Actually, there are basically two categories of litigation handled by the DOJ:
First, there is the "general" litigation that do not raise policy issues, such as the run of the mill crown liability, or a labour case such as arbitration of a federal employee's firing, or a basic contract dispute, etc. These do not require any specific position on policy to be taken and are probably handled at a reasonably low level for instructions, perhaps no higher than director level, and once the instructions have been given, then they go on their merry way to resolution.
Second, there is the "special" litigation, which actually does raise policy issues and can have important repercussion on how a given piece of legislation will be applied thereafter. For those cases, it goes all the way up the chain and, if there is a change of government and the very policy at issue was the object of the new government's program in some form, you can be sure that the status of litigation and the current position - together with its rationale - has been fully exposed to the new minister and that he/she was advised on what should be done. If the Minster wishes to change the government position, he is then free to bring the matter to the PMO and thereafter, change the instructions to his DM.
It's now been more than six months. You can be sure that this matter was briefed to the new Minister early on and if there have been no change in instructions, it is because the government does not plan to take a different position.
