Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing at Global Affairs Canada: Third annual report

Reporting year 2024-2025

ISSN 2819-487X

Table of contents

• Message from the Deputy Ministers
• Introduction
• 2024-2025 Overview of misconduct and wrongdoing
• Internal investigations and administrative reviews
  • Financial mismanagement cases
  • Harassment and violence cases
  • Breach of the Departmental Values and Ethics Code and Code of Conduct for Canadian Representatives Abroad cases
  • Cases of misconduct and inappropriate behaviour
  • Personnel security investigations
  • GAC Network Acceptable Use Policy cases
• External investigations
• Conclusion
• Annex A – Definitions
• Annex B – Addressing misconduct and wrongdoing: GAC resources at a glance
• Annex C – Resources, support services and recourse mechanisms for Canada-based employees
• Annex D – Resources, support services and recourse mechanisms for locally-engaged staff
• Annex E – Office of the Ombud and Inspector General services

Message from the Deputy Ministers

Dear colleagues,

We are pleased to present the third edition of the Annual Report on Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing at Global Affairs Canada (GAC). This report is part of our ongoing commitment to fostering a healthy, respectful, transparent and inclusive workplace culture. Our goal is to ensure that all employees in the Department feel valued, heard and supported, and that their contributions toward positive organizational change are recognized and encouraged.

Our collective aspiration under the North Star statement for a workplace culture rooted in honesty, trust, integrity and continuous improvement remains strong. This report is a testament to our ongoing commitment to recognize the negative impacts of misconduct and wrongdoing on our people and enhance transparency around how these issues are addressed.

This report is part of other GAC efforts to transform our organizational culture and workplace well-being. During the 2024-2025 reporting year, we established the GAC Check-in survey to gather ongoing, real-time insights into workplace well-being—a complement to the GAC Anti-racism survey, the GAC accessibility survey and the Public Service Employee Survey. The GAC Check-In survey has shown us that, overall, between 75% and 80% of respondents agree that their immediate managers have created the space for open and honest discussions. The survey also led us to establish a new process to ensure that upward feedback from employees is provided to executives, in the spirit of fostering a culture of continuous improvement and development. The 2024 GAC Anti-racism survey revealed that only 63% of managers felt equipped to handle issues of racism and racial discrimination and believed they had the right processes, guidance, and directives to ensure equitable representation. While 52% of managers have implemented measures to address systemic racism and equity issues within their teams, more work is needed to increase this percentage and ensure that we build and foster a culture of inclusion and trust.

We also continue our work to strengthen safe and inclusive processes by drawing on the recommendations made in the Study on the Black Executive Community in the Federal Public Service, released by Rachel Zellars in November 2024.

The publication of our previous two reports may have contributed to an increase in the reporting of potential misconduct and wrongdoing, which would be an indicator of our employees’ increasing trust in our departmental ability to identify and address problematic behaviour. The conversations generated by these reports have also contributed to a broader reflection on how we, as public servants, embody our values and ethics in our work.

Over the past year, our human resources, corporate security and investigations teams have continued to collaborate closely to improve the processes involved in addressing misconduct and wrongdoing at GAC. We have focused on fostering coordination between teams, reducing long timelines, and enhancing support for employees and managers throughout the investigative, disciplinary, and administrative processes. This has included investing additional resources in the Labour Relations Centre of Expertise to conduct timelier administrative investigations of cases of misconduct or inappropriate behaviour and better supporting managers to deal with cases in a more expedited manner. We are also starting to develop a new centralized case management system to enable more efficient follow-up, monitoring and data collection of cases, which will help us detect possible trends and identify areas of concern.

This past reporting year, we continued to invest in prevention measures and employee wellbeing, through the Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General. This office provides a safe and confidential space for employees to discuss issues that are troubling them, seek informal conflict management for workplace issues, and learn more about other recourse options. (More information about the Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General can be found in their first annual report.)

We are also exploring the development of a standardized complaint intake model to help employees navigate avenues for recourse. It is important that employees feel safe to utilize the range of resources available, whether considering formal action or seeking guidance on workplace concerns.

With a focus on continuous improvement, our department will continue to rigorously analyze investigation processes through an accessibility, diversity and inclusion lens. This approach will ensure that our practices and processes not only continue to be more effective but also more equitable, inclusive and consistent, reflecting our dedication to fostering a diverse and supportive environment for all.

David Morrison
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs

Rob Stewart
Deputy Minister of International Trade

Christopher MacLennan
Deputy Minister of International Development

Sandra McCardell
Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs

Introduction

This Annual Report on Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing at Global Affairs Canada aims to increase transparency on how misconduct and wrongdoing are addressed in the department; it presents summaries of the cases of misconduct and wrongdoing deemed founded in the department and of the investigations completed by external bodies over the reporting year (the reporting year covered in this report aligns with the Government of Canada’s fiscal year, from April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025). The report also provides information on the informal and formal mechanisms available for employees to report issues.

Your feedback is important to improve subsequent editions of this annual report. Please send comments and suggestions to HWD@international.gc.ca.

Departmental context

Global Affairs Canada (GAC) is a large and complex organization comprising over 13,000 employees; more than 7,500 staff are based in Canada and approximately 5,500 locally-engaged staff work in 181 missions in 112 different countries around the world. GAC also provides an international platform for 21 other Federal government departments and agencies, 3 Crown corporations, and 7 provincial governments working abroad in its missions. GAC supports 4 foreign partners, 3 foreign governments, and 1 international organization in the context of international colocation in Canadian missions.

All GAC employees and managers play a part in ensuring that our workplace is healthy, respectful, safe, and free of harassment and discrimination. We are also all responsible for following the department's codes for values and ethics and conduct, which set forth clear expectations for employee behaviour. With an emphasis on respect for others, integrity, stewardship and excellence, the Departmental Values and Ethics Code (Values and Ethics Code) encourages employees to report misconduct or wrongdoing while ensuring that those who do report are protected. The Code of Conduct for Canadian Representatives Abroad (Code of Conduct) provides guidance on the Government of Canada's expectations of its representatives abroad.

Any employee—at headquarters, in regional offices across Canada or at our missions around the world, whether Canadian or locally engaged—who is directly or indirectly affected by an instance of misconduct or wrongdoing can and should use the appropriate channel to report the issue(s) no matter the level or occupation of the offender. GAC employees should know that all complaints will be taken seriously, properly assessed and, if proven founded, followed up with administrative and/or disciplinary actions in a timely fashion. Employees can be assured that their privacy will be respected and protected and that reporting misconduct or wrongdoing will not incite reprisal or punishment for the reporter.

Addressing misconduct and wrongdoing at Global Affairs Canada

All GAC employees should feel safe reporting any situation where they perceive there may be misconduct or wrongdoing, without fear of reprisal. Several recourse mechanisms are available to employees facing real or apparent misconduct or wrongdoing. More information on these processes is provided in the annexes, including details on available GAC resources (Annex B) and recourse mechanisms for Canada-based employees (Annex C) and locally-engaged staff (Annex D).

Managers are always available as a first point of contact to navigate the process and manage issues. Employees can also reach out to the Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General for confidential and informal services and assistance, or to navigate the various recourse options (see Annex E for more details).

GAC addresses all suspected cases of misconduct and wrongdoing by following the guidance provided by departmental and Government of Canada policies and guidelines. This includes conducting fair and objective investigative processes as needed and as expeditiously as possible; taking all measures to protect the confidentiality of the information collected and the privacy of individuals involved; and ensuring that there is procedural fairness for all.

For cases of misconduct, when the information initially disclosed is insufficient to make a determination, an investigative process is launched and can take the form of a fact-finding exercise or an investigation. A fact-finding exercise is undertaken when a situation is relatively straightforward, the facts are not in dispute by parties involved, and the facts do not require an extensive investigation process. When the situation is more complex and additional information is required, a formal investigation may be initiated.

For cases of wrongdoing, when a protected disclosure is received, an admissibility analysis, based on a number of criteria, is undertaken to determine whether there is a requirement to launch an investigation. Investigations are conducted as informally and expeditiously as possible, with appropriate rigour throughout the process. Procedures for protected disclosures under the Public Servants Disclosure and Protection Act are available on the department's intranet site.

Measures taken in founded cases of misconduct and wrongdoing

An allegation of misconduct or wrongdoing can be determined to be unfounded or founded after reviewing the available facts and applying the standard of proof for administrative investigations which is the balance of probabilities. As an employer, GAC has a responsibility to take appropriate disciplinary or administrative measures when misconduct or wrongdoing is determined to be founded. In some instances, a situation may warrant the application of both administrative and disciplinary measures (see Annex A for more details on these measures).

Findings in 2024-2025

In reporting year 2024-2025, 218 complaints or allegations were brought forward, and 125 investigations were launched. Not all allegations were subject to a formal investigation process and when investigations did occur, not all allegations are founded. Of the 125 investigations, 120 were deemed founded, and resulted in the application of administrative and/or disciplinary measures — representing 55% of all complaints and 96% of those investigated.

Trend analysis and year-over-year comparison

This section provides a trend analysis and year-over-year comparison of complaints, allegations, investigations and founded cases followed by an overview of the findings and a comparison with the previous two reports (2022-2023 and 2023-2024).

Financial mismanagement cases:

• increase after 2022-2023: key themes include fraudulent claims, misappropriation of assets and conflict of interest

Harassment and violence cases:

• slight dip in 2023-2024, followed by a slight rise in 2024-2025

Breach of values and ethics code:

• consistent and notable upward trend across reporting years; many of the reported cases involve inappropriate behaviour, integrity violations, misuse of resources and failure to disclose conflicts of interest

Misconduct and inappropriate behaviour:

• increase from 2022 to 2024, with a slight decrease in 2024-2025: common issues include absence without authorization, misuse of work hours/assets and insubordination

Personnel security violations

• cases remain steady across reporting years, with ongoing emphasis on fraudulent disclosures, improper handling of classified information, and theft.

GAC Network Acceptable Use Policy infractions

• sharp decline in total infractions across reporting years, due to heightened awareness and enforcement

To address the rising trends in misconduct and improve accountability across the department, GAC is implementing a series of targeted, department-wide measures. A key focus is the revision of the Values and Ethics Code and Code of Conduct, alongside efforts to boost internal awareness through an annual recommitment exercise and mandatory periodic training on values, ethics and conflicts of interest—especially for those in supervisory roles. Enhancing managerial capacity is also a priority, with new programs that will focus on conflict resolution, performance management and creating psychologically safe workplaces.

In the 2024-2025 reporting year, although there was a decrease in complaints or allegations submitted, there was an increase in the overall number of founded cases resulting in disciplinary or administrative measures. This rise can be attributed to the conclusion of investigations that began in previous years, increased awareness among employees regarding processes, responsibilities, and expectations, and a growing level of comfort and trust in reporting misconduct.

2024-2025 Overview of misconduct and wrongdoing

Outcomes of investigations by category

Note: External investigations are included in the overall counts of complaints, allegations and founded cases. However, external investigations are not included in the Comparison of founded cases by category and the Outcomes of investigations by category tables. For more information, please refer to the External investigations section of this report.

Note: The “Other” outcome category includes the following: letter of expectations (12), resignations submitted before disciplinary steps were taken (5), and additional administrative measures (7). In some cases, multiple administrative or disciplinary measures were imposed on the same employee.

Internal investigations and administrative reviews

Financial mismanagement cases

Financial mismanagement cases involve a loss of public funds and/or Crown property. This may include, but is not limited to, suspected fraud; misuse, embezzlement, or theft of government property or funds; contract or procurement fraud; contractor misconduct; and mismanagement or misappropriation of funds.

Some financial mismanagement cases are investigated as possible wrongdoing under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act as a misuse of public funds or a public asset. In these cases, when the wrongdoing is founded, it must be published on the Government of Canada’s Acts of Founded Wrongdoing web page.

Over the 2024-2025 reporting period, nine financial mismanagement investigations concluded that financial misconduct had occurred at GAC.

• An employee misused a Crown-issued credit card and was negligent in the safeguarding of this card, which led to the card being taken by a family member who used it for purchases. The employee was previously disciplined for similar behaviour and had received a written reprimand. The employee received a temporary suspension and had to reimburse the transaction.
• An employee engaged in fraudulent behaviour. Over a span of seven years, they submitted falsified receipts to fraudulently claim allowances, intentionally misrepresenting and concealing material facts. The employee’s actions demonstrated a clear lack of integrity and resulted in financial losses to the department. Consequently, their employment was terminated.
• An employee breached security protocols by assigning a security officer additional non-security duties concurrent with their security role, compensating them for both roles, and submitting falsified receipts to justify the dual compensation. The employee was temporarily suspended without pay and was required to undergo values and ethics training.
• An employee used their official position to inappropriately obtain advantages for themselves by facilitating salary overpayments to locally-engaged staff over nearly four years. The employee instructed the affected locally-engaged staff to return the excess payments directly to them, which the employee unlawfully retained. The employee’s actions demonstrated a serious breach of integrity and resulted in financial losses for the department. Consequently, the employee’s employment was terminated. The department is taking legal steps to seek reimbursement of the funds owed to the department.
• An employee colluded with gas station attendants to misuse government-issued fuel cards for unauthorized transactions. The employee was terminated.
• An employee negligently processed erroneous invoices, contributing to financial irregularities. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee misused gas cards and participated in a cash-back scheme. The employee was terminated.
• An employee used the employer’s credit card to purchase airline tickets for personal use. The employee was terminated.
• An employee on probation fabricated an invoice to claim hotel expenses. The employee was terminated.

Harassment and violence cases

Harassment and violence in the workplace cases pertain to any action, conduct, or comment, including of a sexual nature, that can reasonably be expected to cause offence, humiliation, or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee, including any prescribed action, conduct, or comment.

Some harassment and violence cases are investigated as possible wrongdoing under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act as a serious breach of a code of conduct. When the wrongdoing is founded, it must be published on the Government of Canada’s Acts of Founded Wrongdoing web page.

Over the 2024-2025 reporting period, five harassment and violence investigative processes concluded that harassment had occurred at GAC.

• An employee was found to be bullying colleagues and harassing a contractor. Due to mitigating factors, the employee received a verbal reprimand and a letter of expectations.
• An employee physically assaulted a work colleague during an event outside working hours. Considering mitigating factors during the fact-finding exercise (including remorse, no previous disciplinary issues and the existence of some provocation), the employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee faced harassment from a colleague who belittled them publicly; the investigation found that poor communication, including a reluctance to address issues directly and ask clarifying questions, led to a breakdown in their professional relationship. In compliance with paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Work Place Harassment and Violence and Prevention Regulations, recommendations were made to minimize recurrence, including a workplace assessment to identify and address common behaviours contributing to harassment, training on handling difficult conversations and improving communication skills, and personal coaching to enhance communication and interpersonal skills.
• A manager faced prolonged psychological violence and harassment from a former employee who undermined them in front of clients, colleagues, external stakeholders, and superiors. The former employee also spoke negatively about the manager to their superiors. The investigation concluded that the lack of intervention by senior management and the departmental labour relations/human resources unit were secondary root causes for the failure to take proper action. Conducted under the Canada Labour Code, the investigation recommended offering outreach and assistance to those affected by the former employee’s actions; providing training for labour relations and senior management on creating a psychologically safe work environment; and establishing a support system for managers.
• An executive in one of Canada’s missions abroad made inappropriate sexual-natured comments to employees at the mission. The investigation also found that the executive made unwanted sexual advances, inappropriate gestures, and inappropriately stared at employees. The Senior Officer for Internal Disclosure (SOID) recommended that the delegated manager consult the Labour Relations Centre of Expertise about the possibility of taking disciplinary and administrative actions against the executive, such as the review and reassessment of their latest performance assessments. The SOID also recommended that relevant information be shared with the Personnel Security division to determine whether the executive’s security clearance should be reviewed. This act of founded wrongdoing was published on the Government of Canada’s Acts of Founded Wrongdoing web page as per paragraph 11(1)(c) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

Breach of the Departmental Values and Ethics Code and Code of Conduct for Canadian Representatives Abroad cases

The Values and Ethics Code includes a very wide range of conduct that employees must adhere to and uphold. A breach occurs when an employee contravenes expected values and ethics as enumerated in the code. A breach can also occur when an employee does not adhere to the Code of Conduct.

Examples of a breach include the undue use of influence or access to resources, misrepresenting or providing false personal information, threatening or intimidating a coworker, or not disclosing a conflict of interest. Some serious breaches of a code of conduct are investigated as possible wrongdoing under the PSPDA. When the wrongdoing is founded, it must be published on the Government of Canada’s Acts of Founded Wrongdoing web page.

Over the 2024-2025 reporting period, there were 70 investigations that found a breach of the Values and Ethics Code or the Code of Conduct had occurred at GAC.

Inappropriate or unprofessional behaviours

• An employee attended a work event under the influence of alcohol, despite no alcohol being served or allowed at the event. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee exhibited unprofessional behavior, including leaving the assigned work area and addressing their supervisor in an inappropriate manner. The employee received a verbal warning
• An employee acknowledged failing to follow applicable road safety rules while on duty. The employee received a verbal reprimand.
• An employee repeatedly asked colleagues for financial support despite instructions to stop any form of financial solicitation. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee made inappropriate gender-related comments and jokes toward a colleague. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee yelled at and made false accusations against a colleague. The employee received a verbal warning.
• An employee shared inappropriate videos and messages on a Government of Canada asset. The employee received a verbal warning.
• An employee exhibited inappropriate sexual behaviour toward female hotel staff during a training session. The employee received a temporary suspension.
• An employee had a partially consumed bottle of alcohol in their workstation. They did not demonstrate signs of intoxication. The employee was directed to remove the bottle, and no further action was taken.
• An employee made inappropriate remarks concerning a colleague’s sexual orientation, criticized their demeanor, appearance, and financial status, and restricted the colleague from leaving the office during a discussion. As a result, the employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee made inappropriate comments about a colleague’s gender and falsely accused that colleague of receiving preferential treatment due to a supposed relationship with a member of senior management. The employee was terminated.
• An employee made false claims about team relations, spoke negatively about colleagues, and demonstrated insubordination. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee exhibited inappropriate behaviour, including misogynistic jokes. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee behaved disrespectfully during a virtual meeting with external partners. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee engaged in multiple inappropriate sexual behaviours and communications towards several female colleagues. The employee was terminated.
• An employee engaged in inappropriate communication and physical contact with a colleague. The employee received a temporary suspension.
• An employee made offensive remarks about departmental relationships and spread false rumours about staff relationships. A fact-finding exercise revealed previous similar inappropriate behaviours. The employee was terminated.
• An employee used aggressive tone and body language toward another employee and demonstrated physically inappropriate behaviour by aggressively handling doors and pass readers. The employee using an aggressive approach received a temporary suspension.
• An employee working at one of Canada’s missions abroad became intoxicated at a bar outside of work hours and was escorted home by police. They displayed verbally aggressive behaviour toward police officers and a security guard at their residence. Considering mitigating factors, the employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee repeatedly displayed unprofessional behaviour, including disrespectful communication and personal attacks, despite previous warnings. The employee received a temporary suspension.
• An employee received a letter outlining expectation for respectful communication but continued to engage in disrespectful and confrontational behaviour, violating the terms of the letter. The employee was issued a written reprimand.
• An employee falsified an email to demonstrate to management that they completed a required task on time. The employee received a temporary suspension.
• An employee in a supervisory role had a confrontation with an employee whom they supervise, in front of staff and contractors. The employee was issued a written reprimand and required to undergo training as an administrative measure.
• An employee in a supervisory role made repeated sexual and racially insensitive remarks toward an employee whom they supervise. The employee received a temporary suspension.
• An executive made inappropriate comments about an employee’s personal life, used belittling language in emails, and failed to follow security procedures, causing potential safety risks. The disciplinary process is ongoing, and appropriate measures will be determined.
• An executive yelled in the presence of staff. Due to mitigating circumstances, including a prompt apology, no further action was taken.
• Several allegations were made against an executive, including claims of bullying and discriminatory practices. Substantiated allegations included isolating two employees – both members of a Canadian Human Rights Act protected group – from the workplace, preventing an employee from accessing the secure zone, disregarding complaints about the behaviour of embassy staff, and failing to provide a safe living environment for an employee and their dependents. The disciplinary process is ongoing, and appropriate measures will be determined.
• An employee slandered a colleague to other staff members. The employee was required to undergo training as an administrative measure to address the behaviour.
• Several allegations were made against an executive, including claims of non-compliance with departmental security policy, abuse of authority, and misuse of departmental resources. Some allegations were substantiated, such as traveling abroad without authorization, failing to ensure a healthy work environment, misusing a mission-provided vehicle, using diplomatic contacts for personal business, contacting mission employees on behalf of a private company, and continuing to use diplomatic plates after their assignment. Other allegations, including failing to reimburse a personal chef on time, sharing privileged information, and failing to separate personal expenses, were unfounded. The executive retired during the investigation. The employee’s related performance assessment rating was reassessed, and their performance pay has been recovered accordingly.

Breach of integrity

• An employee engaged in outside activities that directly conflicted with their official duties and was found to be inconsistent and untruthful with their explanation. The employee was terminated.
• An employee deliberately omitted critical information on their Reliability Status application. The employee received a written reprimand and was required to complete recommended training.
• An employee forged a confirmation of employment letter and used an official stamp without authorization. The employee was issued a temporary suspension.
• An employee modified their own banking information on their payroll file. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee attempted to hide their lack of performance and misled their supervisor about travel arrangements. The employee’s travel was subsequently cancelled, and the employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee was dishonest during a staffing process and misrepresented their educational credentials. The employee received a written reprimand, they were eliminated from the staffing process, and required to retake values and ethics training.
• An employee shared privileged management information with an internal employee committee without authorization. The issue will be addressed through the Informal Conflict Management System and other administrative measures.
• An employee failed to declare their relationship with the owner of a company providing services to the mission. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee did not disclose their outside volunteer work in their disclosure form to avoid all real, potential and apparent conflicts of interest. Administrative measures were imposed to ensure the employee understood the expectations.
• An employee was very active on social media, sharing comments that could be perceived as critical by a local foreign government, potentially affecting that mission’s reputation. An investigation uncovered multiple additional instances of misconduct. The employee was terminated.
• An employee working from home was often unavailable and failed to respond to calls. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee deliberately manipulated documented information to negatively impact a colleague’s performance at work. The employee was issued a written reprimand.
• An employee failed to complete their required Reliability Security Status renewal documentation within the designated timeframe, despite multiple reminders. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee with signing authority approved purchases without proper diligence, leading to excess materials being used for personal gain by another employee. Considering mitigating factors, the employee received a written reprimand and was required to undergo mandatory values and ethics training.
• An employee submitted a falsified medical note certifying their fitness to return to work after a period of sick leave. The employee was terminated.
• An employee voluntarily shared confidential and protected information with an unauthorized party, left their GAC SIGNET devices unattended and engaged in disrespectful behaviour toward their manager, which included insinuating they were hired due to being a visible minority. The employee was terminated.
• An employee actively participated in staffing processes that led to the hiring of friends and family without disclosing the conflict of interest. An investigation also revealed that the employee engaged in several other inappropriate actions such as trying to influence the salary negotiating process upon initial appointment of a family member, lying to management, and permitting employees to work remotely contrary to on-site requirements. The employee was terminated.
• An employee in a position of perceived authority did not disclose an intimate relationship with another employee. This omission constituted a breach of the Values and Ethics Code, specifically an employee’s obligation to prevent apparent conflicts of interest. The employee received a temporary suspension.
• A senior executive in one of Canada’s missions abroad misused public funds and directed an employee to commit wrongdoing by asking the employee to alter an invoice and requesting that a non-admissible expense be changed to an admissible expense. The senior executive and their spouse misused public assets by asking mission employees to carry out personal tasks for them, during paid working hours. Also, the senior executive and their spouse made systematic unauthorized personal use of the mission armored vehicle and an official driver while avoiding applicable cost-recovery. The senior executive resigned before the conclusion of the investigation. The senior executive’s performance assessment rating will be reviewed, and a note may be placed on their security file. This act of founded wrongdoing was published on the Government of Canada’s Acts of Founded Wrongdoing web page as per paragraph 11(1)(c) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
• A senior executive in one of Canada’s missions abroad misused public funds by repeatedly claiming amounts exceeding their entitlements in the form of car rentals and taxis for personal use, accommodations, and upgrades to business class flights. The senior executive reimbursed the amount identified during the investigation. The investigation also found that the senior executive did not provide adequate disclosure of their outside activities and assets related to their membership on an external board of directors and did not take appropriate measures to prevent a conflict of interest. The senior executive resigned before the conclusion of the investigation. The senior executive’s performance assessment rating will be reviewed and reassessed in relation to the findings of the investigation. This act of founded wrongdoing was published on the Government of Canada’s Acts of Founded Wrongdoing web page as per paragraph 11(1)(c) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

Undue use of influence or access to resources

• Two employees misused public assets, leveraged their roles for personal gain, and failed to disclose a conflict of interest. The allegations were substantiated, leading to their termination.
• An employee transferred official cellphone data to their personal phone for personal use. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee inappropriately accessed Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s Global Case Management System and took information to advise a relative of their file’s status. Additionally, the employee inquired with a colleague for more information. The employee received a temporary suspension.
• An employee accessed internal protected client files not assigned to them, including their own file, as well as those of a family member and an acquaintance. During the disciplinary process, they provided inconsistent explanations and altered their account of events. The employee was terminated.
• An employee accessed a database system for their personal benefit to consult theirs and their family’s passport information. The employee received a verbal reprimand.
• An employee used their connections with an external stakeholder to request tickets for a professional sports event. The employee received a temporary suspension and was required to undergo Values and Ethics training.
• An employee accessed documentation for personal reasons and purposes other than their intended use. The employee received a written reprimand and was required to undergo values and ethics training.
• After being excluded from an event hosted by an external partner, an executive informed the stakeholder that all collaborations would be suspended and reviewed. The executive received a temporary suspension.

Stewardship of public resources

• Following the discovery of high fuel consumption in the mission vehicles entrusted to them, four employees did not follow standard operating procedures. The employees received a written reprimand.
• Two employees failed to follow standard operating procedures, leading to unauthorized use of mission assets. The employees received a temporary suspension.
• An employee falsified invoices for clothing provided by the mission. The employee was terminated.
• Five employees used an employer-issued key to enter the workplace outside of working hours without prior approval, triggering a security alarm. The employees received a letter of expectation and were required to undergo security training.
• An executive failed to report damage to government property from a parking garage accident, violating departmental rules. Due to their honesty and transparency during the disciplinary process, no further action was taken.

Cases of misconduct and inappropriate behaviour

Cases of misconduct and inappropriate behaviour cover a range of inappropriate behaviours in the workplace, such as theft of time, tardiness, absenteeism, unauthorized leave and/or personal activities during work hours, insubordination, failure to carry out duties or specific tasks, failure to follow instructions, or the misuse of government assets.

Over the 2024-2025 period, 31 cases were deemed founded.

Theft of time, tardiness, absenteeism, unauthorized leave and/or personal activities during work hours

Eight employees were absent without authorization, falsely reported leave during work hours (theft of time), and/or demonstrated tardiness.

In these cases, some employees also failed to comply with management expectations, failed to communicate with management, and/or breached the Values and Ethics Code.

As a result, considering all mitigating and aggravating factors, employees received a range of disciplinary measures including verbal (1) and written (3) reprimands, letters of expectations (5), placement on leave without pay (1), and other administrative measures (1).

Insubordination or failure to carry out duties or specific tasks or to follow instructions.

Twenty-one employees demonstrated insubordination, failed to carry out their duties and specific tasks, and/or did not meet management expectations or instructions. In some circumstances, employees were also unresponsive, and/or demonstrated aggressive, unprofessional, and inappropriate behaviour. Notably, 1 employee failed to comply with the required on-site presence of their remote work agreement by willfully refusing or not coming to work on-site, as directed by their manager.

As a result, and taking into account all mitigating and aggravating factors, a range of disciplinary and administrative measures were imposed. In some cases, multiple disciplinary measures were imposed on the same employee. These measures included verbal (3) and written (17) reprimands, a letter of expectations (1), and mandatory training on values and ethics (7). One employee was terminated, 4 employees received temporary suspensions, and 1 employee resigned before any measures could be applied.

Misuse of government assets

Two employees misused government assets, including for personal benefit.

As a result, considering all mitigating and aggravating factors, these employees received measures that included temporary suspension along with required reimbursement of resources.

Personnel security investigations

Under the responsibility of the Chief Security Officer, the mandate of Personnel Security Services (CSCP) is to conduct security investigations related to security of information, national security, and reliability issues, along with conducting investigations into possible insider threats.

In the 2024-2025 reporting year, CSCP pursued 24 complaints/allegations and launched 13 security investigations. The following four investigations resulted in a Review for Cause of the Reliability Status and were deemed founded. The investigation of an additional case remains ongoing.

• An employee was found to have submitted fraudulent education credentials during the hiring process. Following a review for cause, the allegations were substantiated, leading to the revocation of the employee’s reliability status and their subsequent termination.
• An employee was reported for improperly handling and sharing secret information. A Review for Cause determined that the allegations were founded. Although the reliability status was maintained, the employee was required to undergo security training and management implemented mitigation measures.
• An employee was reported for fraud and subsequently investigated. A Review for Cause was initiated but never completed, as the employee was terminated as a result of a disciplinary measure unrelated to the fraud investigation.
• An employee committed multiple NAUP infractions. Review for Cause determined that the allegations were founded. The employee’s reliability status was revoked, and the employee was terminated.

In reporting year 2024-2025, the conducting of security investigations and interviews has helped Corporate Security (Personnel Security Unit) identify 18 cases of employees who admitted to consuming illegal substances. The Unit has now developed an “obligations letter,” which addresses employees’ obligations for maintaining their security clearances and is now served to all employees granted a security clearance at GAC.

GAC Network Acceptable Use Policy cases

Under the responsibility of the Chief Security Officer, the Corporate Security IT/Cyber Security Unit administers the NAUP. NAUP investigators gather and process electronic information and conduct forensic investigations into the misuse of the department’s electronic network and associated devices and assist with IT forensics of other investigative bodies at GAC.

Violations of the GAC NAUP involve the misuse of the department’s electronic networks and associated devices. This includes using the department’s SIGNET systems or network, including Wi-Fi or departmental smartphones—to conduct activities that could be considered a criminal offence; may impede departmental operations or the delivery of services or lead to data loss; and/or involve processing sensitive or classified information on a system not accredited for that level of information.

Examples of investigations include breach of user data and unauthorized handling of classified information. During reporting year 2024-2025, the Corporate Security IT/Cybersecurity Unit opened one new NAUP investigation. There are three investigations of cases that have carried over from previous reporting years that remain ongoing.

Security infractions

As part of the NAUP infraction program, the Corporate IT Security Unit (CSCI) will send a notice to both the employee who triggered the infraction and to the employee’s manager when an infraction is discovered. The infraction program is proving an effective method of enforcing the NAUP as CSCI is seeing a noticeable decline in infraction numbers from the 2023-2024 to 2024-2025 reporting years.

In reporting year 2024-2025, 25 NAUP infractions were issued; eight infractions were related to the use of unauthorized software on the corporate network (four of the eight unauthorized software infractions related to the use of mouse jigglers); 15 related to the viewing of adult content; one infraction related to improper protection of confidential and protected information during electronic transmission; and one infraction related to unauthorized connection of devices into classified systems.

IT forensic support

The Corporate Security IT/Cybersecurity Unit also provides support to partner investigative bodies within GAC including Fraud, Values and Ethics, and the Labour Relations Centre of Expertise. In 2024-2025, 16 new investigations were started, and nine carried over from the previous reporting year remain ongoing.

External investigations

As part of their mandates, other Canadian entities also undertake their own investigations of the department and/or GAC employees. This section provides information regarding the types of investigations these organizations undertake, as well as a summary of any investigations concerning the alleged misconduct or wrongdoing of a GAC employee or vendor completed in the 2024-2025 reporting year.

Interactions with police services

CSCP acts as the liaison between GAC and Canadian law enforcement agencies. CSCP may refer cases to law enforcement agencies if information uncovered provides reasonable grounds to suspect that a person may pose a serious threat to others or may be involved in fraud or other criminal conduct.

Two cases relating to ongoing criminal investigations carried over from previous years remain outstanding. No referrals were made to Canadian law enforcement in reporting year 2024-2025.

Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner

The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada is an independent federal organization that was established to implement the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. The office investigates wrongdoing in the federal public sector and helps protect whistleblowers from reprisal; those who make a protected disclosure of wrongdoing; and those who participate in investigations.

The office contributes to strengthening accountability and increasing oversight of government operations by:

• providing an independent and confidential process for receiving and investigating disclosures of wrongdoing in, or relating to, the federal public sector from public servants and members of the public
• reporting founded cases of wrongdoing to Parliament and making recommendations to chief executives on corrective measures
• providing a mechanism for handling complaints of reprisal from public servants and former public servants for the purpose of coming to a resolution, including through conciliation and by referring cases to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal

The department is aware of three investigations related to GAC employees initiated by the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, all of which are still ongoing.

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, an individual or group of individuals may submit a human rights complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) related to any action, behaviour, decision or omission of the federal government or a federally regulated organization that they have reasonable grounds to believe resulted in the unfair or negative treatment of a person under prohibited grounds of discrimination, including:

• race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

The CHRC reviews the discrimination complaints and, if necessary, gathers information from the parties to determine the next steps and determine if the complaint will be submitted to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to decide if discrimination has occurred. Please consult the CHRC website for more information on their review process

The Labour Relations Centre of Expertise is responsible for coordinating the departmental response to complaints made to the CHRC against GAC. In reporting year 2024-2025, the CHRC accepted to review two complaints against GAC. No GAC-related decisions from the CHRT were issued in the reporting year 2024-2025.

Employment and Social Development Canada

The Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) Labour Program is responsible for the administration and enforcement of Part II of the Canada Labour Code to ensure occupational health and safety. Health and safety officers conduct inspections and investigations, guided by the policy on workplace health and safety compliance, in applying the Canada Labour Code fairly and consistently.

Inspections and investigations by the ESDC Labour Program may be initiated following a serious injury or fatality, a referred complaint under the internal resolution process (Canada Labour Code subsection 127(8)), a continued work refusal due to danger (subsection 128(16)), or as part of regular audits and reviews.

Employees who believe harassment issues are not being properly addressed can file a complaint with the ESDC Labour Program, which will require the employer to explain the steps they are taking to ensure a safe work environment.

For the reporting year 2024-2025, the department was asked for additional information related to violence and harassment in one case.

• A GAC employee contacted the ESDC Labour Program to file a complaint on the non-compliance with the Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations timeline. As a result, the ESDC Labour Program issued an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (AVC), listing 9 items for action. GAC has responded to the AVC and developed an action plan to respond to the AVC’s action items. The action plan includes a revision of the departmental policy on workplace harassment and violence prevention, training material and the launch of an investigation into the employee’s harassment complaint.

Public Service Commission of Canada

As part of its mandate to oversee the integrity of the staffing system and the political impartiality of the federal public service, the Public Service Commission of Canada investigates concerns relating to specific appointment processes and allegations of improper political activities for organizations that are subject to the Public Service Employment Act. One investigation carried over from the previous reporting year is still ongoing. During the reporting year 2024-2025, there were no founded Public Service Commission of Canada investigations related to GAC.

Conclusion

The 2024-2025 Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing at Global Affairs Canada report is the third installment of this annual publication; it reflects the department’s ongoing commitment to ethical conduct, accountability and transparency.

The report reinforces GAC’s commitment to thoroughly investigate all allegations of misconduct and wrongdoing and take appropriate measures in substantial cases.

By outlining available resources, support services and recourse mechanisms, the report also aims to enhance awareness and empower GAC employees to help create a more respectful, healthy and inclusive work environment.

Beyond its contents, the report serves as a testament to the department’s steadfast adherence to the highest standards of professionalism and ethical conduct, in alignment with the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service, the Values and Ethics Code and the Code of Conduct.

Annex A - Definitions

Annex B – Addressing misconduct and wrongdoing: GAC resources at a glance

All GAC employees have the right and the responsibility to speak up when misconduct or wrongdoing occurs. Any employee—whether in Canada or abroad, Canada-based or locally-engaged, and regardless of employment occupational group or status—can report an issue of concern.

Employees who have experienced, witnessed or been informed of an incident can follow these steps.

STEP 1

Speak with:

• their manager, if it is comfortable to do so
• the Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General as a confidential safe space for employees to raise concerns outside the formal reporting channels

Depending on the issue and the situation, the employee may also want to speak to a union representative, a locally-engaged staff council representative (at mission), the locally-engaged staff engagement officer (at HQ), a mentor and/or a representative of one of GAC’s employee networks.

STEP 2

The following GAC teams can help employees with the initiation of informal and formal mechanisms, including investigations into misconduct and wrongdoing. Contact points vary depending on the issue at stake:

• Harassment and violence: Ethical Conduct and Harassment Prevention Division (HWP) Breach of the Departmental Values and Ethics Code: Values and Ethics Unit (HWPE)
• Public Servants Disclosure Act: Special Investigations and Internal Disclosure Division (VBZ)
• Fraud and financial misconduct: Special Investigations and Internal Disclosure Division (VBZ)
• Personal security: Personnel Security Services (CSCP)
• Network Acceptable Use Policy: Corporate Security IT/Cyber Security Unit (CSCI)

Employees can also directly contact other Government of Canada organizations for the following issues:

• Discrimination: Canadian Human Rights Commission
• Breach of code of conduct and Public Servants Disclosure Act: Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (if you prefer not to engage with GAC’s SOID)
• Occupational health and safety: Employment and Social Development Canada
• Staffing processes: Public Service Commission of Canada

For further information on reporting an incident, employees can visit this Intranet page.

Annex C – Resources, support services and recourse mechanisms for Canada-based employees

Annex C (PDF, 47 KB)

Many resources, support services, and recourse mechanisms that help maintain a respectful, healthy and inclusive work environment are available. The following table presents some of these resources to help employees navigate the system. We encourage employees to use the links and contacts below to find further information.

For most issues, your management team should be your first point of contact.

The Office of the Well-Being Ombud and Inspector General (ZID) is also always available to help you navigate the system and explore your options in a confidential manner.

Collective agreement dispute or work-related issue

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Other advisers (e.g., mentor, manager, or employee networks)
• Union representatives

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• CBS: Grievance

Contact

• Union representatives
• Management team

Possible outcome

• Corrective measures at an individual level
• Requested corrective measures or other measures deemed appropriate

Interpersonal dispute or disagreement

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Other advisers (e.g., mentor, manager, or employee networks)
• Union representatives

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• CBS: Grievance

Contact

• Union representatives
• Management team

Possible outcome

• Requested corrective measures or other measures deemed appropriate

Discrimination

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Other advisers (e.g., mentor, manager, or employee networks)
• Union representatives

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• CBS: Grievance
• Discrimination complaint with Canadian Human Rights Commission

Contact

• Union representatives
• Management team

Possible outcome

• Damages and/or disciplinary process, as appropriate
• Corrective measures at an individual level

Workplace harassment and violence

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Workplace Harassment and Prevention Unit (HWPH)
• Other advisers (e.g., mentor, manager, or employee networks)
• Union representatives

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Investigation
• Notice of occurrence of harassment and violence

Contact

Workplace Harassment and Prevention Unit (HWPH)

Possible outcome

• Damages and/or disciplinary process, as appropriate
• Corrective measures at an organizational level

Conflict of interest

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Values and Ethics Unit (HWPE)
• Union representatives

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Conflict of interest report

Contact

Values and Ethics Unit (HWPE)

Possible outcome

• Measures to mitigate the conflict of interest

Values and ethics code misconduct

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Values and Ethics Unit (HWPE)
• Other advisers (e.g., mentor, manager, or employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Report on misconduct - Investigation

Contact

Values and Ethics Unit (HWPE)

• Union representatives
• Management team (with HWL Support)

Possible outcome

• Corrective measures at an individual level

Wrongdoing

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Special Investigations and Internal Disclosure (VBZ)
• Other advisers (e.g., mentor, manager, or employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Disclosure of wrongdoing - Investigation

Contact

Senior Officer for Internal Disclosure (VBZ)

• Public Sector Integrity Commissioner

Possible outcome

• Administrative and/or disciplinary process, as appropriate
• Corrective measures at an individual and/or organizational level

Financial misconduct

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Special Investigations and Internal Disclosure (VBZ)
• Other advisers (e.g., mentor, manager, or employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Investigation

Contact

Director, Special Investigations and Internal Disclosure Division

Possible outcome

• Administrative and/or disciplinary process, as appropriate
• Recommendations to Management at an organizational level

Personnel security

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Personnel Security Services (CSCP)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Security investigation

Contact

Personnel Security Services (CSCP)

Possible outcome

• Revocation of reliability status or security clearance

Network acceptable use policy

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Corporate IT Security Unit (CSCI)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Security investigation

Contact

• Corporate IT Security Unit (CSCI)

Possible outcome

• Administrative and/or disciplinary process, as appropriate

Refusal to work

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Occupational Health and Safety Team (OHS Team)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Official refusal to work for dangerous work

Contact

• Management team
• OHS Team
• OHS Committee

Possible outcome

• Correction to the exposure to dangerous work
• Involvement of OHS Federal Regulator (ESDC Labour) for their intervention

OHS compensation claim

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Occupational Health and Safety Team (OHS team)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Submit a claim for compensation

Contact

• Management team
• OHS Team

Possible outcome

• Compensation board accepts or refuses the claim
• Employee or employer proceed to appeals process of the compensation board decision

Annex D – Resources, support services and recourse mechanisms for locally-engaged staff

Annex D (PDF, 49 KB)

For most issues, your management team should be your first point of contact.

The Office of the Well-Being Ombud and Inspector General (ZID) is also always available to help you navigate the system and explore your options in a confidential manner.

Terms and conditions of employment or work-related issue

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Other advisers (e.g., mentor, manager, HR section, LES committee member, LES private Teams channel, LES WhatsApp group, employee networks)
• LES communication and engagement officer (HLDS)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• LES Grievances

Contact

• Supervisor / Manager / Head of Mission
• Management team

Possible outcome

• Corrective measures at an individual level
• Requested corrective measures or other measures deemed appropriate

Interpersonal dispute or disagreement

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Other advisers (e.g., mentor, manager, HR section, LES committee member, LES private Teams channel, LES WhatsApp group, employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• LES Grievances

Contact

• Supervisor / Manager / Head of Mission
• Management team

Possible outcome

• Requested corrective measures or other measures deemed appropriate

Discrimination

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Other advisers (e.g., mentor, manager, HR section, LES committee member, LES private Teams channel, LES WhatsApp group, employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• LES Grievances
• Canadian Human Rights Commission (Canadian citizens or permanent residents)

Contact

• Supervisor / Manager / Head of Mission
• Management team

Possible outcome

• Damages and/or disciplinary process, as appropriate
• Corrective measures at an individual level

Workplace harassment and violence

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Workplace Harassment and Prevention Unit (HWPH)
• Other advisers (e.g., mentor, manager, HR section, LES committee member, LES private Teams channel, LES WhatsApp group, employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Investigation
• Notice of occurrence of harassment and violence

Contact

Workplace Harassment and Prevention Unit (HWPH)

Possible outcome

• Damages and/or disciplinary process, as appropriate
• Corrective measures at an organizational level

Conflict of interest

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Values and Ethics Unit (HWPE)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Conflict of interest report

Contact

Values and Ethics Unit (HWPE)

Possible outcome

• Remedies for the conflict of interest

Breach of the code of conduct misconduct

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Values and Ethics Unit (HWPE)
• Other advisers (e.g., mentor, manager, HR section, LES committee member, LES private Teams channel, LES WhatsApp group, employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Report on misconduct - Investigation

Contact

Values and Ethics Unit (HWPE)

Possible outcome

• Corrective measures at an individual and/or organizational level

Breach of the code of conduct wrongdoing

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Special Investigations and Internal Disclosure (VBZ)
• Other advisers (e.g., mentor, manager, HR section, LES committee member, LES private Teams channel, LES WhatsApp group, employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Disclosure of wrongdoing - Investigation

Contact

Senior Officer for Internal Disclosure (VBZ)

• Public Sector Integrity Commissioner

Possible outcome

• Administrative and/or disciplinary process, as appropriate
• Corrective measures at an individual and/or organizational level

Financial misconduct

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Special Investigations and Internal Disclosure (VBZ)
• Other advisers (e.g., mentor, manager, HR section, LES committee member, LES private Teams channel, LES WhatsApp group, employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Investigation

Contact

Director, Special Investigations and Internal Disclosure Division (VBZ)

Possible outcome

• Administrative and/or disciplinary process, as appropriate
• Recommendations to Management at an organizational level

Personnel security

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Readiness & program manager (RPM)
• Readiness manager (RM)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Report to supervisor or RPM/RM

Contact

Management team

• Readiness & program manager (RPM)
• Readiness manager (RM)

Possible outcome

• Administrative and/or disciplinary process, as appropriate
• Recommendations to Management at an organizational level

Network Acceptable Use Policy

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Person at the mission responsible for IT

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Report to person at the mission responsible for IT

Contact

• Person at the mission responsible for IT

Possible outcome

• Revocation of reliability status or security clearance
• Administrative and/or disciplinary process, as appropriate

Refusal to work

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• Occupational Health and Safety Team (OHS Team)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Official refusal to work for dangerous work

Contact

• Management team
• OHS Team
• OHS Committee

Possible outcome

• Correction to the exposure to dangerous work
• Involvement of OHS Federal Regulator (ESDC Labour) for their intervention

OHS Compensation claim

Informal mechanisms and guidance

• Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General
• LES pensions and insurance (HLDP)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Contact HLDP to learn about the compensation methods available to LES

Contact

• Management team
• HLDP

Possible outcome

• Employee or employer proceed to appeals process of the compensation board decision

Annex E – Office of the Ombud and Inspector General services

Our on-demand services

Your gateway to support from the Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General is an email to ombud@international.gc.ca. Our services are offered to all Canada-based staff employee and their dependents and locally engaged staff. We also offer certain services to employees of other government departments working at our missions.

Ombud Services: confidential conversations with the Ombud or Deputy Ombud are your starting point to help you address your situation and navigate the system.

What are Ombud Services: A safe environment where you can discuss your concerns or issues by exploring your options with you. An advisor is available to deal specifically with LES issues.

How does Ombud Services work? When you have a confidential conversation with the Ombud, Deputy Ombud or staff, we

• listen to understand issues from your point of view,
• reframe them to develop potential options for resolution, and
• guide you in dealing directly with other people and improving your skills in addressing concerns including making referrals to other services.

What else can Ombud Services do? We bring issues to the surface and identify opportunities for systemic change within the organisation.

Employer Assistance program (EAP): confidential conversations with our counsellors can help you address various life and work-related issues.

What is EAP? A voluntary and confidential service available to assist individuals in overcoming personal and professional challenges.

How does EAP work? We help people understand their personal situations better. We empower them to seek appropriate help and support.

What else can EAP do? We provide advice to managers on how to handle challenging interpersonal situations at work. We also provide training to all staff on issues related to psychological health.

Informal Conflict Management Services (ICMS): confidential conversations with our practitioners can help manage conflicts and promote positive interactions.

What is ICMS? A voluntary, quick, informal approach to managing and resolving conflicts in the workplace. We assist employees, managers, and teams in overcoming workplace issues and challenges.

How does ICMS work? We provide:

• individual conflict management coaching sessions to receive guidance during your reflections and explore ways for handling conflict situations,
• facilitated discussions/mediations with the goal of improving communication and understanding, and
• customized group interventions with a focus on improving team dynamics and creating a psychologically healthy and safe workplace.

What else can ICMS do? We provide advice to managers on how to handle challenging workplace situations. We also provide training to all staff on issues related to team dynamics and a healthy workplace.