Breaches of the Code of Conduct

Breaching the Code of Conduct can lead to serious consequences. The following are examples of real and founded cases where a breach of the Code of Conduct occurred and disciplinary, administrative or corrective measures were implemented. Each breach is categorized by the 5 Values of the Public Sector: Respect for Democracy, Respect for People, Integrity, Stewardship, and Excellence.

Breach of the value of Respect for Democracy

  • Case: Employee solicited support for their candidacy in the workplace (PSC)

    Issue: The purpose of the investigation was to determine whether an employee complied with the conditions of the permission they received from the Commission to seek nomination and to become a candidate in a federal election. The concern raised was that the employee solicited support for their candidacy by distributing candidacy cards and promoting elements of their campaign platform in the workplace.

    Conclusions: The investigation determined that the employee had not complied with the conditions of the permission granted by the Commission when they carried out various activities in the workplace, which included distributing candidacy cards containing a distinct political view to colleagues and asking those colleagues to support the campaign. The employee had not advised the Public Service Commission (PSC) of these activities.

    Corrective action: The Commission ordered that a letter be sent to the employee informing them that they had not complied with section 114 of the Act, and that a copy of this letter be sent to the deputy head of the employee's organization to be kept on the employee's record for 2 years, that the employee complete an integrity and professional conduct course, to be followed by a discussion with their departmental designated political activities representative, and that the employee become familiar with the suite of tools available in the Political Activities section of the Public Service Commission of Canada's website within 2 months of the decision, and inform the Investigations Branch once this has been completed.

    Breach: The investigation concluded that the employee did not respect the conditions of the permission granted when they carried out these activities and failed to inform the Commission. Accordingly, the employee did not comply with section 114 of the Act.

    Read more on the Employee solicited support for their candidacy in the workplace (PSC) case.

  • Case: Shaw v. Deputy Head (HRSD)

    Issue: The grievor and complainant, as a result of comments made during a speech before a meeting of community organizations, was suspended for 10 days – his remarks were critical of the changes made in the manner in which services were now being delivered, and were made at a public meeting attended by both recipients and providers of services in programs for which the Department was responsible – he grieved the suspension and filed an unfair labour practice complaint – he was the local president for the Canada Employment and Immigration Union (CEIU), which bargaining agent represents the employees in the workplace, and he attended the meeting in his capacity as a representative of the CEIU – the CEIU had responded vigorously to the employer’s contracting out of work previously performed by members in the bargaining unit, and the grievor and complainant had been one of the key organizers of the CEIU campaign that had tried to draw public attention to the implications of these cuts in government services – the director felt that the grievor and complainant’s statements had the capacity to undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the Department, were disrespectful and hurtful to managers, and conveyed a political viewpoint on issues about which the grievor and complainant was obliged to maintain public neutrality – bargaining agent representatives should not be subject to discipline unless they make statements that are malicious or knowingly or recklessly false – those who speak for the bargaining agent must be able to raise questions about decisions made by the employer, and must be able to challenge the wisdom and legitimacy of those decisions – this licence to criticize applies equally to elected officers who are employees of the employer and serve in a voluntary capacity and to representatives who work full time for the bargaining agent – the greater latitude given to bargaining agent representatives does not only apply to bargaining agent activity in a narrow sense – the issues canvassed during the meeting were within the scope of the collective bargaining relationship – the employer failed to show that the statements were malicious or knowingly or recklessly false – the discipline was not warranted – a discipline that singles out people for having exercised their rights under the Public Service Labour Relations Act (‘’the Act’’) constitutes interference with union representation – the employer did not meet the reverse onus imposed by subsection 191(3) of the Act of showing that no failure to observe the requirements of the statute occurred – the employer committed an unfair labour practice in imposing discipline.

    Breach: Unfair labour practice against public criticism

    Corrective Action: Grievance allowed, employee compensated for wages and benefits lost due to the suspension

  • Case: Political activities without permission (Statistics Canada)

    Issue: The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether an employee engaged in improper political activity by campaigning as a prospective political candidate in a federal election, before obtaining permission from the Public Service Commission (PSC) to do so.

    Conclusions: The evidence demonstrates that the employee breached subsections 114(1) and (3) of the Act by seeking nomination as, and becoming, a candidate in the federal election for the district, before obtaining from the Commission permission and a LWOP to do so.

    Corrective action: The Commission ordered that:

    • Within one year of the signing of the Record of Decision, the department recover the equivalent salary from the employee for the period of time during which he was a candidate but had not yet obtained permission from the Commission to be so;
    • A letter of reprimand from the Commission be sent to the deputy head of the department and that a copy of the letter also be placed on the employee’s personnel record for a period of two years; and
    • The employee take the course Paving the way: Values and Ethics Foundations for Employees.

    Breach: Improper political activity

    Read more on the Political activities without permission (Statistics Canada) case.

  • Case: Political activities before the election period (PSC)

    Issue: The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether an employee complied with the conditions of being granted permission to be a candidate in a provincial election, in accordance with subsection 114(2) of the Act. The concern raised was that the employee carried out political activities before the election period and before the start of an approved period of leave without pay.

    Conclusions: The investigation concluded that the employee did not comply with conditions placed on the permission granted to them to be a candidate in a provincial election. The employee did not inform the Public Service Commission (the Commission) that they were taking part in political activities before the election period or that the extent of their political activities had changed.

    Corrective action: The Commission ordered that:

    • The employee participate in an individual awareness session on the political activities regime applicable to federal public servants. This awareness session would be offered by the Political Activities and Non-Partisanship Directorate of the Public Service Commission and
    • A letter from the Investigations Branch of the Public Service Commission be sent to the employee to inform them that they failed to comply with subsection 114(2) of the Act. A copy of this letter would be sent to the deputy head of the organization where the employee worked and be placed on their personnel record for a period of 2 years.

    Breach: Improper political activity

    Read more on the Political activities before the election period (PSC) case.

Breach of the value of Respect for People

  • Case: Noel v. Treasury Board (HRDC)

    Summary: the grievor was suspended from his duties while an investigation into his behaviour was conducted, following which he was dismissed for intimidating and harassing some of his fellow workers and his supervisors – the grievor denied most of the incidents and alleged that he had never received any warning or formal reprimand with respect to them – the employer argued that reinstatement was impossible since it had lost all confidence in the grievor – the grievor responded that the employer had, through its conduct, approved of his behaviour and that the employer's evidence was vague and incomplete – the grievor asked to be reinstated – faced with contradictory testimony, the adjudicator found that the grievor's testimony was disingenuous and preferred that given by the employer's witnesses – the adjudicator found that the behaviour the grievor had been accused of by the employer had been proved – the adjudicator concluded that given the laxness shown by the employer in the circumstances, the grievor's termination was not justified – the adjudicator substituted a 12-month suspension without pay. The grievance allowed in part.

    Breach: Harassment and Bullying

    Corrective action: The grievor’s employment was terminated, but due to the laxness of the employer in addressing the employee’s bad behavior, the adjudicator substituted the termination of employment with a reinstatement and a 12 month suspension with pay.

    Read more on the Noel v. Treasury Board (HRDC) (PDF, 422 KB) case.

  • Case: Nicol v. Treasury Board (Service Canada)

    Summary:This is a case about an employee who tried to return to work from sick leave and whom the employer did not accommodate.

    Breach: Discrimination against an employee by reason of physical and medical disability, failure of the employer to follow its own policy and its legal obligation to accommodate the employee’s need.

    Corrective action: The story ended sadly almost four years later when the employee chose medical retirement rather than continuing to wait for accommodation. The employer was directed to compensate the employee for all lost pay, vacation entitlements, benefits and pension contributions from June 2008 to the employee’s effective date of medical retirement. In addition, the employee also received a monetary award of $20000 for pain and suffering, attributable to the discrimination and to the psychological and physical damages the grievor suffered and will continue to suffer due to the employer's neglect and inability to correct the situation during what should have been his normal pre-retirement years; and special damages award of $18000.

    Read more on the Nicol v. Treasury Board (Service Canada) case.

Breach of the value of Integrity

  • Case: Executive candidate pressured subordinate to assist on exam (PSC)

    Summary: The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether a public service executive committed fraud in an internal appointment process by enlisting the assistance of a subordinate during an unsupervised online exam.

    Conclusions: The investigation concluded that the executive committed fraud in the appointment process by seeking and receiving assistance from a subordinate during the unsupervised online exam. This action was deliberately carried out to improve the executive's chances of succeeding in the appointment process.

    Breach: Fraud

    Corrective Action: After the conclusion of fraud in the appointment process, the Commission ordered that the appointment of the employee be revoked, and that further to this revocation, the employee no longer be employed in the federal public service, for 3 years, the individual must obtain the Commission's written approval before accepting any position in the federal public service, failure to do so will result in the revocation of the new appointment, and that for 3 years, the individual must inform the Commission of any casual work in the federal public service, failure to do so will result in the investigation report being sent to the responsible deputy head to advise them of the fraud committed by the individual.

    Read more on the Executive candidate pressured subordinate to assist on exam (PSC) case.

  • Case: Mercer v. Deputy Head (ESDC)

    Summary: The employer was concerned that the grievor had provided preferential treatment to members of his family and was therefore in a conflict of interest. Following an administrative investigation into the possibility that he had improperly accessed the employment insurance claims of family members, he was suspended for two days without pay. He argued that the disciplinary penalty imposed was punitive and that a lesser penalty would have accomplished the employer’s aim. The panel of the Board was satisfied on the evidence that at his family members’ requests, the grievor had accessed their personal records. Moreover, she was satisfied that his accesses were neither authorized nor conducted in the scope of his normal duties since handling a family member’s file was prohibited. The panel of the Board was also satisfied that the employer met its burden of proving that the grievor was in a conflict of interest, and as such, his conduct was worthy of discipline. The panel further determined that the employer had considered the appropriate mitigating factors when it imposed its disciplinary sanction. The panel also determined that the grievor’s refusal to accept responsibility for his actions was a considerable aggravating factor in the discipline imposed.

    Breach: Conflict of Interest (Preferential treatment)

    Corrective action: 2 day suspension without pay

    Read more on the Mercer v. Deputy Head ESDC case.

  • Case: Bellavance v. Treasury Board (ESDC)

    Summary: The grievor was an officer in a Canada Employment Centre (CEC) and his duties were related to the employment insurance program. He also owned two corner stores. After a disciplinary investigation that lasted four and a half months, the employee’s employment was terminated. The grievor presented a grievance against his suspension during the disciplinary investigation. He also presented a grievance against the termination of his employment and requested his reinstatement. The employer showed that the grievor had processed the files of two of his former employees, although the files had been assigned to other CEC officers. The employer established that the corner stores owned by the grievor had set in place a hiring and firing system under which employees alternated continually between one week of work and one week of unemployment. The employer showed that the grievor was aware of his obligations under the Human Resources Development Canada Code of Conduct, as well as the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code of the Public Service. The employer argued that the grievor had placed himself in a conflict of interest situation by handling files of persons with whom he had had an employment relationship. The employer also argued that the grievor had placed himself in a conflict of interest situation by using information obtained in the course of his employment to benefit his corner stores. The grievor argued that his handling of the files of two of his former employees was limited to interventions that had no financial consequences. He added that, as regards the allocation of work at his corner stores, he was free to develop the method that best responded to his needs and that the method he had selected was legal and used in other businesses. He also claimed that the disciplinary investigation was not conducted properly. The adjudicator found that the grievor had placed himself in a conflict of interest. He concluded that, given the employer's laxness with respect to the disciplinary investigation, the termination of employment was not justified. He added, however, that in the circumstances the grievor's reinstatement was not desirable and substituted an award equivalent to 10-months pay.

    Breach: Conflict of Interest

    Corrective action: Suspension during investigation, termination of employment, and settlement

    Read more on the Bellavance v. Treasury Board (ESDC) case.

Breach of the value of Stewardship

  • Case: Heyser v. Deputy Head (ESDC and TBS)

    Summary: The grievor had submitted a falsified medical certificate to secure the continuation of a telework agreement. The deputy head had revoked her reliability status and, as a consequence, had terminated her employment. The grievor grieved both the revocation and the termination. Throughout the grievance process, the deputy head maintained that its decisions had been purely administrative. At adjudication, the deputy head objected to an adjudicator's jurisdiction to hear the grievance. The grievor argued that the deputy head's decisions had been disguised disciplinary actions. The adjudicator found that he had jurisdiction over the grievor's termination and that the deputy head bore the burden of proving that the termination was for cause. Furthermore, the adjudicator found that he had jurisdiction to inquire into the legitimacy of the deputy head's decision to revoke the grievor's reliability status, as the sole cause on which the deputy head relied to support the termination was that revocation, and the grievor challenged its legitimacy. The adjudicator found that the evidence established that the deputy head had no legitimate concerns with respect to the security risk that the grievor represented and declared that the conditions required to revoke her reliability status were in fact not present. The adjudicator found that termination was not for cause. He found that the deputy head was bound by the grounds on which it had relied at the time of the termination and that, as it had made a strategic decision to deal with the grievor's reliability status instead of pursuing the disciplinary process, it could not alter the grounds for the termination at adjudication. The adjudicator reinstated the grievor into her position.

    Breach: Falsified medical document

    Corrective action: Termination of Employment (non-disciplinary), reinstatement.

    Read more on the Heyser v. Deputy Head (ESDC and TBS) case.

  • Case : Cheating in advance of an interview (PSC)

    Summary: The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether fraud was committed in two internal appointment processes. Specifically, the department provided information to the Public Service Commission (PSC) indicating that an employee who applied to two appointment processes might have had unauthorized access to assessment material to prepare for their assessments.The investigation concluded that the employee committed fraud in the two appointment processes by gaining unauthorized access to assessment material.

    Breach: Fraud

    Corrective action: Following the finding of fraud and administrative action by the Employer, which resulted in the employee’s dismissal, the Commission ordered that:

    • For three years, the individual must obtain the written permission of the Commission before accepting any position or work within the federal public service, without which the appointment will be revoked;
    • For three years, the individual must notify the Commission of any casual or student work in the federal public service, or a copy of the Investigation Report will be sent to the responsible deputy head to advise them of the fraud committed by the individual; and
    • The individual complete a Values and Ethics course and discuss the course with their supervisor, should they return to the federal public service.

    Read more on the Cheating in advance of an interview (PSC) case.

  • Case: R. v. Ogier (Service Canada)

    Issue: During the relevant timeframe, Mr. Ogier was employed by Service Canada as a Service Canada Benefits Officer. As part of his employment duties, Mr. Ogier had access to Service Canada's computer system. As part of his employment duties, he input information to create Service Canada accounts and employment insurance benefits claims for individuals. From August 8, 2012 to July 12, 2013, Mr. Ogier was working at Service Canada and receiving his regular salary. Notwithstanding that, he fraudulently created an employment insurance claim under his own name, and received benefits totaling nearly $19,000 in his own name. During the period from July 25, 2013 to April 16, 2014 Mr. Ogier used his access to the Service Canada computer system in order to create fraudulent claims for EI benefits for 13 additional individuals who were not entitled to receive EI benefits. Through various means, Mr. Ogier obtained social insurance numbers for each of those individuals. In some cases, he used the assistance of other people to obtain social insurance numbers by making payments ranging up to $1000 in ex-change for receiving the numbers. In other instances, the person assigned the social insurance number indicated to police that he or she had simply lost their wallet containing the S.I.N. sometime earlier. In each situation, Mr. Ogier created a fraudulent claim for EI benefits. In some instances, he input false information to support the claims. In other instances, he forged medical notes relied upon to justify the claims. There were claims based upon a falsified record of employment. With respect to each claim, he arranged to have direct deposit of the benefits paid into a bank account which he had established for that purpose. Eventually, the scheme came to an end in April, 2014, when the security office of one of the banks receiving payments which were being deposited into Mr. Ogier's account became suspicious and, as a result, contacted Service Canada. Mr. Ogier received into various bank accounts all of the funds which were paid out pursuant to the fraudulent claims. The loss to the government of Canada was $306,221, and the loss to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce was $7903.33.

    Conclusions: Mr. Ogier comes before the Court having pled guilty to a large-scale fraud. He is a first-time offender. Most offenders who commit large-scale frauds involving the breach of trust are peo-ple who are respected and trusted by others; that is what provides them with the opportunity to commit the crime. The financial loss to the victims in this case is significant. Mr. Ogier indicates a willingness to make restitution to the victims. Realistically, given his employment prospects and likely level of income, the victims are unlikely to recover their financial loss.

    Corrective Action: The defence suggests that an appropriate disposition is a sentence of two years less a day to be served conditionally in the community. Conditional sentences may be crafted appropriately to achieve the objectives of denunciation and deterrence effectively in certain cases, particularly given the principle of restraint. However, Mr. Ogier breached the trust of his employer in order to engage in a large-scale fraud. The offence was planned, deliberate and had a degree of complexity. It went on for a lengthy period of time. The activities only ceased when they were discovered as a result of the call from the bank to Service Canada. Mr. Ogier's degree of moral blameworthiness is high. In these circumstances, given the seriousness of the offence and the need to emphasize concepts such as denunciation and deterrence, a conditional jail sentence would not adequately address the sentencing principles involved. I find that the appropriate sentence is 30 months in custody in a federal penitentiary.

    Breach: Mr. Ogier was an employee of Service Canada with significant responsibility. He took advantage of that position to commit the crime. He committed a breach of trust, large-scale fraud, and breaches of the Public Sector Values of integrity and stewardship.

    Read more on the R. v. Ogier (Service Canada) (PDF, 278 KB) case.

Breach of the value of Excellence

  • Case: Navikevicius v. Deputy Head (ESDC)

    Summary: The employer (ESDC) determined that it had cause to terminate the grievor's employment on the basis that her continued unauthorized absence from work constituted the abandonment of her job. Efforts to facilitate a Health Canada assessment had been consistently thwarted by the grievor. The grievor had entered her workplace, had handed her pass and ID to her bargaining agent representative and had left. The employer wrote to the grievor a number of times, informing her that she was on unauthorized leave from work and instructing her to either report to work or provide medical documentation in support of her absence from work. The grievor's explanation for not showing up for work when instructed was that she was sick and upset. The grievor did not produce any medical note to the employer; nor did she produce any medical evidence at the hearing to substantiate this claim. Relying on the well-established labour jurisprudence that when an employee fails to show up for work without being on some form of authorized leave, then that employee has for all intents and purposes abandoned his or her job, which is cause within the meaning of paragraph 12(1)(e) of the Financial Administration Act, the adjudicator dismissed the grievance.

    Breach: Absenteeism

    Corrective action: Termination of Employment (non-disciplinary)

    Read more on the Navikevicius v. Deputy Head (ESDC) case.

  • Case: Togola v. Treasury Board (ESDC)

    Summary: The grievor disputed the employer’s decision not to renew his last term employment contract, based on his unsatisfactory performance. The grievor alleged that he was the victim of discrimination based on race. The employer raised a preliminary objection to the adjudicator’s jurisdiction to hear the grievance, alleging that the grievor had not been subject to any of the measures referred to in paragraphs 209(b) and (c) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act and that the decision had been made in accordance with the provisions of the contract and the terms of section 58 of the Public Service Employment Act. The adjudicator found there had been no discrimination. The employer demonstrated that the grievor had difficulties and that it did everything in its power to help him meet neutral objectives. The grievor was subject to detailed performance plans, which he signed in the presence of his union representative. The harassment complaint he filed had been dismissed. The grievor was not a victim of discrimination, and the reasons for not renewing his contract were attributable to his performance issues.

    Breach: unsatisfactory performance

    Corrective action: Termination of Employment (non-disciplinary)

    Read more on the Togola v. Treasury Board (ESDC) case.