COPYRIGHT NOTICE — This document is intended for internal use. It cannot be distributed to or reproduced by third parties without prior written permission from the Copyright Coordinator for the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. This includes email, fax, mail and hand delivery, or use of any other method of distribution or reproduction. CPA Canada Handbook sections and excerpts are reproduced herein for your non-commercial use with the permission of The Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada (“CPA Canada”). These may not be modified, copied or distributed in any form as this would infringe CPA Canada’s copyright. Reproduced, with permission, from the CPA Canada Handbook, The Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, Toronto, Canada.
The engagement leader is responsible for the reviews performed. Subject to the minimum requirements of Office policy and professional standards being met, the extent of the engagement leader’s review, and evidence of it, is a matter of judgment.
This section explains
The engagement leader shall review engagement documentation at appropriate points in time during the assurance engagement. The engagement leader shall evidence his or her review (i.e., engagement leader sign-off) of
Subject to the minimum requirements being met, the extent of the engagement leader’s review, and evidence of it, is a matter of their judgment. The engagement leader considers whether the evidence in the audit file provides a proper account of their involvement in the direction and supervision of the engagement team and the review of their work, in particular, at key stages of the audit and when significant judgments were made. OAG Audit 3071 provides further guidance on engagement leader review responsibilities.
In signing off at the end of the planning phase and at the end of the reporting/completion phase, and reviewing significant matters and other working papers, the engagement leader confirms that they have:
reviewed sufficient documentation in the audit file (electronic and hard copy) to have a basis for determining that the significant judgments made and conclusions reached are appropriate given the circumstances of the engagement; and
These sign-offs further demonstrate that:
OAG Annual Audit 1021 provides guidance on audit objectives.
OAG Audit 1051 provides guidance on sufficient appropriate audit evidence.
OAG Audit 3071 provides guidance on the review of audit work and documentation.
OAG Annual Audit 4041 provides guidance on planning considerations and sign-offs.
OAG Direct Engagement 4080 provides guidance on examination approval for direct engagements.
OAG Direct Engagement 8017 provides guidance on report content approval for direct engagements.
OAG Audit 1171 provides guidance on documentation completion and the final assembly of the audit file.
Sign-off requires the team manager, engagement leader and engagement quality reviewer to address the affirmations within the planning and completion sign-off procedures. Some of the affirmations include explicit references to procedures where the engagement leader's involvement is documented. These referenced procedures include documentation of the engagement leader's involvement in the work because their involvement in specific procedures is required by CAS 220, and these procedures serve to provide documentation of this involvement. Even though the engagement leader may not be required to review these procedures, it may be prudent to do so to further evidence their involvement in the audit documentation. The engagement leader uses their judgment on whether to mark those procedures, or any other procedures, as reviewed.
The engagement leader reviews all significant matters on a timely basis. Through evidencing their review the engagement leader is satisfied that
OAG Audit 1143 provides further guidance on documenting the review of significant matters.
It is the responsibility of the engagement leader to review the final financial statements to determine that the auditor's report to be issued is appropriate in the circumstances.
See OAG Audit 9031 for guidance on the engagement leader's review of the financial statements and auditor's report.
OAG Audit 2213 provides guidance on the engagement leader's review of formal written communications with management, those charged with governance and regulatory authorities before they are issued.
Engagement quality reviewers use the guidance in OAG Audit 3063 for the nature and extent of their review. It will help engagement leaders to be familiar with this guidance as it can both guide them on how to be prepared for the Engagement quality review, i.e., to understand better those areas that the engagement quality reviewer will review, and remind them of matters that they need to review first and potentially discuss with the engagement quality reviewer. See OAG Audit 1163 for further guidance on documenting the engagement quality review.
There is a difference between evidence of an engagement leader’s review and evidence of their involvement in the engagement. Evidence of review is provided to comply with CAS 220, CAS 230 and CSAE 3001, and, therefore, a minimum level of documentation is necessary, as explained in the guidance above. However, the engagement leader’s involvement in the direction and supervision of the engagement team may be evidenced in different ways.
Engagement leaders are responsible for the direction and supervision of the engagement team, and review of their audit work and use professional judgment to decide where their involvement in specific areas is necessary and how they satisfy themselves with the documentation of their involvement. For example, when an engagement leader does not perform detailed review of the working papers but would like to evidence their involvement in the related decision process or discussion of specific matters, they may do so by adding documentation in the working papers that they were involved in team discussions regarding the subject(s), and the combination of the documentation added and the edit history will provide evidence that they had viewed the work documented in the procedure without necessarily marking the related procedures as reviewed.