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

Reporting year 2025–2026

ISSN 2819-487X

Table of contents

• Message from the Deputy Ministers
• Introduction
• Internal investigations and reviews
  • Financial mismanagement cases
  • Harassment and violence in the workplace cases
  • Breach of the Values and Ethics Code and Code of Conduct cases
  • Administrative misconduct cases
  • 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 fourth edition of the Annual Report on Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing at Global Affairs Canada. This report reflects our continuing collective commitment to build a workplace culture grounded in respect, trust, transparency and inclusion. At its core, our work aims to ensure that every employee feels valued and supported and that their voices contribute meaningfully to shaping a healthier environment for our organization.

Our collective aspiration remains unchanged: to foster a workplace culture rooted in integrity, honesty, trust, respect and continuous improvement. This commitment is embodied in our new departmental Values and Ethics Code and Code of Conduct. Most employees at Global Affairs Canada (GAC) demonstrate these values every day. Their professionalism, integrity and respect for others are the foundation of a positive workplace culture, and we are grateful for their ongoing commitment. At the same time, we recognize the impact that misconduct and wrongdoing can have on individuals and teams, and we know the importance of strengthening systems to promote accountability and support those affected. Managers play a critical role in this by modelling values and ethics and fostering respectful, safe and inclusive workplaces.

This reporting year unfolded during an important moment of transformation for GAC. Alongside broader culture‑building initiatives—including the GAC Check‑in survey, equity, diversity and inclusion assessments, and ongoing anti‑racism efforts—we also navigated the significant impacts of the Comprehensive Expenditure Review, including the associated adjustments to our workforce. We know these changes have been deeply felt across the department. Many employees have expressed concerns about workload, psychological safety, mental health and the overall well‑being of teams. These experiences underscore how essential it is that we maintain compassion, transparency and fairness, especially in dealing with workplace misconduct and employee support.

The responses to GAC’s three previous reports continue to shape this work. We have heard from employees across the department, as well as from partners in other federal organizations, that these reports contribute to broader conversations about values, ethics and trust in the public service. The steady willingness of employees to come forward with concerns and report potential misconduct and wrongdoing may reflect growing confidence that issues will be taken seriously and addressed appropriately in our department. This reinforces the importance of closely examining our processes and outcomes.

Over the past year, our human resources, corporate security and investigations teams have continued to strengthen how they collaborate to address acts of misconduct and wrongdoing at GAC. We have focused on improving coordination across units, reducing unnecessary delays and enhancing the support for employees and managers during investigative, disciplinary and administrative processes. For instance, we reviewed the policy on departmental harassment and violence prevention to ensure it aligned with legislative requirements and operational best practices. Reinforcing these efforts, we provided clear pathways for employees to raise concerns, including through their managers, the Office of the Well‑being Ombud and Inspector General (Ombud’s office) and the formal disclosure mechanisms outlined in this report and its annexes.

Employee well‑being is a foundational element of this work. The Ombud’s office provides a confidential, impartial space for employees to seek guidance, resolve concerns early and better understand their options. The contributions of this office have been essential in strengthening prevention, informal conflict management and safe avenues for recourse. (More information about the Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General can be found in its second annual report.)

With a focus on continuous improvement, GAC will further examine all investigation‑related processes through lenses of accessibility, diversity and inclusion. This approach ensures that our practices evolve in ways that are not only more effective and timely, but also equitable, consistent and aligned with our shared commitment to a diverse, respectful and supportive workplace. We will also continue to report annually on these matters in line with our commitment to accountability and transparency.

Arun Thangaraj
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs

Glenn Purves
Deputy Minister of International Trade

Cindy Termorshuizen
Deputy Minister of International Development

David Angell
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 cases of misconduct and wrongdoing deemed founded in the department, as well as investigations completed by external bodies, over the reporting year. It covers the fiscal year from April 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026.

This report reflects all cases of misconduct and wrongdoing involving:

• staff based in Canada (at headquarters, regional offices across Canada or missions around the world)
• locally engaged staff working in missions abroad (including those assigned to other government departments)

Despite some similarities across case summaries, each represents a distinct and separate incident. They are not duplicated in the report or across categories. In presenting information, the report respects privacy and confidentiality while ensuring transparency. The report also provides information on the informal and formal means for employees to raise concerns and report issues.

Employee 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. The department:

• comprises over 13,000 employees (more than 8,300 are based in Canada, and about 5,400 are locally engaged in work in 180 missions in 112 different countries around the world)
• provides an international platform for 20 other federal government departments and agencies, 2 Crown corporations and 7 provincial governments working abroad in its missions
• supports 5 foreign governments and 1 international organization in the context of international co-location in Canadian missions

All GAC employees and managers play a part in making our workplace healthy, respectful, safe and free of harassment and discrimination. Employees and managers are also all responsible for following the department’s codes for values and ethics and conduct, which set forth clear expectations for employee behaviour.

Emphasizing respect for others, integrity, stewardship and excellence, the Values and Ethics Code encourages employees to report misconduct or wrongdoing while ensuring that those who do report are protected. GAC’s Code of Conduct sets standards for employee behaviour for all employees, including Canadian representatives abroad and their accompanying dependants.

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. All omplaints will be taken seriously, properly assessed and, if founded, followed up with administrative or disciplinary actions, or both, in a timely fashion.

GAC is fully committed to safeguarding employee privacy and maintaining a workplace free from reprisal. No employee will face retaliation, punishment or adverse consequences for reporting misconduct or wrongdoing.

Addressing misconduct and wrongdoing at Global Affairs Canada

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 in Annex B, along with recourse mechanisms for Canada-based employees in Annex C and for locally engaged staff in Annex D.

Managers are a first point of contact for employees to navigate the process and manage issues. Employees can also reach out to the Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General (Ombud’s office) 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 departmental and Government of Canada policy instruments. These actions include:

• conducting fair and objective investigative processes as needed and as promptly as possible
• taking all measures to protect the confidentiality of the information collected and the privacy of individuals involved
• ensuring procedural fairness

Over the past year, the department has streamlined administrative processes to support timely case management. This included streamlining contracting and security requirements related to harassment and violence in the workplace investigations. The department also implemented the first phase of a centralized case management system to document cases more consistently and track them better.

Future phases will enhance data quality, analytics and reporting capacity, helping us identify potential trends and respond proactively. Looking ahead, we are also exploring the development of a standardized complaint intake model to help employees navigate addressing misconduct and wrongdoing more easily.

For cases of misconduct

When the information initially disclosed is insufficient to make a determination, the department launches an investigative process. This 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.
• A formal investigation may be initiated when the situation is more complex and additional information is required.

For cases of wrongdoing

When a protected disclosure is received, an admissibility analysis, based on legal criteria, is undertaken to determine whether there is a requirement to launch an investigation. Investigations are conducted as informally and promptly as possible, with appropriate rigour throughout the process. Procedures for protected disclosures under the Public Servants Disclosure 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 2025–2026

In reporting year 2025–2026:

• 227 complaints or allegations were brought forward
• 108 investigations were launched

As noted above, not all allegations lead to a formal investigation process. Reasons for this vary and can include early reviews not requiring a formal investigation, complaints being addressed through early fact-finding or informal resolution or not meeting the admissibility criteria.

Of the 108 investigations, 92 were deemed founded, and resulted in the application of administrative or disciplinary measures, or both. These represent 41% of all complaints and 85% of those investigated.

Trend analysis and year-over-year comparison

This section presents a trend analysis and year-over-year comparison of complaints, allegations, investigations and founded cases by examining 2025–2026 findings alongside those from the previous three reporting periods (2022–2023, 2023–2024 and 2024–2025). It identifies recurring issues and emerging patterns, and outlines the departmental measures implemented to strengthen controls, improve accountability and address ongoing challenges.

Financial mismanagement cases

• A steady increase from the year 2022–2023 (1 case) to a peak in 2024–2025 (9 cases) was followed by a decrease in 2025–2026 (5 cases). Cases continue to reflect issues related to fraudulent claims, misappropriation of assets and conflicts of interest. The decrease in 2025–2026 may indicate the positive impact of earlier detection, strengthened controls and preventive measures.

Harassment and violence in the workplace cases

• Case numbers have remained low and generally stable across reporting years, with a dip from the year 2022–2023 (3 cases) to 2023–2024 (2 cases), a rise in 2024–2025 (5 cases) and a decline in 2025–2026 (3 cases). Reported harassment and violence in the workplace cases continued to reflect recurring themes such as sexual harassment, bullying, intimidation, and isolation. Reported cases related to prohibited grounds for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act Overall, a slight decrease in reported cases was accompanied by an increase in file closures through conciliation and preventive investigations. These trends reflect reported cases and may not indicate changes in underlying prevalence.

Breach of Values and Ethics Code

• A strong upward trend from the year 2022–2023 (23 cases) to 2024–2025 (70 cases) was followed by a decrease in 2025–2026 (50 cases). Breach of the Values and Ethics Code remains the largest category of founded cases. Cases commonly involve inappropriate behaviour, integrity violations, misuse of resources and failure to disclose conflicts of interest. The decrease in 2025–2026 may reflect increased awareness, early intervention and improved case management.

Administrative misconduct cases

• An increase from 2022–2023 (23 cases) to 2023–2024 (37 cases) was followed by a gradual decline through 2024–2025 (31 cases) and 2025–2026 (26 cases). Administrative misconduct cases continue to include issues such as absence without authorization, misuse of work hours or assets and insubordination. The downward trend in later years may suggest improved managerial engagement and preventive actions.

GAC Network Acceptable Use Policy (NAUP) violations

• Violations increased between 2022–2023 and 2023–2024 from 2 to 6 cases, then declined to zero in 2024–2025 and remained stable in 2025–2026, reflecting the impact of strengthened awareness and enforcement measures. While overall security infractions decreased sharply from the year 2022–2023 through 2024–2025, a slight increase in 2025–2026 suggests continued enforcement and improved detection or reporting.

Personnel security violations

• A modest increase was observed from 2024–2025 (4 cases) to 2025–2026 (6 cases). Overall, fluctuations remain limited across reporting years, indicating a generally stable trend. Reoccurring concerns include fraudulent disclosures, improper handling of classified information and theft. The increase in 2025–2026 underscores the importance of ongoing vigilance, awareness and adherence to personnel security requirements.

To address ongoing misconduct trends and strengthen accountability across the department, GAC continues to implement a series of targeted, department-wide measures, with a key focus on the revised Values and Ethics Code and Code of Conduct. These measures include:

• increasing internal awareness through an annual recommitment exercise and mandatory periodic training on values, ethics and conflicts of interest, particularly for those in supervisory roles
• enhancing managerial skills, with new programs focused on conflict resolution, effective performance management and fostering psychologically safe workplaces

While the 2025–2026 reporting year saw an increase in complaints or allegations submitted, there was a decrease in the overall number of founded cases resulting in disciplinary or administrative measures. This decline can be attributed to several factors, including:

• early reviews showing some reported concerns did not require a formal investigation
• a greater number of cases being addressed through early fact‑finding or informal resolution
• the completion of several complex investigations arising in the previous reporting year

Table 1: Overview of cases of misconduct and wrongdoing, 2022–2023 to 2025–2026

¹ Investigations initiated are only those investigations begun in that year. Founded cases may have been initiated in a previous year.

Figure 1: Comparison of misconduct and wrongdoing activities, 2022–2023 to 2025–2026

Figure 2: Year-by-year comparison of founded cases by category

Table 2: Outcomes of Investigations by Category, 2025–2026

* Two external investigations were included in the overall 92 counts of complaints, allegations and founded cases. However, these two external investigations were not included in the outcomes of Departmental investigations by category (Table 2) and in the comparison of founded cases by category (Figure 2). For more information, please refer to the External investigations section of this report.

Figure 3: Founded cases 2025–2026

Table 3: Outcome of Investigations and Consequences of Founded Cases, 2025–2026

Note: “Other” includes the following: letters of expectations (6), resignations submitted before disciplinary steps were taken (6) and additional administrative measures (3). In some cases, the same employee faced multiple administrative or disciplinary measures.

Internal investigations and reviews

Financial mismanagement cases

Financial mismanagement cases involve a loss of public funds or Crown property, or both. This may include:

• suspected fraud
• misuse, embezzlement, or theft of government property or funds
• contract or procurement fraud
• contractor misconduct
• 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 2025–2026 reporting year, five financial mismanagement investigations concluded that financial misconduct had occurred at GAC:

• An employee was responsible for cashing a cheque to replenish a cash fund, a task they routinely performed. Upon returning from the bank, a significant amount was found to be missing. An investigation identified procedural negligence, and the employee received a verbal reprimand.
• An employee was found to have engaged in financial misconduct involving the misappropriation of funds. The employee was terminated.
• An employee misappropriated petty cash for personal use. The employee was terminated.
• An employee used a Crown-issued acquisition card assigned to them for personal purchases, resulting in personal financial benefits. The employee resigned before disciplinary action could be initiated. Steps have been initiated to recover the funds.
• An employee submitted falsified receipts to support personal expenditures charged to their Crown-issued acquisition card. The employee left the department before disciplinary action could be initiated. Steps have been initiated to recover the funds.

Harassment and violence in the workplace cases

Cases of harassment and violence in the workplace 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 in the workplace 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.

Complaints about workplace safety fall under the Canada Labour Code. These may lead to recommendations the employer establish and use measures to help protect employees, rather than resulting in disciplinary measures for individuals.

In 2025–2026, the workplace harassment and violence in the workplace functions at GAC were integrated under the Corporate Health Program (HWH) to reinforce a holistic approach to occupational health and safety. This approach recognizes psychosocial risks as occupational hazards requiring systematic prevention and monitoring. For employees, this integration results in earlier risk identification, clearer processes, stronger oversight and more consistent and coordinated support to protect both psychological and physical well-being.

Over the 2025–2026 reporting period, three harassment and violence in the workplace preventive investigations were concluded:

• Three employees raised interrelated allegations of harassment against one another, including intimidation and the use of insulting language. A preventive investigation was conducted under the Canada Labour Code. It determined that the allegations of one of the three employees were founded. It recommended that the department offer training on respectful communication, strengthen informal conflict resolution processes and build skills of its employees to manage difficult and emotional discussions to address issues early and prevent escalation. The department is taking action to respond to these recommendations.
• An employee in a supervisory role was subject to multiple allegations including bullying, criticism and intimidation. A preventive investigation was conducted under the Canada Labour Code. It determined that the allegations were founded and recommended that the department strengthen workplace practices through training on difficult conversations, promoting regular and open communication, ensuring conflicts are addressed promptly and clarifying roles and responsibilities. The department is taking action to respond to these recommendations.
• Two employees filed harassment notices of occurrence against each other, which included allegations of circulating defamatory information and attempting to intimidate each other. A preventive investigation was conducted under the Canada Labour Code. It determined that the allegations were founded and recommended that the department strengthen prevention efforts by offering department-wide conflict management training and ensuring harassment and violence advisers are well supported with clear guidance tools to help direct individuals to appropriate and effective resolution processes. The department is taking action to respond to these recommendations.

Breach of the Values and Ethics Code and Code of Conduct 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
• not disclosing a conflict of interest

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

Over the 2025–2026 reporting period, 50 investigations found that a breach of the Values and Ethics Code or the Code of Conduct had occurred at GAC.

Inappropriate or unprofessional behaviours

• An employee demonstrated inappropriate behaviour by yelling at a colleague. The matter was addressed through a verbal warning, during which expectations were clarified, and the employee was required to apologize to the affected colleague.
• An employee made an inappropriate comment in a WhatsApp group chat about another employee. The matter was addressed through a verbal warning, during which expectations were clarified, and the employee was required to apologize to the affected colleague.
• An employee working at one of Canada’s missions abroad did not fulfill their duty to pick up another colleague at the airport, leaving the colleague in a vulnerable situation at night, resulting in a security breach. The employee subsequently attempted to conceal the incident and mislead management on the failure to perform this duty. In light of previous security infractions and aggravating factors, the employee received a temporary suspension.
• An employee engaged in unacceptable conduct, including inappropriate communication, wilful lack of collaboration, lack of integrity and misuse of social media. The employee received a letter of expectations.
• An employee failed to follow applicable road safety rules while on duty. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee changed clothes in a room that was not designated for changing, causing discomfort among colleagues despite the availability of an appropriate changing facility. The employee received a temporary suspension.
• An employee in a senior role engaged in inappropriate conduct by improperly using their position of authority in interactions with subordinate staff. The issue was handled using established administrative procedures, complemented by informal conflict resolution measures.
• An employee demonstrated a pattern of lateness and other behavioural concerns, including the use of a derogatory tone in meetings with colleagues and failure to adhere to management direction. As the employee had no prior disciplinary history, the employee received a letter of expectations.
• An employee engaged in inappropriate behaviour by throwing an object at a colleague. The employee was terminated.
• An employee was subject to multiple allegations, including theft of time, misuse and waste of Government of Canada property and resources, and failure to respond to management taskings. An investigation was initiated after which the employee elected to resign.
• An employee engaged in inappropriate conduct, including making inappropriate sexist comments to hotel staff and failing to follow management instructions. Due to aggravating factors, the employee was terminated.
• An employee was engaged in spreading rumours about colleagues and managers, making vulgar and sexually inappropriate jokes and remarks, directing sexual suggestions toward colleagues and making discriminatory comments. The employee did not acknowledge the behaviour or demonstrate remorse and continued to exhibit similar conduct during the fact-finding and disciplinary process. The employee subsequently elected to resign.
• Two employees engaged in an altercation with a colleague in the workplace, causing physical injuries. The two employees were terminated.
• An employee exhibited inappropriate behaviour toward female colleagues, including giving unsolicited gifts, asking unnecessary personal questions, and conducting unnecessary one‑on‑one interactions in boardrooms. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee engaged in inappropriate behaviour toward a colleague, including violent conduct and verbal threats. The employee received a temporary suspension.
• An employee repeatedly failed to comply with the established dress code despite several discussions and prior warnings. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee used disrespectful and derogatory language toward colleagues during their year-end performance review discussion. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee engaged in two incidents of disruptive workplace behaviour, including raising their voice, using inappropriate language, throwing objects in their office and making hostile gestures directed at team members. The employee received a temporary suspension.
• An employee made a hand gesture that could be perceived as threatening or intimidating toward a colleague. The employee proceeded on approved leave before the process could be concluded. The investigation concluded during the employee's leave and the disciplinary process is ongoing. Appropriate measures will be determined.
• An employee engaged in inappropriate behaviour, including raising their voice, making threatening remarks and using rude or unprofessional language. This occurred in discussions directly with other individuals or indirectly in comments about colleagues, government partners and external stakeholders. The employee also made disparaging, inappropriate and inaccurate comments to third parties concerning political, commercial and other regional matters. The disciplinary process is ongoing, and appropriate measures will be determined.
• An employee engaged in inappropriate and unprofessional communications with their employee using an emotionally charged tone, inappropriate language and comments characterized as disparaging or derogatory about others. The employee left the department before any corrective measures could be applied.

Breach of integrity

• An employee failed to provide the required information for their security screening renewal after many reminder attempts. The employee received a verbal reprimand.
• An employee provided inaccurate information regarding their work experience in an internal staffing application. The employee received a written reprimand.
• Several allegations were raised against an employee concerning potential misconduct and a possible conflict of interest. One allegation related to the employee directing partners to engage with a company without following established processes. A fact-finding investigation determined that this allegation was partially founded. As a result, the employee received a letter of expectations and was required to complete mandatory training and coaching on roles and responsibilities and workplace communications.
• An employee failed to complete mandatory security documentation despite repeated reminders. The employee received a verbal reprimand.
• An employee engaged in unacceptable conduct, including inappropriate communication, wilful lack of collaboration, lack of integrity and misuse of social media. Considering the employee’s prior disciplinary history, progressive discipline was applied, and the employee received a temporary suspension.
• An employee used accumulated reward points and discounts from their manager’s personal reward points card to purchase items. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee falsified travel claims and overtime submissions. The employee was terminated.
• An employee provided access to mission property to two unregistered individuals. The employee received a written reprimand.
• While acting in a managerial capacity, an employee engaged in conduct that was condescending and demoralizing toward staff. This included deleting employees’ work, speaking with a raised voice, questioning employees’ work ethic, directing employees not to complete mandatory training, threatening to initiate unfounded disciplinary action, making last-minute demands and sharing inaccurate information that negatively affected others’ performance. The employee was terminated.
• An employee falsified a medical note to obtain leave to pursue their education. The case was resolved, resulting in the end of the employment relationship.
• An employee exerted pressure on a colleague to review specific cases without disclosing a conflict of interest. It was subsequently determined that one of the cases involved a family member of the employee. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee sought employment‑related information about a colleague’s spouse without authorization. The employee received a temporary suspension.
• An employee used their supervisor’s Crown-issued acquisition card to make purchases for personal gain. A fact-finding investigation determined that the conduct involved misrepresentation and identity misuse. The employee was terminated.
• An employee’s allegations were reviewed through a fact‑finding investigation and determined to be unsubstantiated. Following this outcome, the employee sent emails criticizing the handling of their case and disclosed confidential information to unauthorized recipients. As a result, the employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee directed junior staff on multiple occasions to alter official approval of documents by copying and pasting digital signatures of delegated authorities onto revised versions. The employee also engaged in a pattern of inappropriate interactions with junior staff, including after-hours work demands and prolonged late-night meetings. Separately, the employee facilitated the sale and delivery of cosmetic products from a family member to a junior staff in the workplace, creating an apparent conflict of interest. The employee was terminated.
• An employee in one of Canada's missions abroad demonstrated inappropriate behaviours toward staff and colleagues, including making sexist comments and aggressively confronting employees. The employee also misused public funds and assets by submitting falsified expense documentation, inaccurately reporting the presence of a local contact at an event and directing staff to perform personal tasks for them during working hours. It was recommended that the department conduct a disciplinary process to address the findings of wrongdoing and take appropriate administrative measure, including the review and reassessment of the employee’s performance assessment rating. It was also recommended that the department identify training related to diversity and gender equality for the employee to undertake, and that the employee’s delegation of financial authority be suspended until they revalidate their knowledge of the delegation of authorities. Finally, it was recommended that relevant information be shared with the Security and Readiness Bureau to determine whether the employee’s security clearance should be reviewed. These acts of founded wrongdoing were 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.
• An executive in one of Canada's missions abroad repeatedly and systemically used their administrative assistant to schedule medical appointments and liaise with various medical clinics, as well as book other leisure activities. The executive also routinely used the mission vehicle and drivers to attend medical appointments and other personal errands. The executive resigned before the conclusion of the investigation. It was recommended that the department conduct a disciplinary process to address the findings of wrongdoing and take appropriate administrative measure including the review and reassessment of the executive's performance assessment rating. It was 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.

Undue use of influence or access to resources

• An employee engaged in excessive use of printing resources, theft of time and use of workplace IT systems for personal activities. The employee was terminated.
• An employee solicited money from a vendor for personal reasons, creating a potential conflict of interest. Mitigating factors were considered, including the cultural context, in which such solicitation may be viewed as acceptable; the employee’s admission of the behaviour and the significant delay (one year) between the incident and the conclusion of the fact-finding process. As a result, management decided not to pursue disciplinary action. The employee received a letter of expectations and was required to undergo mandatory training.
• Three employees exploited their employment status to engage in serious unlawful activities of a potentially criminal nature. All three employees were terminated.
• An employee failed to disclose being involved in an accident with a departmental motor vehicle and having the vehicle repaired at an unauthorized garage. During the investigation, the employee provided false information on the matter. The employee was terminated.
• Two employees accessed client files without proper authorization, which altered an established process and compromised the authenticity of official documentation. The employees were terminated.
• An employee approved an application without identifying a potential risk that could have posed a public safety concern. The employee was terminated.

Stewardship of public resources

• An employee used their supervisor’s Crown-issued tax exemption card to make purchases for personal gain. A fact-finding investigation determined that the conduct involved misrepresentation and identity misuse. The employee was terminated.
• An employee negligently left a safe unsecured and unattended, resulting in the theft of funds. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee submitted a travel expense reimbursement request that did not comply with established procedures. As this was the employee’s first incident of this nature, the employee received a letter of expectations.

Administrative misconduct cases

Administrative misconduct cases cover a range of inappropriate behaviours in the workplace, such as theft of time, tardiness, absenteeism, unauthorized leave 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 2025–2026 period, 26 cases were deemed founded.

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

Seventeen employees were absent without authorization, falsely reported leave during work hours (theft of time) or demonstrated tardiness. In these cases, some employees also failed to comply with management expectations, failed to communicate with management 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 (6) reprimands
• letters of expectations (2)
• temporary suspensions (6)
• termination (1)

One employee resigned before any measures could be applied.

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

Six employees demonstrated insubordination, failed to carry out their duties and specific tasks or did not meet management expectations or instructions. In some circumstances, employees were also unresponsive or demonstrated aggressive, unprofessional and inappropriate behaviour.

As a result, and taking into account all mitigating and aggravating factors, employees received a range of disciplinary measures. In some cases, multiple disciplinary measures were imposed on the same employee.

These measures included:

• written reprimands (2)
• temporary suspensions (2)
• termination (1)

One employee resigned before any measures could be applied.

Misuse of government assets

Two employees misused government assets such as Crown-issued credit cards, including for personal benefit. As a result, considering all mitigating and aggravating factors, these employees received measures that included a written reprimand and a temporary suspension, as this constituted misconduct.

Personnel security investigations

Under the responsibility of the chief security officer, the mandate of Corporate Security’s Personnel Security and Contracting Unit (CSCP) is to conduct security investigations related to security of information, national security and reliability issues. The unit also conducts investigations into possible insider threats.

In the 2025–2026 reporting year, the CSCP formally opened 53 files related to personnel security. The CSCP receives and reviews a substantially higher volume of reportings than those formally opened. All reportings require initial assessment, including appropriate checks and verifications, but many do not meet the threshold for creating a case file. These are assessed as non-actionable or outside the CSCP’s mandate. The CSCP invests significant time and resources reviewing and settling these reports.

In the 2025–2026 reporting year, the CSCP pursued 22 complaints or allegations of misconduct and wrongdoing and launched 12 new security investigations. Six investigations remain ongoing, including one case from a previous reporting year.

CSCP concluded the following six investigations, deeming the allegations founded. They all resulted in a review for cause of the reliability status of the employees:

• An employee was arrested for theft. A review for cause investigation led to revocation of the employee’s reliability status and their administrative termination.
• A report was received from a partner department that an employee was in contact inappropriately with foreign government officials. A review for cause investigation led to the revocation of the employee’s reliability status and their administrative termination.
• An employee bypassed security measures and allowed unidentified individuals inside an operational zone. A review for cause investigation was completed, and the reliability status of the employee was maintained. The employee was mandated to recomplete security training and a note was placed on their security file.
• An employee kept and accessed GAC assets after their termination and downloaded files from shared drives. A review for cause investigation concluded that the allegations were founded. Since the individual had moved to another department, the investigation results were shared between chief security officers.
• An employee downloaded program files from the shared drive to a non-approved device without authorization and notification. Investigations uncovered that the allegations were founded but without nefarious intentions.
• An employee travelled to a country of concern and continued to work remotely without authorization from their management or departmental security authorities. A review for cause investigation led to the revocation of the employee’s reliability status and their employment was terminated.

Interactions with other government departments working with or in GAC-controlled spaces

The CSCP acts as facilitator for other government departments (OGDs) conducting security investigations on their own employees working with or in spaces controlled by GAC. The CSCP may advise, assist or participate in OGD investigations. It is currently leading discussions with OGDs on standardizing procedures to communicate these matters between departments.

GAC Network Acceptable Use Policy cases

Under the responsibility of the chief security officer, the Corporate Security IT/Cyber Security Unit administers the Network Acceptable Use Policy (NAUP). NAUP investigators gather and process electronic information and conduct forensic investigations into the misuse of the department’s electronic network and associated devices. It also assists 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
• may lead to data loss
• involve processing sensitive or classified information on a system not accredited for that level of information

During the reporting year 2025–2026, the Corporate Security IT/Cybersecurity unit:

• opened five new NAUP investigations
• carried over two investigations from 2024–2025 and one from a previous reporting year

Examples of investigations include breach of user data, inappropriate usage of a corporate asset and unauthorized handling of classified information.

Security infractions

As part of the Security 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. The CSCI saw a slight increase in infraction numbers from the 2024–2025 to 2025–2026 reporting years.

In reporting year 2025–2026, 39 NAUP infractions were issued. These related to:

• the use of unauthorized software on the corporate network (29)
• the viewing of adult content (8)
• the improper protection of confidential and protected information during electronic transmission and users exposing sensitive passwords (2)

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 the 2025–2026 reporting year:

• 20 new investigations were started
• carried over 14 investigations from 2024–2025

External investigations

As part of their mandates, other Canadian entities also undertake their own investigations of the department or GAC employees, or both. This section provides information on the types of investigations these organizations undertake. It also summarizes investigations concerning the alleged misconduct or wrongdoing of a GAC employee or vendor completed in the 2025–2026 reporting year.

Interactions with Canadian law enforcement agencies

The CSCP acts as the liaison between GAC and Canadian law enforcement agencies. In accordance with GAC’s authorities, CSCP may refer suspected criminal activity to law enforcement agencies and provide support to these agencies as required.  

There have been no instances in the 2025-2026 reporting year where CSCP referred a case to a Canadian law enforcement agency. In addition, two cases remain outstanding relating to ongoing criminal investigations carried over from previous years.

Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner

The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada is an independent federal organization that reports to Parliament and was established to implement the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. The office investigates wrongdoing in the federal public sector and helps protect the following from reprisal:

• whistleblowers
• those who make a protected disclosure of wrongdoing
• those who participate in investigations

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

• providing an independent and confidential process to receive and investigate 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 on corrective measures to chief executives
• providing a mechanism to resolve complaints of reprisal from public servants and former public servants, including through conciliation and by referring cases to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal

For the 2025–2026 reporting year, the department was aware of five investigations involving GAC employees initiated by the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. Of these, two were launched during this reporting period and three were carried over from previous years.

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.

These grounds include 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.

Once a complaint is submitted, the CHRC will review it and, if necessary, gather information from the parties to determine the next steps, including whether a complaint will be referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT). The CHRT is an independent tribunal that determines if discrimination has occurred. For more information on their respective roles and processes, please consult the CHRC and CHRT websites for more information.

The Labour Relations Centre of Expertise is responsible for coordinating the departmental response to complaints filed with the CHRC against GAC. In the 2025–2026 reporting year, the CHRC accepted two complaints for review. During the reporting period, one complaint was withdrawn, and no decisions were issued by the CHRT in relation to complaints against GAC.

Employment and Social Development Canada

The Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) Labour Program administers and enforces 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.

The ESDC Labour Program may only initiate inspections and investigations following a serious injury or fatality, a referred complaint under the internal resolution process, a continued work refusal due to danger, or as part of regular audits and reviews. If an employee believes the employer is not meeting its obligations under the code and the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations, they may contact the ESDC Labour Program. The program can review the employer’s compliance with the required prevention and resolution processes.

For the reporting year 2025–2026, GAC was issued two assurances of voluntary compliance (AVCs) and one direction related to violence and harassment.

• In June 2025, the ESDC Labour Program issued an AVC identifying a breach related to delays in addressing a notice of occurrence under the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations. The notice originated in July 2024. The employee had been in touch with the Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General. The Ethical Conduct and Harassment Prevention Division, which is the designated recipient for GAC, did not receive the notice. Following receipt of the AVC, the department complied with the required actions, contacted the employee and investigated in accordance with the regulations. The ESDC subsequently confirmed that the AVC was addressed and closed.
• In September 2025, the ESDC Labour Program issued an AVC and, subsequently, a direction after determining that the workplace harassment and violence resolution process was not completed within the one-year regulatory time frame. The department responded formally, outlining corrective actions taken to address the noncompliance and measures implemented to prevent recurrence, in accordance with legislative requirements. The ESDC has not yet issued its final determination on this matter.

Public Service Commission of Canada

The mandate of the Public Service Commission of Canada is to oversee the integrity of the staffing system and the political impartiality of the federal public service. As part of this, it investigates concerns about specific appointment processes and allegations of improper political activities for organizations subject to the Public Service Employment Act.

During the reporting year 2025–2026, one Public Service Commission investigation related to GAC from a previous year was deemed founded.

• An employee failed to follow the instructions during the interview portion of a selection staffing process. The employee was required to have a conversation with their director general, to notify the Public Service Commissioner before accepting an appointment in the public service for a one-year period and to complete further values and ethics training.

Conclusion

Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing at Global Affairs Canada 2025–2026 is the fourth installment of this annual report. It reflects GAC’s ongoing commitment to ethical conduct, accountability and transparency.

The report reinforces the department’s commitment to thoroughly investigate all allegations of misconduct and wrongdoing and to 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. In this way, it helps to 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 addressing wrongdoing and misconduct to ensure the highest standards of professionalism and ethical conduct, in alignment with the departmental Values and Ethics Code and the Code of Conduct.

Annex A – Definitions

Term

Definition

Administrative investigation

The gathering and analysis of information related to an incident of alleged misconduct. Information is used to address any risk of harm and prevent future occurrences.

Administrative measures

Measures that may be taken to make the necessary adjustments to a situation. Some situations may require the application of one or several administrative measures. In some instances, it may be determined that an administrative measure is sufficient to address the situation.

Administrative measures may include placing an employee on administrative leave without pay, temporarily removing a human resources delegation and/or a financial delegation, or other measures as appropriate and depending on the situation.

Administrative measures can also be used to provide tools to the employee with a view to ensuring the misconduct does not happen again. For example, providing a letter of expectations, developing an action plan for them to change their behaviour, providing training or coaching, or scheduling regular meetings with management.

Conflict of interest

Any situation where public servants have private interests that could improperly influence the performance of their official duties and responsibilities or where public servants use their offices for personal gain.

A conflict of interest may be:

• real (existing at the present time)
• apparent (perceived by a reasonable observer to exist, whether or not that is the case)
• potential (reasonably foreseen to exist in the future)

Disciplinary process

A structured process to deal with employees who have violated departmental processes or policies. It involves a series of steps.

Disciplinary measures

Formal measures that seek to correct behaviours and are generally progressive, increasing in severity with successive acts of misconduct. To determine the appropriate measure, a manager must consider all aggravating and extenuating circumstances. In some cases, the misconduct may be sufficiently serious to warrant severe action even on a first offence. Disciplinary measures range from verbal reprimands, written reprimands, suspensions without pay, financial penalties, demotion, up to termination of employment. Disciplinary measures may be subject to grievances.

Discrimination

Any action or decision that results in the unfair or negative treatment of a person under prohibited grounds of discrimination such as 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.

Fact-finding exercise

A limited scope assessment to identify the issue and clarify relevant facts. It involves gathering information before deciding whether to proceed with a full-scale investigation.

Founded case

An allegation of misconduct or wrongdoing that has been substantiated through thorough investigation and evidence.

Grievance

A written complaint that may be filed by an individual on their own behalf, by a bargaining agent representative on behalf of a group of individuals or, in the case of a grievance related to a human resources policy, by a bargaining agent or an employer.

Misconduct

Any action whereby an individual wilfully contravenes an act, a regulation, a rule, a departmental or Treasury Board policy instrument, an approved procedure, a departmental code of conduct or the Values and Ethics Code: in short, when an employee contravenes any of the obligations they agree to abide by when becoming a public servant. Examples of misconduct may include absence from work without authorization, insubordination and tardiness.

Preliminary assessment

A limited scope assessment designed to help identify potential issues and scope of work to determine if there requires a further in-depth investigation.

Preventive investigation 

An investigation undertaken to identify risks, patterns or contributing factors related to workplace harassment and violence, with the purpose of preventing future occurrences rather than resolving specific allegations raised in a notice of occurrence. A principal party will request a preventive investigation once all other reasonable efforts and resolution options have been examined and exhausted. The investigation report includes a general description of the occurrence(s), conclusions (including those related to circumstances that contributed to the occurrence) and recommendations to eliminate or minimize future risk or recurrence.

Workplace harassment and violence 

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 (Canada Labour Code, Part II). 

Wrongdoing

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act defines wrongdoings as one or more of the following:

• a) a contravention of any Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, or of any regulations made under any such Act, other than a contravention of section 19 of this Act;
• b) a misuse of public funds or a public asset;
• c) a gross mismanagement in the public sector;
• d ) an act or omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life, health or safety of persons, or to the environment, other than a danger that is inherent in the performance of the duties or functions of a public servant;
• e) a serious breach of a code of conduct established under section 5 or 6; and
• f)  knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit a wrongdoing set out in any of the paragraphs (a) to (e).

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, and any related questions, as well as examination of systemic causes and recommendations for preventive actions. Contact points vary depending on the issue at stake:

• Harassment and violence: Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Unit (HWPH)
• Values and Ethics Code: Values and Ethics Unit (HWPE)
• Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act: Special Investigations and Internal Disclosure Division (VBZ)
• Fraud and financial misconduct: Special Investigations and Internal Disclosure Division (VBZ)
• Personnel security: Personnel Security and Contracting Unit (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 Protection 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 GAC’s Intranet page on Reporting an Incident.

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

Information and guidance

• Union representatives
• Other advisers (for example, mentor, manager, and employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Grievance or complaint

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

Information and guidance

• Union representatives
• Other advisers (for example, mentor, manager, and employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Grievance or complaint

Contact

• Union representatives
• Management team

Possible outcome

• Requested corrective measures or other measures deemed appropriate

Discrimination

Information and guidance

• Union representatives
• Other advisers (for example, mentor, manager, and employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Grievance or complaint
• Discrimination complaint with the 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

Information and guidance

• Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Unit (HWPH)
• Union representatives
• Other advisers (for example, mentor, manager, and employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Investigation
• Notice of occurrence of harassment and violence

Contact

• HWPH

Possible outcome

• Preventative measures at an organizational level

Conflict of interest

Information and guidance

• Values and Ethics Unit (HWPE)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Conflict of interest report

Contact

• HWPE

Possible outcome

• Measures to mitigate the conflict of interest

Values and Ethics Code misconduct and other misconduct

Information and guidance

• Values and Ethics Unit (HWPE)
• Other advisers (for example, mentor, manager, and employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Complaint to management team (Administrative investigation, fact findings and other mechanisms (with Labour Relations support))

Contact

• Union representatives
• Management team (with Labour Relations support)

Possible outcome

• Corrective measures at an individual level

Wrongdoing

Information and guidance

• Special Investigations and Internal Disclosure (VBZ)
• Other advisers (for example, mentor, manager, and 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 measure and/or disciplinary process, as appropriate
• Corrective measures at an individual and/or organizational level

Financial misconduct

Information and guidance

• Special investigations and internal disclosure (VBZ)
• Other advisers (for example, mentor, manager, and employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Investigation

Contact

• VBZ

Possible outcome

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

Personnel Security

Information and guidance

• Personnel Security and Contracting Unit (CSCP)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Security investigation

Contact

• CSCP

Possible outcome

• Revocation of reliability status or security clearance

Improper use of the internet

Information and guidance

• Corporate Information Technology (IT) Security Unit (CSCI)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Security investigation

Contact

• CSCI

Possible outcome

• Administrative measure and/or disciplinary process, as appropriate

Refusal to work

Information and guidance

• Corporate Health Programs (HWH) - Occupational Health and Safety Team (OHS) Team

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Official refusal to work for dangerous work under Part II of the Canada Labour Code

Contact

• Management team (with HWH support)

Possible outcome

• Immediate investigation by the manager and implementation of corrective actions to protect employees if it is agreed that a danger exists
• Continued refusal referred to the workplace occupational health and safety (OHS) committee and/or federal regulator (Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) Labour Program) for their intervention

Internal complaint resolution

Information and guidance

• Corporate Health Programs (HWH) - Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) team

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Official complaint made under Part II of the Canada Labour Code

Contact

• Management team (with HWH support)

Possible outcome

• Collaborative resolution between the manager and the employee to address the issue
• Unresolved complaint referred to the workplace OHS committee and/or Federal Regulator (ESDC Labour Program) for their intervention

Workers’ compensation claim

Information and guidance

• Corporate Health Programs (HWH) - Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) team

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Submission of a compensation claim for work-related injuries or illnesses

Contact

• Management team (with HWH support)

Possible outcome

• Workers’ compensation board (WCB) accepts or refuses the claim
• The employee receives allowed benefits if the claim is accepted by the WCB
• Employee or employer proceed to appeals process of the WCB decision

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

Annex D (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.

Terms and conditions of employment or work-related issue

Information and guidance

• Local mission and others (for example, mentor, manager, human resources (HR) section, locally engaged staff (LES) committee member, LES private Teams channels, LES WhatsApp groups, employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• LES grievance

Contact

• Supervisor/manager/head of mission/mission consular officer

Possible outcome

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

Interpersonal dispute or disagreement

Information and guidance

• Local mission and others (for example, mentor, manager, human resources (HR) section, locally engaged staff (LES) committee member, LES private Teams channels, LES WhatsApp groups, employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Complaint

Contact

• Supervisor/manager/head of mission/mission consular officer

Possible outcome

• Interpersonal or relational change

Discrimination

Information and guidance

• Local mission and others (for example, mentor, manager, human resources (HR) section, locally engaged staff (LES) committee member, LES private Teams channels, LES WhatsApp groups, employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Complaint process as per applicable jurisdiction

Contact

• Supervisor/manager/head of mission/mission consular officer

Possible outcome

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

Workplace harassment and violence

Information and guidance

• Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Unit (HWPH)
• Local mission and others (for example, mentor, manager, human resources (HR) section, locally engaged staff (LES) committee member, LES private Teams channels, LES WhatsApp groups, employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Notice of occurrence of harassment and violence

Contact

• HWPH

Possible outcome

• Preventative measures at an organizational level

Conflict of interest

Information and guidance

• Values and Ethics Unit (HWPE)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Conflict of interest report

Contact

• HWPE

Possible outcome

• Measures to mitigate the conflict of interest

Breach of the code of conduct misconduct

Information and guidance

• Values and Ethics Unit (HWPE)
• Others (for example, mentor, manager, HR section, LES committee member, LES private Teams channels, LES WhatsApp groups, employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Complaint to mission management team
• (Administrative investigation, fact-findings and other mechanisms)

Contact

• Management team

Possible outcome

• Corrective measures at an individual and/or organizational level

Wrongdoing

Information and guidance

• Special Investigations and Internal Disclosure Division (VBZ)
• Others (for example, mentor, manager, HR section, LES committee member, LES private Teams channels, LES WhatsApp groups, 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 measure and/or disciplinary process, as appropriate
• Corrective measures at an individual and/or organizational level

Financial misconduct

Information and guidance

• Special investigations and internal disclosure (VBZ)
• Others (for example, mentor, manager, HR section, LES committee member, LES private Teams channels, LES WhatsApp groups, employee networks)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Investigation

Contact

• VBZ

Possible outcome

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

Personnel security

Information and guidance

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

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Report to supervisor, RPM or RM

Contact

• Management team
• RPM
• RM

Possible outcome

• Revocation of reliability status or security clearance

Improper use of the internet

Information and guidance

• Person at the mission responsible for information technology (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

• Administrative measure and/or disciplinary process, as appropriate

Refusal to work

Information and guidance

• Corporate Health Programs (HWH) - Occupational Health and Safety Team (OHS) Team as well as local mission HR team

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Official refusal to work for dangerous work under Part II of the Canada Labour Code and other recourses available per applicable jurisdiction

Contact

• Management team (with HWH support)

Possible outcome

• Immediate investigation by the manager and implementation of corrective actions to protect employees if it is agreed that a danger exists
• Continued refusal referred to the workplace OHS committee and/or federal regulator (Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) Labour Program) for their intervention or dealt with as per the applicable process in the local jurisdiction

Internal complaint resolution

Information and guidance

• Corporate Health Programs (HWH) - Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) team

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Official complaint made under Part II of the Canada Labour Code and other recourses available per applicable jurisdiction

Contact

• Management team (with HWH support)

Possible outcome

• Collaborative resolution between the manager and the employee to address the issue
• Unresolved complaint referred to the workplace OHS committee and/or federal regulator (ESDC Labour Program) for their intervention or dealt with as per the applicable process in the local jurisdiction

Workers’ compensation claim

Information and guidance

• LES pensions and insurance (HLDP)

Formal mechanism or investigation

Mechanism

• Submission of a worker’s compensation claim for work-related injuries or illnesses via local mission

Contact

• Management team (with HLDP)

Possible outcome

• LES pensions and insurance (HLDP)

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 adviser 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 organization.

Employee Assistance program (EAP)

Confidential conversations with our counsellors can help you address various life and work-related issues.

What is EAP?

A voluntary, confidential, short-term counselling service available to provide 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.