Report on Performance

Overview of Ministry Goals and Linkage to Government Strategic Goals

 
Goal 1: Support services provided to the courts facilitate efficient case processing

Outcome: Services related to registry and trial support, as well as to security and escorts, that enable efficient case processing

Efficient support services aid the flow of cases through the courts. Without the assistance of registry clerks, trial schedulers, and security staff among others, cases cannot proceed in a timely fashion, and justice may be compromised. Efficient and appropriate support services help ensure that courts remain accessible and secure to all who need them and that citizens have confidence in the way courts are operated.

Core Business: Court Services

Objective 1.1: Support that meets the needs of all three levels of court in British Columbia

Each level of court assigns sitting time for its judges and other judicial officers. The number of judges and their assigned sitting time significantly defines the capacity of the court system. Court Services is required to support all judicial sittings and associated case processing activities with registry services, trial support, security, escort of persons in custody, and various forms of administration associated with each of these types of services. Adequate support services help ensure that court can proceed efficiently.

Key Strategies

1. Provide staff with appropriate training, policies, and business processes. This strategy ensures staff have the knowledge and training to optimize court operations and provide consistent service to all court users.
2. Implement and enhance technology applications that support business and court processes. Enhanced technology applications modernize and streamline court processes, standardize service delivery, create efficiencies and help make court information readily available to all court users.
3. Maintain high standards of security. Court facilities must be secure and people using and working in courtrooms must feel safe. High security standards and ongoing threat and risk assessments ensure free and open access to the courts.

Measure 1.1.1: Number of sitting hours supported (all courts)

The number of sitting hours for all courts is generally accepted as a measure of court activity. Sitting hours are projected and then verified at year end. Court sitting time is dependent on judicial scheduling and is influenced by judge availability, retirements and illness; the need for hearings; case collapse rates; and many other factors. For these reasons, variation in projected sitting hours from year to year is normal and expected.

 
Measure 1.1.2: Number of cases processed (new filings, all courts)

The number of newly filed cases is a generally accepted measure of court activity and the level of support required by all courts. Projections anticipate required levels of support, but can vary depending on a number of external factors as well as on intentional process reforms. This measure is used to validate whether reform initiatives within the ministry are changing the volumes and composition of cases that come to court.

 
Measure 1.1.3: Integrated civil case processing system in place

The Civil Electronic Information System (CEIS) is a provincewide system and centralized database that supports civil case management. CEIS includes case tracking for all Provincial Family and Small Claims and Supreme Civil courts record information. Full implementation of CEIS has allowed the introduction of standardized business practices and has improved case-processing efficiency and the integrity of civil case data. CEIS also provides an electronic data repository to support the e-search component of Court Services Online. Implementation of this system makes British Columbia a leader in the field of electronic court registries.

 
Objective 1.2: Adherence to ministry standards for timely processing of court documents and orders

Meaningful performance standards help ensure that court documents and orders are processed consistently, accurately and efficiently. Performance measures reported against established standards support managed outcomes and assist resource alignment. Selecting standards that are realistic and within the ministry's direct control is sometimes challenging due to issues of relative significance, measurability and variability. Standards can serve as proxy reference points for performance, as shown by the measures and targets below.

Key Strategy

1. In conjunction with the judiciary and other agencies, develop performance standards and measures [for timely document processing]. Meaningful standards and measures are critical in determining and evaluating effective and efficient management. As one aspect of this strategy, the ministry is developing a Public Accountability Framework.

Measure 1.2.1: Percentage of accused persons released on the same day as ordered

Same day release of persons in custody who have been ordered released indicates level of compliance with judicial orders.

Automated production of post-court documents and orders is dependent on timely entry of court results into JUSTIN. Same-day entry of court results enables documents to be produced on the court date. Reaching a target of 95 per cent would indicate that case and court document processing is efficient and timely, with few cases failing to achieve ministry standards. Delays in entering post-court data may effect scheduling of subsequent court appearances; document production; case tracking; and the ability to share case information with other justice system participants. The measure is calculated by dividing the number of event outcomes recorded within a day by the number of all events.

 
Goal 2: Ministries and agencies receive high-quality, cost-effective legal services that ensure they operate lawfully and manage their legal risks effectively

Outcome: Legal services that ensure the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law, and which help ministries and agencies fulfill their legal responsibilities

The ministry supports the Attorney General, who, as the legal advisor to government, must ensure that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law. The ministry fulfills this mandate by providing legal advice to ministries, agencies and Cabinet, and by representing the government in court and before administrative tribunals.

The ministry offers its legal services according to a cost-recovery model that requires client ministries and agencies to bear the costs of a large portion of the legal services that are provided to them by the ministry. Annual service level agreements with each client ministry or agency establish specific terms of reference for service levels and payment. A cost-recovery model can encourage client ministries and agencies to plan carefully with the ministry, define their anticipated legal needs judiciously, and use resources efficiently.

However, in some circumstances, the cost-recovery model could also serve as a disincentive to ministries and agencies to fund their requirements sufficiently. Insufficient funding could, in turn, lead to increased legal risk and be incompatible with the goals of effective legal risk management.

To help avoid this situation, careful planning with the client ministry through the service level agreement process is undertaken on an annual basis. As part of its commitment to that process, it is essential for the ministry to offer high-quality legal services that meet client needs at reasonable rates.

Core Business: Legal Services

Objective 2.1: Legal services offered at competitive rates

The Legal Services Branch assesses the most effective method of acquiring the legal services that government requires. In most cases, in-house counsel, through a combination of depth of knowledge and expertise on public law matters and the operation of government, and competitive costs, offer the highest quality and most cost-effective advice and representation. In situations where services are of a more routine nature or are geographically distributed (such as family law), contracted services are used.

The Legal Services Branch is at the forefront of government law departments in Canada in its detailed financial analysis of its costs and operations as compared with other jurisdictions. However, while the branch can measure the overall cost of service, it is difficult to ensure that the data obtained from other jurisdictions have been collected and measured in a way that makes comparison meaningful.

Key Strategies

1. Continue development of operational model to establish best balance of internal and external services. This strategy is intended to clarify the process for retaining external legal services and to assess the costs and efficiencies of using internal vs external legal services.
2. Continue work on business practices to increase operational efficiencies. In order to provide legal services at competitive rates, the ministry continually looks for opportunities to increase operational efficiencies. This includes new technology, business practices, practice management, and litigation management tools.

Measure 2.1.1: Cost of legal services provided by the ministry compared with the costs of legal services provided to other public agencies and to other jurisdictions by their legal service providers and by the private sector.

A comparison of the costs of legal services allows the ministry to monitor and demonstrate cost effectiveness. This measure compares the known costs of providing legal services to government with the costs incurred by other legal service providers in other jurisdictions and by the private sector.

 
Objective 2.2: Legal services that meet the needs of client ministries

The ministry conducts an annual service level agreement process that includes 1) a joint assessment with the client ministry or agency as to the level of legal services required, and 2) development of a comprehensive agreement that sets out financial commitments, service commitments, and performance measures.

Certainty around legal services requirements and the ability to adapt them to constantly changing needs and demands is critical to achieving this objective.

Key Strategies

1. Maintain a consistent methodology for the annual review of legal services requirements and potential new demands. Client ministries fund a substantial portion of the costs of legal services provided by the Ministry of Attorney General. Through the service level agreement process, the ministry has an opportunity to manage resources efficiently, to build effective and efficient partnerships with its clients, to have a better understanding of client needs and priorities, and to have a broader view of the issues around a particular area of practice.
2. Generate monthly or quarterly reports on utilization of services. The ministry provides monthly and/or quarterly reports on the utilization of services on specific files to its client ministries. The reports contain case by case information showing details on the hours of service provided as well as cost information for disbursements such as travel costs, transcripts and ad hoc counsel costs. Such reports help client ministries manage their legal service needs and resources.
3. Continue to report management information to both client and branch managers. The ministry issues separate reports to client ministries when requested. These reports compare total costs charged to the client with the service level agreement estimates.

Measure 2.2.1: Percentage of clients satisfied with the service level agreement process

Client satisfaction with services provided and associated costs is an important measure of the effectiveness of the service level agreement process.

 
Objective 2.3: Greater awareness and management of legal risks and potential liability costs to government

Anticipating, reducing and managing legal risk is an important part of the ministry's responsibility for stewardship and sound management of public resources.

Legal risk management and litigation risk management may take different forms depending upon the ministry or agency involved. Some larger ministries that deal with a number of significant legal issues already have established units whose responsibilities include monitoring legal issues and litigation, and liaising with the Legal Services Branch.

Legal risk management requires regular engagement between Legal Services Branch and client ministries or agencies to ensure systematic consideration of anticipated legal risks rather than merely reacting to issues as they arise. This would include systematic consideration of the use of alternate dispute resolution and of litigation results to avoid or reduce future exposure (post-mortem analysis, lessons learned). This can be a challenge when the attention of both senior officials in ministries and agencies and Legal Services personnel is regularly diverted to "reactive" issue management and advice and representation to support it.

Key Strategies

1. Ensure sufficient resources in Legal Services Branch to support legal risk management, and provide proactive advice. Through the service level agreement process, the Ministry of Attorney General negotiates resources required to address the known and anticipated legal risks of its client ministries.
2. Identify, anticipate and manage legal risks in a structured way through existing ministry and agency mechanisms. The service level agreement is one mechanism for anticipating and managing legal risks. The Legal Services Branch also reports to Deputy Minister Committees on legal issues and risks that have strategic significance to government.
3. Engage ministries in systematic reviews of the results of litigation. The ministry reviews litigation cases with its clients in order to provide guidance on the significance of the case and the impact on future activities and strategies.
4. Review existing litigation files to ensure comprehensive and complete information on the current use of dispute resolution techniques in litigation. The ministry's civil litigation staff work closely with the Dispute Resolution Office to track cases that are referred to mediation or settlement. The civil litigation staff use alternate dispute resolution where appropriate to balance the management of risks and costs with the strategic importance of an individual case.
5. Continue to work with the Dispute Resolution Office to develop issue management that includes regular and systematic consideration of alternate dispute resolution opportunities as part of the management of legal issues both prior to, and in, litigation. This strategy complements Strategy 4 above and furthers the work of the ministry's civil litigation staff with the Dispute Resolution Office.

Measure 2.3.1: Percentage of client ministries and agencies that engage with Legal Services Branch in legal risk management initiatives or major litigation management programs

This measure monitors the number of ministries that engage with the ministry's Legal Service Branch in specific risk management initiatives. The assumption is that the higher the percentage, the greater the awareness of legal risks and potential liability costs to government.

 
Measure 2.3.2: Percentage of civil litigation cases (to which government is a party) where alternate dispute resolution was proposed

In appropriate cases, alternate dispute resolution can be an effective means of managing legal risk. This measure originally tracked the number of civil litigation cases the Legal Services Branch took to mediation. However it is difficult to measure mediation as a percentage of cases because many trials and hearings may use mediation as an interim step along the way. As well, the Legal Services Branch engages in much activity that leads to resolution in the form of a settlement. Some settlements involve mediation, but many of them involve other forms of dispute resolution.

For those reasons, this measure was restated in a subsequent Service Plan and now focuses on how often alternative dispute resolution is considered. Legal Services Branch will ensure that for every civil litigation case, the options for dispute resolution, whether mediation or settlement, are canvassed, and that counsel makes a recommendation on that case, balancing risks with strategic significance.

 
Goal 3: Prosecution of all offences is timely, fair and effective

Outcome: Prosecutions that are consistent with, or which surpass performance targets for timeliness

Timely prosecution contributes to fair and effective processing of criminal matters. This goal helps foster public confidence in the integrity and effectiveness of the justice system.

If the processing of criminal matters is not done within a reasonable period of time, the charges against the accused may be dismissed by the courts, without an adjudication on the merits of the case.

Persons accused of committing a crime should be brought before justice as expeditiously, fairly, and effectively as possible for a number of reasons.

• At trial, the evidence is more complete and accurate if the trial is closer in time to the events it concerns.
• Delay in getting to trial may make it more difficult for the accused to obtain and present defence evidence.
• Minimizing pre-trial detention or bail supervision contributes to fairness as an accused person is presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty.
• Minimizing the length of bail supervision or pre-trial detention contributes to the effective use of resources.
• Sentences are more meaningful if imposed closer in time to the offending behaviour, especially for young offenders.

Witnesses, victims and their families suffer increased distress and disruption of their lives until the matter is concluded. Timely processing of criminal matters allows victims and witnesses to begin the process of bringing closure to the matter.

Core Business: Prosecution Services

Objective 3.1: Timely charge assessment where there is:
        •  police process
        •  no police process

In British Columbia, the prosecution of offences has two distinct phases: Crown charge assessment and conduct of the prosecution. Objective 3.1 addresses the timeliness of the first phase — charge assessment — under two different circumstances: with, and without, police process. These two circumstances are explained under Measure 3.1.1.

Key Strategy for Objectives 3.1 and 3.2

1. Conduct early pre-charge screening following receipt of the investigative report (Report to Crown Counsel). If charge assessments are conducted early:

• victims can be contacted and given the opportunity to provide information on the impact of the offence on them;
• disclosure of information about the Crown's case and initial sentence position can then be provided to the accused (or defence counsel), giving the accused and counsel more time to decide their course of action before the first court appearance. Consequently, the first appearance can become a meaningful event, thereby avoiding an adjournment;
• if any further police investigation is required, the additional investigation can be conducted early making the first appearance a more meaningful event and avoiding an adjournment;
• if the police have not given the accused a court date, the earlier a charge is approved, the sooner a summons (or warrant) can be issued by a Judicial Justice of the Peace and the sooner the court process can commence; and
• if the charge assessment is not completed early, the provision of information cannot be completed in time for the defence to be prepared to commit to a course of action by the first court date and it will have to be adjourned.

Measure 3.1.1: Elapsed time to conduct charge assessment where police have issued process and not issued process

This measure is intended to reflect the timeliness of decisions made by Crown counsel.

The first part of this measure refers to a process whereby the police have released the accused and have served the accused with a document that requires the accused to attend court on a specified first appearance date. Crown counsel conduct the charge assessment within a set number of days after receiving the investigative report (Report to Crown Counsel).

The second part of the measure refers to a situation in which a first court appearance date has not been set by police. Crown counsel conduct a pre-charge screening within a specified period of time after receiving the investigative report (Report to Crown Counsel).

 
Objective 3.2: A fair and effective charge assessment process

Fairness and effectiveness can be maintained by proceeding to court with only those cases that should go to court, seeking alternate solutions where appropriate and screening out charges that should not be seen by the court.

Measure 3.2.1: Proportion of accused persons who were approved to court by Crown counsel

This measure represents the proportion of the total number of individuals who were the subject of police reports received by Crown counsel for charge assessment (i.e., accused persons) against whom Crown counsel approved one or more charges (i.e., accused approved to court).

 
Objective 3.3: Timely conduct of prosecutions

Timeliness, in part, is reflected by Crown's prompt provision of the disclosure documents and the initial sentencing position to the accused person (or to their defence counsel), which enables the accused to prepare their defence and make the court appearances meaningful.

When disclosure and the Crown's initial sentencing position are provided promptly, the accused can make early and informed decisions such as whether to:

• retain counsel;
• dispute the charges;
• plead guilty; and
• dispute or accept the Crown's position on sentence.

Key Strategy

Contribute to the timeliness of prosecuting criminal matters by promptly providing disclosure documents and the initial sentencing position. This strategy is one of many that Crown counsel use to ensure prompt and fair procedures prior to a court appearance.

Measure 3.3.1: Elapsed time to provide disclosure and initial sentencing position

After considerable research, this measure was abandoned, and work continues on finding a better measure. Initially, elapsed time was identified as one possible method of measuring timeliness of prosecutions. At the time the measure was chosen to inform Objective 3.3, the necessary information was not available in the JUSTIN database, and it was not known to what extent the database would have to be modified to capture the data. With this measure, the ministry had hoped to capture multiple functions that Crown performs on a routine basis with regard to timely prosecutions, such as:

• Crown review of file material to determine relevant and appropriate disclosure;
• preparation of a disclosure package for the accused or counsel prior to first appearance; and
• immediate review and disclosure of new information to the accused or counsel, when appropriate.

During 2004/05, it was confirmed that there is no module available in JUSTIN that would easily lend itself to the required modification.

 
Objective 3.4: Fair and effective conduct of prosecutions

No measures for this objective had been identified in the 2004/05 Service Plan. The ministry expects to begin tracking two fairness measures in 2005/06: 1) the number of successful malicious prosecution lawsuits against the Crown; and 2) the number of successful wrongful conviction lawsuits against the Crown. The target for both will be zero.

Fairness and effectiveness are closely connected. They involve a balance that reflects the interests of the accused, the witnesses, victims and the public. For example, Crown counsel provide information about the case and the Crown's position and assist unrepresented accused persons. As well, Crown counsel respond to the requests of victims for information, appropriate input and for court orders that protect their safety and privacy.

Measuring fairness is a challenge facing every justice system. Many jurisdictions, including British Columbia, are working to resolve the complexities of measuring this concept. The ministry is assessing possible changes to the JUSTIN database to measure effectiveness.

Key Strategy

Contribute to fair and effective prosecutions through efforts to:

• reduce unnecessary distress, cost and inconvenience to witnesses, victims and their families;
• balance the interests of the accused, the witnesses, victims and the public;
• monitor any developments in the available evidence and ensure that if the case no longer meets the charge assessment criteria, the Crown will stay the proceedings;
• disclose new material to the accused when received by Crown counsel, including victim impact information; and
• ensure that Crown prosecutorial discretion is guided by principles consistently applied throughout the province.
  

Goal 4: The justice system is available, understandable and workable for individuals involved in civil, family and criminal cases

Outcome: A justice system in which litigants have access to innovative dispute resolution systems and to services and processes that assist them in reaching fair, workable and enduring resolutions to justice-related disputes

The ministry is committed to a justice system that offers innovative services and processes to help litigants reach fair, practical and lasting dispute resolutions. Through its Justice Services Branch, the ministry delivers a broad range of services related to many different types of disputes and dispute resolution systems.

Core Business: Justice Services

Objective 4.1: Increased proportion of disputes resolved through out-of-court alternatives

Out-of-court dispute resolution options can provide less costly, more expedient and less complex alternatives for a wide variety of cases, thereby contributing to a more available and workable justice system. An increasing number of disputes that are resolved out of court can promote public acceptance of dispute resolution options and build public confidence that such alternatives are fair and equitable. Specific alternatives are discussed below under Key Strategies.

Key Strategies

1. Expand the number of communities served by the Family Justice Services Division's Supervised Access and Access Exchange Program. An available and workable family justice system includes key services for individuals involved in family cases. Expanding the number of communities served by the Supervised Access and Access Exchange Program ensures this important service is more widely available to families. When access issues are safely addressed, many family issues can be resolved, reducing the number of contested court applications for child custody and access.
This program provides time-limited free access services to high conflict families in cases where there has been a lengthy absence of contact or where there have been concerns about violence or alcohol abuse and drug abuse. Providing supervised access and access exchange services is a part of the Division's strategy for addressing family law disputes outside of the court process.
2. Provide the Family Justice Registry (Rule 5) and Comprehensive Child Support Services programs in certain locations across the province. Promoting dispute resolution options such as mediation for appropriate cases supports a more available and workable justice system. Families have an opportunity to resolve disputes through a collaborative and understandable process. Providing information to families about their options for resolving disputes and providing dispute resolution services results in fewer cases proceeding to court.

In designated family justice registries, Family Justice Counsellors who are certified family mediators provide an array of services: cases assessment; information and referral to family justice and dispute resolution services; and case management support to parties prior to a first appearance before a Provincial Court judge. Family Justice Counsellors offer dispute resolution services to families of modest means with issues about child custody, access, guardianship and support.

In the Comprehensive Child Support Service, a Child Support Officer assists parents to understand and negotiate child support payments. Parents are also referred to other family justice services. Resolving child support disputes through information and negotiation can reduce the number of contested cases that proceed to court.

3. Implement the Comprehensive Child Support Services Program in two additional sites. Expanding the number of Comprehensive Child Support Services Program makes this service more available to families throughout the province. It enhances the range of services available at each designated family justice registry.
4. Work with the Ministry for Children and Family Development and the Legal Services Society to expand the use of child protection mediation across the province. An available and workable family justice system is one in which child protection disputes are resolved as quickly as possible. Experience in British Columbia suggests that decisions about children are made more quickly when cases are referred to mediation rather than to court and that people are highly satisfied with the mediation process.

Expanding the use of mediation in child protection matters provincewide promotes more timely resolution of these disputes and results in fewer contested cases proceeding to court. The Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Dispute Resolution Office (DRO), Justice Services Branch have collaboratively implemented a Child Protection Mediation Program with a roster of qualified mediators. With funding and other support from the Legal Services Society, it is possible to implement projects in each region of the province that will support greater use of mediation to resolve child protection matters.

To this end, the DRO provides child protection mediation policy and implementation advice; designs and offers information and education events; recruits qualified mediators; and administers the Child Protection Mediation Program.

5. Support treaty tables in the development of dispute resolution provisions for future treaties. As the provincial government and First Nations reach Final Agreements and Agreements in Principle with respect to governance, resource sharing, and other issues, the parties are considering how disputes that may arise out of the provisions of these agreements will be resolved without relying on the courts. The Dispute Resolution Office (DRO) of the Justice Services Branch has been providing advice about the draft dispute resolution portions of Final Agreements and Agreements In Principle. Including dispute resolution processes will make these agreements operate more effectively. When a dispute arises, the parties can move quickly towards resolution using an agreed upon continuum of proportionate dispute resolution options.

The DRO reviews amendments to existing processes as well as language proposed for new dispute resolution processes. It assists with internal consultation between provincial government agencies and First Nations and analyses the recommendations that result from these collaborative processes. Where necessary, the DRO will suggest that questions of law be referred to the Legal Services Branch of the ministry for legal advice.

Measure 4.1.1: Percentage of small claims disputes settled after referral to Court Mediation Program

This measure tracks the proportion of disputes that reach settlement following a referral to the Court Mediation Program. This proportion can also be viewed as the program settlement rate. Settled cases are defined as those that are resolved at mediation plus those that are settled after referral, but before the mediation actually begins. The latter type of case is included based on the assumption that referral to mediation stimulates the private settlement process.

Measure 4.1.2: Rate of child support payments received through enforcement

This measure has been in use for thirteen fiscal years in British Columbia. During that time, the payment rate has risen from 61 cents on each dollar due in 1992/93 to a high of 83 cents for 2004/05. The steady increase demonstrates that child support payments can be effectively enforced through out-of-court administrative processes and that the process is a highly successful dispute resolution alternative.

Objective 4.2: High satisfaction with out-of-court dispute resolution options

User satisfaction is both an objective and a measure of success for a justice system that is available, understandable and workable. To gain a greater acceptance and use of innovative dispute resolution — both inside and outside of the court system — it is preferable that the processes themselves be favourably perceived by the clients who have used them. All three measures for this objective involve satisfaction rates for specific out-of-court dispute resolution processes.

Key Strategies

1. Canvass clients in the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program to determine their needs. Respond with program shifts where possible, with a focus on increased client self-service opportunities. The Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP) is an important service for family justice clients who would otherwise be in court seeking a resolution to disagreements about child support payments. Clients of FMEP are surveyed with respect to service areas. Where feasible, opportunities for clients to access and provide information at their convenience are developed. This includes web-based services and IVR phone services.
2. Implement and monitor curriculum enhancements to the Parenting After Separation Program. Parents often need information and education about the separation and divorce process to understand how they can best manage the impact of the change on their children. They may also need information about the services and dispute resolution processes that are available to them and their children. Collaborative processes such as mediation can help them to resolve disputes in a manner that is timelier, less costly and less harmful than the adversarial court process.

The Parenting After Separation Program (PAS) is a free, three-hour information seminar that informs parents about the impact of separation and divorce on children; how parents can best help their children during this stressful time; and about appropriate dispute resolution processes. PAS sessions are delivered by agencies on contract to the Family Justice Services Division, Justice Services Branch.

3. Conduct longitudinal research on the needs characteristics (demographics, case, services) of Family Justice Services Dispute Resolution clients, the type of services provided, the utility of services, and whether dispute resolution services lead to improved parent and child outcomes. Through the Family Justice Services Division (FJDS) Dispute Resolution Program, clients are provided with information and options regarding the rights and responsibilities of parents with respect to matters of child custody, access, guardianship and support. Mediation and conciliation services are provided to appropriate families as alternatives to litigation.
4. Provide ongoing support to the B.C. Mediator Roster Society and Child Protection Roster, including orientation and training opportunities to maintain and improve quality of mediators. In order to encourage the use of mediation to facilitate the collaborative resolution of disputes it is important that members of the public, government ministries and agencies, lawyers and judges have easy access to qualified mediators. Justice Services Branch provides ongoing support to the BC Mediator Roster Society and the Child Protection Mediation Roster in order to increase the pool of trained and experienced mediators who subscribe to a code of mediation conduct.

Information about qualified civil and family mediators, and members of the Child Protection Mediation Roster, is readily available from the office and website of the BC Mediator Roster Society. The number of mediators who join the BC Mediator Roster Society increases annually. At the end of the 2004/05 fiscal year, 209 mediators belonged to the roster. In order to provide parents and social workers with better access to mediators, the Child Protection Mediation Roster affiliated with the society in April 2004.

 
Goal 5: Government and corporate initiatives receive essential administrative services

Outcome: Administrative support for government and corporate initiatives that concurs with government directions and fiscal realities

Government and corporate commitments are more likely to be achieved in accordance with expectations if they are given timely and adequate administrative support during their development and implementation. Careful administrative management during these initial phases helps to ensure that priorities are carried forward on schedule and that they adhere to government specifications.

Core Business: Executive and Support Services

Objective 5.1: Key justice initiatives supported and expedited

The nature of administrative support required varies according to the initiative. Support can range from procuring suitable office space, equipment and furniture to processing board appointments and payments, to archiving files. Support can also involve developing policy and legislation, providing information technology solutions and strategic human resource services, and establishing agreements.

Key Strategies

1. Assist the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform in carrying out its mandate. This strategy ensured that the Citizens' Assembly had the means to complete its mandate in the form of administrative support regarding membership, remuneration, travel expenses, facility rentals, budget reviews and expenditure tracking.
2. Implement the strategic technology solutions outlined in the ministry's Information Resource Management Plan. This strategy called for timely implementation of technology initiatives to support the ministry goals and objectives.
3. Develop legislation as required to implement government and ministry priorities. Many government and corporate initiatives can not go forward or reach a conclusion without supporting legislation. This strategy promotes effective management of the ministry's legislative agenda.

Measure 5.1.1: Achievement of key milestones in support of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform

Because initiatives vary widely in terms of the kind of support needed and the timelines required for development, performance measures tend to be project-specific and short-term. Therefore, this core business uses proxy (i.e., substitute) output measures to indicate performance for each objective.

Objective 5.2: Integrated corporate performance and accountability mechanisms that are consistent with government directions

This objective supports a government-wide accountability initiative to increase transparency through standardized planning and reporting processes.

Key Strategies

1. Coordinate government's Enterprise Risk Management initiative in the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, the Ministry of Attorney General and the Treaty Negotiations Office. Corporate risk management registries help to identify and monitor potential risks that could affect organizational performance and impede progress toward key goals.
2. Communicate government guidelines for accountability processes and deliverables to all relevant internal staff.

Measure 5.2.1: Completion of key Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) deliverables

This measure was intended to track ERM outputs for two ministries and an office.

The Ministry of Attorney General continued to streamline, consolidate and simplify as new legislation was developed in 2004/05. The ministry has made leadership in law reform and innovative justice processes a high priority. As the ministry works towards these goals and carries out its mandate, it continues to be mindful of government's commitment to regulatory reform.