results that the department seeks to contribute to or influence.
Departmental Plan (Plan ministériel)
Provides information on the plans and expected performance of appropriated departments over a three year period. Departmental Plans are tabled in Parliament each spring.
Departmental Result (résultat ministériel)
A Departmental Result represents the change or changes that the department seeks to influence. A Departmental Result is often outside departments’ immediate control, but it should be influenced by program-level outcomes.
Departmental Result Indicator (indicateur de résultat ministériel)
A factor or variable that provides a valid and reliable means to measure or describe progress on a Departmental Result.
Departmental Results Framework (cadre ministériel des résultats)
Consists of the department’s Core Responsibilities, Departmental Results and Departmental Result Indicators.
Departmental Results Report (Rapport sur les résultats ministériels)
Provides information on the 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.
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.
government-wide priorities (priorités pangouvernementales)
For the purpose of the 2016–17 Departmental Results Report, government-wide priorities refers to 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 initiatives (initiative horizontale)
An initiative where two or more federal organizations, through an approved funding agreement, work toward achieving clearly defined shared outcomes, and which has been designated (for example, by Cabinet or a central agency) as a horizontal initiative for managing and reporting purposes.
Management, Resources and Results Structure (Structure de la 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.
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.
plans (plans):
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.
priorities (priorité)
Plans or projects 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).
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.
results (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.
Date modified: