Section 3 – Historical Results: Senior-Ranking Service Users
The purpose of this section is to compare Cycle V client satisfaction ratings to the results obtained from previous survey cycles. Unique to Cycle V is the inclusion of LEX client contacts. As a result of using LEX to identify client contacts for the survey, service users outside the traditional target population of EX-minus-1 and above in the NCR, and EX-minus-2 and above in the regions, received and responded to the CFS. To preserve historical comparability, only service users within the traditional target population (i.e. senior-ranking service users who traditionally have been surveyed) are referenced in this section of the report.
3.1 Survey Response
Of the total 6,831 service users who completed the CFS between October 2023 and May 2025, there were 4,528 senior-ranking service users (i.e. EX-minus-1 and above in the NCR and EX-minus-2 and above in the regions) who were within the traditional target population of the survey.
Exhibit 30 below displays the number of senior-ranking service users, by CFS Cycle, who self-reported as having used legal services in the 12 months leading up to the survey.
Exhibit 30: Number of Senior-ranking Service Users by Legal Service Type
| All Senior-ranking Service Users | Legal Advisory Services | Litigation Services |
Legislative Drafting Services | Regulatory Drafting Services | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cycle V (2023-25) |
4,528 | 3,956 (87.4%) | 1,378 (30.4%) | 273 (6.0%) | 487 (10.8%) |
| Cycle IV (2020-22) |
4,598 | 4,072 (88.6%) | 1,510 (32.8%) | 199 (4.3%) | 502 (10.9%) |
3.2 Historical Comparison of Overall Results
Client mean satisfaction ratings on the overall quality of legal advisory services (8.6), litigation services (8.5), legislative drafting services (9.0) and regulatory drafting services (8.8) remain above the departmental target of 8.0 for senior-ranking service users (see Exhibit 31). Annex C provides a detailed comparison of ratings across all five survey cycles conducted to date.
Exhibit 31: Overall Quality of Legal Services by Legal Service Type
| Cycle V (2023-25) |
Cycle IV (2020-22) |
Cycle III (2016-19) |
Cycle II (2009-12) |
Cycle I (2006-09) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal Advisory Services | 8.6 (±0.0) (Strong) |
8.6 (±0.0) (Strong) |
8.5 (±0.0) (Strong) |
8.4 (±0.0) (Strong) |
8.2 (±0.0) (Positive) |
| Litigation Services | 8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.4 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.3 (±0.1) (Positive) |
8.4 (±0.1) (Strong) |
| Legislative Drafting Services † | 9.0 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.6 (±0.2) (Strong) |
8.6 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.2 (±0.1) (Positive) |
| Regulatory Drafting Services | 8.8 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.6 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.4 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
7.8 (±0.3) (Moderate) |
Composite satisfaction ratings for each of the service dimensions continued to surpass the departmental target of 8.0 (Exhibit 32). As observed, timeliness and usefulness decreased by a statistically significant (†) difference between cycles for senior-ranking service users.Footnote 13
Exhibit 32: Composite Ratings by Service Dimension
| Cycle V (2023-25) |
Cycle IV (2020-22) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Responsiveness of Legal Services | 8.1 (±0.1) (Positive) |
8.2 (±0.1) (Positive) |
| Timeliness of Legal Services † | 8.3 (±0.1) (Positive) |
8.5 (±0.0) (Strong) |
| Usefulness of Legal Services † | 8.6 (±0.0) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.0) (Strong) |
3.3 Legal Advisory Services
Client satisfaction with legal advisory services exceeded the departmental target of 8.0 for all elements (Exhibit 33). Ratings either remained the same or decreased, with five elements decreasing by a statistically significant difference, since the previous cycle.
Exhibit 33: Legal Advisory Services – Senior-ranking Service User Satisfaction Ratings
| Cycle V (2023-25) |
Cycle IV (2020-22) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Quality of Legal Advisory Services | 8.6 (±0.0) (Strong) |
8.6 (±0.0) (Strong) |
|
| Responsiveness | Provided timely status updates with respect to our services | 8.1 (±0.1) (Positive) |
8.1 (±0.1) (Positive) |
| Timeliness | Responded in a timely manner to requests for legal services | 8.2 (±0.1) (Positive) |
8.2 (±0.1) (Positive) |
| Negotiated mutually acceptable deadlines † | 8.2 (±0.1) (Positive) |
8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
|
| Met mutually acceptable deadlines † | 8.4 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.6 (±0.1) (Strong) |
|
| Usefulness | Fully understood the nature of the problem/issue(s) for which you received assistance | 8.8 (±0.0) (Strong) |
8.8 (±0.0) (Strong) |
| Provided consistent legal advice | 8.7 (±0.0) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.0) (Strong) |
|
| Worked with you to identify, explain and mitigate legal risks † | 8.6 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.8 (±0.0) (Strong) |
|
| Provided clear and practical legal advice to support your mandate | 8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.5 (±0.0) (Strong) |
|
| Involved you in the development of legal strategy and positions † | 8.3 (±0.1) (Positive) |
8.6 (±0.0) (Strong) |
|
| Identified means to prevent or resolve legal disputes at the earliest opportunity † | 8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.0) (Strong) |
|
| Provided effective support for treaty negotiation (advice, drafting, conduct) | 9.3 (±0.3) (Strong) |
9.6 (±0.2) (Strong) |
|
3.4 Litigation Services
Senior-ranking service user satisfaction with litigation services continued to exceed the departmental target across all elements; however, there was one element that decreased by a statistically significant difference (Exhibit 34).
Exhibit 34: Litigation Services – Senior-ranking Service User Satisfaction Ratings
| Cycle V (2023-25) |
Cycle IV (2020-22) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Quality of Litigation Services | 8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
|
| Responsiveness | Provided timely status updates with respect to our services | 8.2 (±0.1) (Positive) |
8.1 (±0.1) (Positive) |
| Timeliness | Responded in a timely manner to requests for legal services | 8.4 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.3 (±0.1) (Positive) |
| Negotiated mutually acceptable deadlines | 8.4 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
|
| Met mutually acceptable deadlines | 8.6 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.1) (Strong) |
|
| Usefulness | Fully understood the nature of the problem/issue(s) for which you received assistance | 8.7 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.1) (Strong) |
| Provided consistent legal advice | 8.7 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.1) (Strong) |
|
| Worked with you to identify, explain and mitigate legal risks | 8.6 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.6 (±0.1) (Strong) |
|
| Provided clear and practical legal advice to support your mandate | 8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.4 (±0.1) (Strong) |
|
| Involved you in the development of legal strategy and positions † | 8.3 (±0.1) (Positive) |
8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
|
| Identified means to prevent or resolve legal disputes at the earliest opportunity | 8.4 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
|
| Informed you of the issues/developments which may impact your case | 8.7 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.6 (±0.1) (Strong) |
|
| Fully prepared you to give testimony in a proceeding | 8.7 (±0.2) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.2) (Strong) |
|
3.5 Legislative Drafting Services
Client satisfaction with legislative drafting services was “strong – surpassed target” for all elements. Ratings increased across all elements, with eight elements increasing by a statistically significant difference, since the previous cycle (Exhibit 35).
Exhibit 35: Legislative Drafting Services – Senior-ranking Service User Satisfaction Ratings
| Cycle V (2023-25) |
Cycle IV (2020-22) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Quality of Legislative Drafting Services † | 9.0 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.6 (±0.2) (Strong) |
|
| Responsiveness | Provided timely status updates with respect to our services † | 8.8 (±0.2) (Strong) |
8.4 (±0.2) (Strong) |
| Timeliness | Responded in a timely manner to requests for legal services | 8.8 (±0.2) (Strong) |
8.5 (±0.2) (Strong) |
| Negotiated mutually acceptable deadlines † | 9.0 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.5 (±0.2) (Strong) |
|
| Met mutually acceptable deadlines | 9.0 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.8 (±0.2) (Strong) |
|
| Usefulness | Fully understood the nature of the problem/issue(s) for which you received assistance (as expressed in the drafting instructions and drafts of the bills) † | 9.0 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.2) (Strong) |
| Proposed appropriate solutions for issues raised during drafting † | 9.0 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.6 (±0.2) (Strong) |
|
| Provided consistent legal advice † | 8.9 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.5 (±0.2) (Strong) |
|
| Worked with you to identify, explain and mitigate legal risks † | 9.0 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.2) (Strong) |
|
| Prepared draft legislative texts to meet your policy and program objectives † | 9.2 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.2) (Strong) |
|
3.6 Regulatory Drafting Services
Senior-ranking service user satisfaction with all individual elements for regulatory drafting services continued to exceed the departmental target of 8.0 (Exhibit 36). Ratings either remained the same or increased, with no statistically significant differences detected between survey cycles.
Exhibit 36: Regulatory Drafting Services – Senior-ranking Service User Satisfaction Ratings
| Cycle V (2023-25) |
Cycle IV (2020-22) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Quality of Regulatory Drafting Services | 8.8 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.6 (±0.1) (Strong) |
|
| Responsiveness | Provided timely status updates with respect to our services | 8.5 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.3 (±0.2) (Positive) |
| Timeliness | Responded in a timely manner to requests for legal services | 8.4 (±0.2) (Strong) |
8.3 (±0.1) (Positive) |
| Negotiated mutually acceptable deadlines | 8.5 (±0.2) (Strong) |
8.5 (±0.2) (Strong) |
|
| Met mutually acceptable deadlines | 8.6 (±0.2) (Strong) |
8.6 (±0.1) (Strong) |
|
| Usefulness | Fully understood the nature of the problem/issue(s) for which you received assistance | 8.8 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.1) (Strong) |
| Proposed appropriate solutions for issues raised during drafting (including optimal means to implement policies or programs, whether through legislative, regulatory or administrative tools, or a combination) | 8.8 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.1) (Strong) |
|
| Provided consistent legal advice | 8.7 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.1) (Strong) |
|
| Worked with you to identify, explain and mitigate legal risks | 8.8 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.1) (Strong) |
|
| Prepared draft regulatory texts to meet your policy and program objectives | 8.9 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.7 (±0.1) (Strong) |
|
3.7 Overall Considerations
The survey results indicate that senior-ranking service users continue to be very satisfied with the Overall Considerations elements (Exhibit 37). All elements of this category remained “strong – surpassed target”, with mean satisfaction ratings ranging from 9.0 to 9.6. In addition, there was a statistically significant increase in satisfaction for four elements.
Exhibit 37: Overall Considerations – Senior-ranking Service User Satisfaction Ratings
| Cycle V (2023-25) |
Cycle IV (2020-22) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Courteousness/respectfulness of the legal service provider | 9.5 (±0.0) (Strong) |
9.5 (±0.0) (Strong) |
| Legal services were provided in the official language of your choice, in accordance with applicable policies on language of work † | 9.6 (±0.0) (Strong) |
9.5 (±0.0) (Strong) |
| Ease with which the correct service provider to meet your needs was identified † | 9.1 (±0.0) (Strong) |
9.0 (±0.0) (Strong) |
| Satisfaction with access mode: Email or messaging | 9.0 (±0.0) (Strong) |
9.0 (±0.0) (Strong) |
| Satisfaction with access mode: Telephone or video † | 9.2 (±0.0) (Strong) |
9.0 (±0.0) (Strong) |
| Satisfaction with access mode: In person † | 9.1 (±0.1) (Strong) |
8.9 (±0.1) (Strong) |
- Date modified: