Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Health Canada Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing Report - 2024-2025

Download the alternative format
(PDF format, 718 KB, 24 pages)

Organization: Health Canada

Published: July 2025

Cat.: H2-10E-PDF

ISBN: 2819-3199

Pub.: 250111

Contents

Message from the Deputy Minister and the Associate Deputy Minister

Colleagues,

This report marks Health Canada's first annual review on how the Department addressed misconduct and wrongdoing in 2024–2025.

With a workforce of over 10,000 employees, our department is committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, professionalism, and ethical conduct. Our renewed Code of Conduct serves as the foundation for our commitment, guiding how we work together to create a workplace where everyone feels safe, respected, and supported. While not all cases stem from individual disclosures, many do — and we are grateful to those who came forward. We recognize that doing so is not always easy, and we remain committed to ensuring a safe and respectful environment for all.

This first annual Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing Report reflects our ongoing effort to foster a culture of transparency, accountability, and trust. By sharing insights into how we address employee concerns and complaints, we aim to increase awareness about existing supports, and encourage employees to feel comfortable raising concerns.

Our focus, in addition to transparency, is prevention. A respectful and ethical workplace is built through ongoing efforts, open conversations, and a shared commitment to living in line with shared values. Work is ongoing to enhance awareness, develop modern training, tools, and support systems that help employees recognize and respond to challenges constructively.

We deeply believe that ensuring a healthy, respectful, and inclusive workplace is a shared responsibility. All employees — regardless of group and level, play a vital role in maintaining an environment free of harassment, discrimination, and misconduct. By adhering to our Code of Conduct and public sector values, employees contribute to a culture where ethical behaviour is valued and concerns can be raised without fear of reprisal.

Together, we can make Health Canada a place where integrity and respect guide everything we do. Thank you for your commitment to making our workplace one where everyone can thrive.

Greg Orencsak
 Deputy Minister, Health Canada

Eric Costen
Associate Deputy Minister, Health Canada

Introduction

The Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing Report is an important stepstone in Health Canada's ongoing efforts to foster a transparent, respectful, safe, and ethical work environment. Aligned with the Clerk's message, this report also serves to enhance transparency and reinforce our commitment to accountability and continuous improvement.

The report provides an overview of misconduct and wrongdoing; and a summary of cases and investigations completed by internal programs and external bodies over the 2024-2025 fiscal year. The report also highlights formal and informal mechanisms available to employees where they can report concerns, access necessary tools and exercise protections to uphold ethical standards.

Numerous programs across Health Canada were consulted to complete the data collection process to inform this report, including misconduct and wrongdoing case managers, and investigators working on behalf of the department. Consulted programs include Internal Disclosure Services, Special Examinations, Occupational and Psychological Health and Safety, Security Management Services, Labour Relations, Science and Ethics Policy Bureau and Human Resources Policy. While each program tracks and monitors relevant data individually, this report consolidates all relevant information for the 2024-2025 fiscal year.

Employment Equity Considerations

Health Canada is currently limited in its ability to analyze misconduct data using an equity lens. Health Canada is committed to working with partners to develop this capacity in future reports.

Understanding Misconduct and Wrongdoing

Misconduct occurs when an employee knowingly violates an Act, regulation, policy, procedure, departmental code of conduct, or a reasonable and lawful management directive. This includes any breach of the obligations employees agree to uphold as part of their role within the department. Misconduct is typically addressed through corrective or disciplinary measures.

Wrongdoing refers specifically to serious violations covered under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA). As defined by s. 8 of the PSDPA, wrongdoing includes:

Whereas all wrongdoing involves misconduct, not all misconduct qualifies as wrongdoing under the PSDPA.

Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing at Health Canada

Reporting Framework

At Health Canada, alleged misconduct and wrongdoing can be reported through various means, including direct reporting to managers, departmental mechanisms or to external bodies. Refer to Annex B for a list of reporting mechanisms and available resources.

Misconduct

Managers are usually the first point of contact for employees alleging misconduct. They play a critical role in ensuring that allegations are handled professionally, appropriately, and with confidentiality. They are responsible for assessing each situation and determining whether to involve internal or external investigative groups. Established policies and procedures define when specific internal channels, such as Labour Relations, Informal Conflict Management services of the Centre for Ombuds and Resolution, the Respect in the Work Place Office (RWO), and the Security Management Division, must be engaged.

If harassment or violence concerns are raised, in addition to misconduct, employees may also file a notice of occurrence with the RWO. The RWO's resolution process is not disciplinary in nature; rather, it focuses on supporting both employees and managers in identifying, evaluating, and resolving workplace issues, while implementing preventative measures to reduce the risk of future occurrences. The intent of the process is not to assign blame or seek personal retribution.

Employees may also seek confidential support through the Centre for Ombuds and Resolution. A variety of services within the Centre provide a safe, informal, and impartial space where employees can raise and discuss any workplace concerns.

In addition to internal reporting mechanisms, employees may also reach out to their union for guidance, representation, and support in addressing workplace issues. Employees also have the option to report alleged misconduct to external bodies, including the Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC) for concerns related to staffing practices, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) for complaints of discrimination and workplace harassment.

Wrongdoing

All allegations of wrongdoing must be handled fairly, objectively, and without reprisal, fostering a culture of integrity and trust within the department. This approach helps create an environment where employees feel secure in reporting wrongdoing. To support this, Health Canada's Internal Disclosure Services (IDS) provides a confidential and impartial mechanism for employees to report workplace wrongdoing, in alignment with the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA). Employees are encouraged to bring the matter, in confidence and without fear of reprisal, to the attention of their manager, or to the Senior Integrity Officer (SIO) through IDS, or to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada.

Employees who make a disclosure under the PSDPA are legally protected from any reprisal against them for having come forward with information related to any wrongdoing in the public service. This protection also extends to other employees participating in the disclosure process, such as witnesses. Health Canada's SIO is responsible for receiving and dealing with disclosures of wrongdoing in our department, and reports to the Deputy Minister as required by the PSDPA.

Investigation

Health Canada addresses all allegations of misconduct and wrongdoing in accordance with the applicable policies and guidelines. This includes undertaking investigative processes, when needed. When faced with allegations, those responsible for oversight - such as management or other respective programs – must determine whether misconduct occurred based on a balance of probabilities. To make a determination of this kind, key factors, including whether the behaviour was intentional, whether the employee should know better, and whether the action was preventable are considered. These considerations facilitate a fair and objective assessment before any further action is taken.

In some cases, when sufficient evidence is available to support that misconduct occurred, management may proceed directly to a disciplinary hearing with the support of Labour Relations. If evidence initially received is insufficient to make a determination, an investigative process may be conducted through the form of a fact-finding or an administrative investigation.

An investigation serves to gather and analyze information to establish the facts of an event. This process typically involves collecting evidence, interviewing witnesses, and reviewing relevant documentation. Initially, a fact-finding exercise may help determine whether the issue is straightforward or requires a formal administrative investigation. While managers, with support from Labour Relations and/or other relevant programs, can handle more straight-forward cases, more complex situations may require the engagement of an external consultant.

Investigations should begin promptly and be conducted with fairness, impartiality, and confidentiality, safeguarding the privacy of all individuals involved while upholding procedural fairness.

Although all allegations of misconduct and wrongdoing are assessed, further investigation is not always required. Through the initial assessment, it may be determined that further investigation is not warranted for reasons such as insufficient evidence, allegations not being substantiated, or a determination that other recourse mechanisms are more appropriate.

Disciplinary and Administrative Measures for the Founded Cases

At Health Canada, administrative or disciplinary measures are determined based on the outcome of a fact-finding process or investigation, when appropriate, and in accordance with applicable policies and guidelines, and the disciplinary process. These measures are governed by the TBS Guidelines on Discipline, which focuses on a corrective approach rather than a punitive one, with the aim to:

In determining appropriate disciplinary measures, management considers factors such as the employee's length of service, past disciplinary record (if any), and the specific circumstances of each case.

Progressive discipline is then applied, typically starting with the least severe action determined necessary to correct the behaviour and increasing in severity if the behaviour is not corrected. However, depending on the severity of the misconduct and the particular facts of a case, there are times when progressive discipline is not possible and termination may be warranted at the first instance.

To ensure fairness, management must consistently apply rules, conduct thorough investigations, uphold due process, and take into account both mitigating and aggravating circumstances when determining misconduct and appropriate disciplinary measures.

In some cases, administrative measures may be taken to address the situation. Administrative measures can be applied separate to a situation, or in conjunction with disciplinary measures. Administrative measures are not considered discipline and may include a letter of expectation, training or coaching.

Management is encouraged to address undesirable behaviour cooperatively and informally when possible. When informal measures are insufficient, the formal disciplinary process may be considered. The scope of this report does not include cases that were addressed solely through informal measures.

An employee who is disciplined as described in these guidelines is entitled to present an individual grievance at each of the levels in the grievance process, up to and including the final level, under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Regulations and the provisions of any applicable collective agreement. Individual grievances may also be subject to third-party adjudication, under paragraph 209(1)(b) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act.

2024-2025 Findings Overview

Misconduct

Misconduct cases arose through various processes, depending on the circumstances. In some instances, management and Labour Relations (LR) conducted their own investigations and fact-finding exercises to address the misconduct directly. In other situations, departmental programs with their own mandates and investigative processes carried out reviews before referring the matters to management and LR for further action. (The Departmental Investigations and Administrative Reviews section provides an overview of these programs findings).

Misconduct cases encompass various forms of inappropriate workplace behaviour, including tardiness, absenteeism, unauthorized leave, engaging in personal activities during work hours, insubordination, failure to perform duties or follow instructions, and misuse of government assets. It also includes a breach of policies and directives, including the Departmental Code of Conduct encompassing a broad spectrum of behaviours that violate the values and ethical standards employees, at all levels, are expected to uphold.

Founded Cases of Misconduct

During the 2024-2025 fiscal year, out of a total 21 alleged misconduct cases, 20 cases were founded and one case was unfounded. These cases are based on two formal administrative investigations and 12 fact-finding processes, some of which had commenced in a previous fiscal year. The remaining cases were assessed without investigative processes based on the clarity of the allegations and the available information.

The figure below shows the proportion of founded misconduct cases by different types of behaviour.

Figure 1. Misconduct Type
Figure 1. Text version below.
Figure 1 - Text description
Number of founded misconduct cases by different types of behaviour
Type of behaviour Number of founded misconduct cases
Failure to Follow Direction 13
Disrespectful Behaviour 6
Unauthorised Leave 3
Conflict of Interest 2
Misuse of Social Media 1
Harassment and Discrimination 1
Total 26Table 1 footnote *
Table 1 footnote *

Although there are 20 founded cases of misconduct, the total in the chart above is 26. Six cases involve multiple breaches and/or misconduct and as such, are represented in more than one type in the chart.

Return to table 1 footnote *

The following two tables present a summary of the 20 founded cases: the first table (Table A) outlines the 14 cases involving a single breach and/or misconduct, while the second table (Table B) outlines the six cases involving multiple breaches and/or misconduct.

Table A - Single Breach and/or Misconduct
Case Summary Measures
Failure to Follow Direction

An employee failed to complete mandatory training.

 Disciplinary - Written reprimand

An employee did not comply with the directive on prescribed presence in the workplace for nearly a year and was not truthful about fulfilling their hybrid work agreement.

 Disciplinary - Five-day suspension without pay

An employee failed to comply with a letter of expectation and exhibited insubordinate behaviour by not complying with management direction on assigned work tasks.

 Disciplinary - Two-day suspension without pay

An employee failed to exercise due diligence in contract management, allowing unauthorized work to continue beyond the contract period. The employee left the public service before measures could be implemented.

 Not applicable

An employee failed to obtain pre-approval for variations in work hours.

 Disciplinary - Ten-day suspension without pay

An employee failed to comply with the directive on prescribed presence in the workplace by not complying with their hybrid work agreement.

 Disciplinary - Written reprimand

An employee failed to comply with instructions that management provided regarding assigned work tasks.

 Disciplinary - Written reprimand
Disrespectful Behaviour

An employee made inappropriate comments toward a subordinate and failed to foster a healthy, collaborative work environment.

 Disciplinary - Written reprimand
Unauthorized Leave

An employee was absent without authorization for one day.

 Disciplinary - Written reprimand

An employee was absent without authorization for several weeks, falsely claiming a job offer from another department.

 Disciplinary - Five-day suspension without pay
Conflict of Interest

An employee facilitated the hiring of a friend or family member.

 Disciplinary & Administrative - Ten-day suspension without pay and mandatory training

An employee breached the Code of Conduct regarding a conflict of interest matter.

 Disciplinary - Written reprimand
Misuse of Social Media

An employee made public social media comments criticizing the directive on prescribed presence in the workplace. The comments included additional content which, taken together, warranted a disciplinary response.

 Disciplinary - Written reprimand
Harassment and Discrimination

An employee made inappropriate comments about another employee related to prohibited grounds of discrimination.

 Disciplinary & Administrative - Written reprimand and mandatory training
Table B - Multiple Breaches and/or Misconduct
Case Summaries Measures
Failure to Follow Direction and Disrespectful Behaviour

An employee violated a letter of expectations by sharing a private conversation with colleagues via email, disregarding instructions on file handling, and repeatedly challenging management.

 Disciplinary - Two-day suspension without pay

An employee failed to comply with letters of expectation regarding disrespectful behaviour and working hours.

 Disciplinary - Written reprimand

An employee disregarded management direction, displayed insubordination, and acted disrespectfully.

 Disciplinary - Five-day suspension without pay

An employee neglected job duties, communicated disrespectfully, failed to provide medical documentation for illness, and was frequently late.

 Administrative - Letter of expectations

An employee ignored the chain of command, exhibited insubordination, and acted disrespectfully.

 Disciplinary - Written reprimand
Failure to Follow Direction and Unauthorized Leave

An employee failed to comply with their letter of expectations and was absent without authorization.

 Disciplinary - One-day suspension without pay

The outcomes of these cases resulted in a range of administrative and disciplinary measures, from a letter of expectations and mandatory training, to written reprimands and suspensions without pay, reflecting the nature and gravity of each case. Of the 20 cases, 16 led to disciplinary measures, one resulted in an administrative measure, two involved a combination of both administrative and disciplinary measures and one employee left the public service before measures could be implemented.

Wrongdoing

Wrongdoing cases may arise through various reporting and investigative mechanisms, depending on the nature and severity of the concerns. Some can be reported through internal channels such as reporting to managers, while others are brought forward through formal disclosures under the PSDPA.

As outlined earlier in this report, wrongdoing encompasses serious breaches of integrity or trust in the workplace. This includes gross mismanagement, serious breaches of a code of conduct, misuse of public funds or assets, and actions that create a substantial danger to health, safety, or the environment. It also includes knowingly directing or counseling others to commit such acts, as defined under the PSDPA.

Founded Cases of Wrongdoing

In the fiscal year 2024-2025, there were no founded cases of wrongdoing. The Internal Disclosure Services (IDS) team received a total of 10 inquiries from Health Canada employees. Of those inquiries, one disclosure was submitted under the PSDPA. A preliminary assessment was completed which concluded that an investigation was not warranted. Therefore, no investigation was initiated during the year.

Departmental Investigations and Administrative Reviews

At Health Canada, various departmental programs may receive allegations of misconduct and wrongdoing, and they carry out independent reviews or investigations within their respective mandates. When findings of misconduct are substantiated, cases may be referred to management, Labour Relations, or other relevant programs, such as security, and may result in disciplinary action. However, in many instances, the focus is on administrative or preventative measures—such as publishing a report, providing coaching or training, or offering resources—to address the issue and help prevent recurrence.

The following presents the outcomes of Departmental Investigations and Administrative Reviews for the fiscal year 2024-2025. Detailed information regarding the respective program roles can be found in Annex B.

Special Examinations (SE) Team

Fraud or Financial Misconduct

The Special Examination team received four inquiries from Health Canada employees and/or managers for the same fiscal year in which one investigation was initiated but was deemed inconclusive due to insufficient evidence. Another two preliminary assessments determined that further investigations into the wrongdoing were unfounded and there is one preliminary assessment in progress to determine whether an investigation is necessary.

Security Management Services Directorate (SMSD)

Review of an employee's Reliability Status or Security Clearance

In the 2024-2025 fiscal year, no reviews for cause of an employee's reliability status or security clearance occurred.

Violations of the Standards on Acceptable Use of Electronic Devices and Networks

In the 2024-2025 fiscal year, 26 cases were identified where a Government of Canada (GoC) issued device assigned to an employee accessed the departmental network from outside Canada without proper authorization. The unauthorized use of GoC devices outside the country, whether for personal or business purposes, is classified as unacceptable and constitutes a violation of established Health Canada security guidelines.

As part of the response measures for these cases, a fact-finding process occurs, which could lead to an administrative investigation. Employees are notified of the breach and instructed that upon their return, their GoC-issued device must be inspected. The Deputy Chief Security Officer and management are informed, and in most cases, sufficient information is received in the fact-finding process so that Deputy Chief Security Officer, Security Screening, Senior Management and Labour Relations can make an informed decision on next steps, which will generally include clear expectations to prevent future occurrences. In the 2024-2025 fiscal year, no administrative investigations were conducted.

Departmental Science and Ethics Policy Bureau (DSEPB)

Breach of Scientific Integrity

In the 2024-2025 fiscal year, no investigations were completed regarding breach of scientific integrity.

External Investigations

In addition to internal reporting mechanisms, employees have the option to report to various external federal organizations that conduct independent investigations in accordance with their mandate. At Health Canada, dedicated programs maintain liaison with these external bodies to ensure adherence to relevant policies and directives. The following provides an overview of these organizations, the nature of their investigations, and any completed cases involving Health Canada employees.

Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (OPSIC)

During fiscal year 2024-2025, no report related to Health Canada was published.

Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC)

The Labour Relations Division is responsible for coordinating the Departmental response to CHRC complaints from Health Canada employees against Health Canada. In the 2024-2025 fiscal year, there were no CHRC investigations completed or decisions rendered related to complaints from Health Canada employees.

Labour Program - Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)

In the 2024-2025 fiscal year, Health Canada had no infractions under Part II of the Canada Labour Code.

Public Service Commission (PSC)

In the 2024-2025 fiscal year, the PSC completed two investigations involving Health Canada employees. Both cases were deemed to be founded.

The PSC concluded that that an employee committed fraud by knowingly requesting and receiving assistance from another employee to complete their written exam during an external appointment process. The second employee was also found to have committed fraud by providing the requested assistance. As a result, both employees were required to complete values and ethics training, have a discussion with their director, and for a period of two years notify the PSC in writing before accepting any position or work within the federal public service.

In the 2024-2025 fiscal year, no PSC investigation was conducted involving improper political activities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this first annual report on misconduct and wrongdoing reflects our ongoing commitment to accountability, transparency, and a culture of integrity. It marks a key step in our efforts to identify and address misconduct. The report reflects the actions taken to address misconduct and emphasizes the importance of employee involvement in creating a values based, safe, inclusive, and respectful workplace. Moving forward, Health Canada will continue to refine its approach by offering resources and supports, and enhancing awareness through training and communications.

Health Canada is committed to continuous improvement and is working to develop a more centralized and interconnected data tracking system. This will improve the accuracy, efficiency, and accessibility of case data, enhancing our ability to monitor trends and support informed decision-making in the future.

The publication of this report ensures that employees are aware of the available mechanisms for reporting misconduct and wrongdoing, and can be assured that actions are taken promptly and appropriately when necessary. As we continue to strengthen our Integrity Framework and policies, we remain dedicated to ensuring that all employees uphold the highest standards of professionalism, in line with Health Canada's Code of Conduct and the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service. By collectively engaging in these efforts, we are building a workplace that reflects the integrity and dedication of the vast majority of employees who serve Canadians with excellence.

Annex A: Definitions

Balance of Probabilities
The standard of proof used in administrative and disciplinary investigations. It requires that, based on the available evidence, it is more likely than not that the alleged misconduct occurred.
Conflict of Interest

A situation when an employee's private interests impair, or could be perceived to impair, their ability to make decisions with integrity, impartiality, honesty, and in the best interests of the government. There are three types of conflicts of interest (COIs):

  • A real COI exists at the present time.
  • An apparent COI could be perceived by a reasonable observer to exist, whether or not it is the case.
  • A potential COI could reasonably be foreseen to exist in the future.
Delegated Authority
Deputy Heads delegate some of their authorities to managers and supervisors through the Human Resources Delegation Instrument, allowing them to act on behalf of the delegator within defined limits.
Disciplinary Hearing
A formal meeting to address allegations of employee misconduct, that provides an opportunity for the employee and/or their support person to present any additional information to management that they would like taken into consideration before a decision is made.
Disciplinary Measures
Actions taken by management to address employee misconduct. These measures, which vary in severity, may include verbal or written reprimands, suspension, demotion, financial penalty, or termination of employment, and may be applied progressively based on the nature and seriousness of the misconduct.
Discrimination
Any action, behaviour, decision, or omission that treats a person or a group of people unfairly based on prohibited grounds outlined in s. 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act such as (but not limited to) race, gender, age, or disability.
Fact-Finding Exercise
A process undertaken to gather and analyze information to establish facts relevant to a specific issue or allegation.
Grievance
A formal written employment-related complaint presented in accordance with the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA).
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, as per the Canada Labour Code.
Misconduct
A wilful action or inaction on the part of an employee in breach of a code of conduct, policies, regulations, or an act. A willful action involves deliberately doing something contrary to expectations, while willful inaction involves intentionally failing to perform a required action or duty.
Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
Factors that may decrease (mitigating) or increase (aggravating) the severity of a misconduct, considered as part of the disciplinary process.
Procedural Fairness
Ensures the disciplinary process is fair by providing employees with knowledge of the allegations, an opportunity to respond, and awareness of potential consequences.
Progressive Discipline
A system of escalating responses to employee misconduct or performance issues, starting with milder corrective measures appropriate to the circumstances, and potentially leading to more severe actions if problems persist.
Scientific Integrity
Adherence to professional values and practices when conducting, managing, and communicating scientific research, ensuring objectivity, clarity, reproducibility, and honesty.
Wrongdoing
Serious violations covered under s. 8 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, including violating laws or regulations, gross mismanagement, abuse of authority, or serious breaches of codes of conduct.

Annex B: Reporting Mechanisms and Roles

The following section outlines both internal and external reporting mechanisms, along with available resources to support employees in addressing workplace concerns. It is important to note that employees are encouraged to bring forward any issues related to their workplace to their immediate manager. Managers serve as a primary point of contact, offering guidance, support, and direction on appropriate steps to address concerns. Employees and managers are encouraged to visit program sites to learn about the reporting procedures, as well as the training, tools, and resources available in each program.

Internal Reporting Mechanisms and Roles

Office of Audit and Evaluation

Internal Disclosure Services (IDS)

The IDS team is part of the Office of Audit and Evaluation (OAE) which is under the authority of the Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive (CAEE) who is also the Senior Officer for Internal Disclosure.

The team provides a safe, confidential, and impartial mechanism for employees to report alleged wrongdoing in the workplace. The IDS is tasked with offering information, informal advice, and guidance to employees contemplating a protected disclosure under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA). IDS receives and reviews disclosures of alleged wrongdoing and conducts investigations as necessary.

Inquiries that are not disclosed under the PSDPA can be referred to other services such as unions, senior management, Center for Ombuds and Resolution, Security Management Services Directorate, Respect in the Work Place Office, and Special Examinations within the OAE, or to an external body, such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Contact:

Special Examinations (SE) Team

The SE team, also part of the OAE, investigates potential fraud and financial misconduct in the department. The team works in close co-operation with other departmental functions involved in all aspects of prevention, detection and response. Fraud or financial misconduct refers to any intentional act of dishonesty, deception, or misuse of public funds, resources, or assets for personal or unauthorized gain. This includes, but is not limited to misappropriation of funds, theft or misuse of government property or funds, and contract or procurement fraud. The SE team core services for investigating fraud and financial misconduct include:

Contact:

Respect in the Work Place Office (RWO)

Provides neutral and impartial advice to employees and managers on the prevention and resolution of workplace harassment and violence, such as:

Contact:

Centre for Ombuds and Resolution (COR)

Ombuds consultations

Provides consultations to employees at all levels regardless of their rank or tenures, offering a space to raise and discuss workplace issues while guiding them toward options, information, resources, recourse, and support to help resolve their concerns.

Informal Conflict Management services

Offers a range of services, including consultation, coaching, facilitated discussions, mediations, group interventions and training, which employees at all levels can request if they are experiencing conflict in the workplace.

Contact:

Values and Ethics Division

Offers confidential discussions for employees seeking information on the Codes of Values and Ethics or addressing work-related ethical concerns, while guiding them toward options, resources, and recourse to resolve them.

Contact:

Departmental Science and Ethics Policy Bureau (DSEPB)

The Scientific Integrity Lead is responsible for addressing concerns related to potential breaches of scientific integrity. An allegation of Breach of Scientific Integrity may arise in relation to the conduct of employees of the organization at all levels who are involved in the design, conduct, management, review, communication or use of research, science and related activities. It may also arise in relation to individuals who conduct research, science or related activities pursuant to a contract with Health Canada or in collaboration with Health Canada's employees. The breach can occur when individuals involved in these activities fail to uphold the principles of scientific integrity and the standards of responsible research conduct, as defined in the Health Canada and Public Health Agency of Canada Scientific Integrity Policy (the Policy). Allegations of breach of scientific integrity may be brought forward by individuals from within or from outside Health Canada, whether they are public servants or not.

Allegations of breach can be made by individuals to the Health Canada Science Integrity Lead, a manager, or through a separate and formal disclosure mechanisms under the PSDPA. When an employee submits a formal disclosure under the PSDPA, the respective disclosure process begins and the Science Integrity Lead is no longer involved. In cases where the allegation is reported to the DSEPB, the Science Integrity Lead will conduct a preliminary assessment, which will determine whether the allegation is within the scope of the Policy and whether an investigation is required. If an investigation occurs and a breach is confirmed, the accountable senior manager, in consultation with the Labour Relations Division, Security Management Services Directorate, Office of Audit and Evaluation, or the Centre for Ombuds and Resolution, as appropriate, develops an action plan with corrective actions to reinforce integrity. The findings and action plan will be presented to the Deputy Head for approval.

Contact:

Occupational and Psychological Health and Safety (OPHS)

The program receives and responds to any reported physical and psychological incident or accident, defined as an illness or event that impacts an employee while performing their duties or related tasks and that causes or has the potential to cause injury or harm to the employee, or damage to property, equipment or goods.

Contact:

Security Management Services Directorate (SMSD)

Review of an employee's Reliability Status or Security Clearance

One of the SMSD responsibilities involves reviewing an employee's reliability status or security clearance to assess whether they continue to meet the security requirements for their role in the federal public service. This review is based on information or behaviour that may raise concerns about the employee's reliability or loyalty to Canada.

Violations of the Standards on Acceptable Use of Electronic Devices and Networks

The SMSD also addresses violations of the Standards on Acceptable Use of IT Assets, which refer to breaches of the established rules governing the responsible, ethical, and secure use of government IT networks, systems, and data. The Standard ensures that employees use IT assets in a manner that protects government information, maintains system integrity, and upholds public trust.

Contact:

External Reporting Mechanisms and Roles

Bargaining Agents

Provide representation and support for employees facing workplace issues, including grievances, harassment, and disciplinary actions. They assist members in navigating collective agreements, filing complaints, and advocating for fair treatment.

Contact:

Employees can contact their local union representatives through their respective unions' websites.

Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada (OPSIC)

The OPSIC is an independent federal organization that was established to implement the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. The Office investigates wrongdoing in the federal public sector and helps protect whistleblowers, those who make a protected disclosure of wrongdoing, and those who participate in investigations from reprisal. The Office contributes to strengthening accountability and increases oversight of government operations by:

Contact:

Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC)

As part of its mandate to oversee the integrity of the staffing system and the political impartiality of the federal public service, the PSC investigates concerns relating to specific appointment processes and allegations of improper political activities for organizations that are subject to the Public Service Employment Act.

Contact:

Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC)

The CHRC is an independent federal agency dedicated to promoting and protecting human rights in Canada. Its primary role is to ensure that individuals are treated fairly and equally under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). Under this Act, individuals or groups who believe they have been unfairly treated or negatively impacted based on prohibited grounds of discrimination can file a complaint with the CHRC. These grounds include:

The CHRC reviews the discrimination complaints and determines whether it will deal with the complaint or dismiss it, according to criteria in the CHRA. If necessary, it investigates to determine whether further inquiry is warranted. If so, it may refer the parties to conciliation, or to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) for a hearing to decide if there has been discrimination.

Contact:

Labour Program - Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)

The Labour Program investigations relate to the department's occupational health and safety program and the workplace. Investigations can be initiated under 3 circumstances:

In these circumstances, the Labour Program can:

Page details

2025-07-03