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.
1161 Evidencing the extent of review of audit documentation
Dec-2023
Overview
Similar to the importance of documenting who performed the audit work and the date the work was completed is the importance of documenting what audit work was reviewed, who reviewed this work, and when it was reviewed. This section outlines this documentation.
Reviewers should also use review notes if they determine follow-up actions or modifications to documentation are necessary.
OAG Policy
OAG Guidance
Review of audit work
Engagement leaders, team managers, team members and quality reviewers all have a responsibility for the review of audit working papers. OAG Audit 3071 discusses the nature and extent of this responsibility and provides guidance on performing reviews.
Documenting evidence of review
The audit working paper software automatically records the name of the person who marked the working paper as reviewed and the date of their review. Teams provide evidence of review of external working papers that are not stored electronically by manually signing and dating the paper documents (OAG Audit 1121).
The extent of review by the engagement leader and quality reviewer is a matter of judgment; however, each should include evidence of their review and involvement in the audit file. OAG Audit 1162 and OAG Audit 1163 provide guidance on minimum documentation requirements of which the engagement leader and quality reviewer, respectively, need to provide evidence of review.
Planning and reporting sign-offs
Documentation of the timing of the review at appropriate stages of the audit is also evidenced by the team manager, engagement leader and engagement quality reviewer signing off the applicable planning and completion sign-off procedures. 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 the standards, 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.
Use review notes if follow-up actions or modifications to documentation are necessary
If, upon review of the audit working paper or procedure step, reviewers find follow-up actions or modifications to documentation are necessary, they should document this in a review note, to which the preparer of the working paper must respond.
Auditors should not use review notes to document audit evidence. Audit working papers should stand alone as a record of work done in an audit. Auditors should address and document in the working papers matters that have been raised during file review and coaching.