Report on Misconduct and Wrongdoing at Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (Fiscal Year 2023-2024)

Table of Contents

• Message from the Deputy Minister
  • Introduction
• Process for Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing
  • What is Misconduct and Wrongdoing?
• Founded Cases of Misconduct and Wrongdoing at IRCC
  • Overview of Founded Cases in Fiscal Year 2023-2024
  • Fraud and Financial Misconduct
  • Harassment, Violence and Disrespectful Behaviours
  • Breach of Values and Ethics Code and IRCC's Code of Conduct
  • Administrative Misconduct
    • Time theft, tardiness, absenteeism, and/or unauthorized leave
    • Insubordination or failure to carry out duties or specific tasks or to follow instructions
    • Misuse of Government Assets
  • Violations of IRCC’s Network Acceptable Use Policy
  • Misconduct Related to Security Clearance
• Conclusion
• Annex A – Reporting Mechanisms Points of Contact
  • Office of internal disclosure
  • Conduct and Integrity Division
  • Labour Relations
  • Departmental Security
  • People Management Operations
  • Office of Conflict Resolution
• Annex B – Definitions

Message from the Deputy Minister

Our first Report on Misconduct and Wrongdoing for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) marks a pivotal moment for the Department. It reflects our journey towards continuous improvement, integrity, and excellence in the delivery of our services in keeping with the trust that the public places in our Department. The purpose of this report is to showcase our commitment to accountability and transparency by highlighting the actions our Department has taken in the face of allegations of misconduct or wrongdoing.

I am always proud of the incredible employees who make up our Department and the standard of care they put into upholding our values and the code of conduct, and ensuring that we have a safe and respectful workplace. These findings and our commitment to continuous improvements would not be possible without the courageous employees who raised concerns or blew the whistle when a potentially problematic behaviour was observed. I want to thank every one of them for their courage and commitment. Regardless of the outcome, in order to sustain trust in the Department, if you believe that a misconduct or wrongdoing has occurred, coming forward is still the right thing to do.

While we are determined to ensure that corrective measures are taken when founded cases of misconduct and wrongdoing arise, we are equally committed to preventing misconduct and wrongdoing by promoting good employee behaviours through education, training, and awareness campaigns.

The findings in this report provide us with an opportunity to learn, grow, and strengthen. To create a safer, more responsible, and respectful workplace. The incidents detailed in this report reveal the success in our Department’s ability to address misconduct and wrongdoing.

At IRCC we encourage our employees to speak up without fear of reprisal; fostering a culture of openness, trust, and zero tolerance for misconduct and wrongdoing.

Thank you to all employees of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada for building and continuing to foster a culture of accountability, integrity, and ethics.

Deputy Minister
Dr. Harpreet S. Kochhar

Introduction

The objective of this report is to increase confidence in our systems of accountability, empower our employees to speak up, and to showcase the actions our Department has taken to address misconduct and wrongdoing. This report includes founded cases of misconduct and wrongdoing, which resulted in formal resolution, from both internal and/or external investigations, that took place in Canada and/or missions abroad, for fiscal year 2023-24.

IRCC is a complex organization with more than 13,905 employees, of which 7,912 are staffed in national headquarters, 5,753 in the regions and over 240 in missions abroad. Domestically, IRCC operates out of 42 offices across the country, and 60 overseas offices. IRCC plays a key role both in Canada and internationally to facilitate the entry of temporary residents; manage the selection, settlement, and integration of newcomers; grant citizenship; and issue passports to citizens. Every employee at IRCC plays an integral part in ensuring that our workplace is safe and respectful, and adheres to the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector.

At IRCC, numerous options exist for addressing perceived misconduct or wrongdoing, ranging from informal conflict resolution to formal investigations. When situations related to misconduct or wrongdoing arise, IRCC employees should know that all allegations reported will be taken seriously. They should also know that founded cases of misconduct and wrongdoing will result in the appropriate level of disciplinary and/or administrative measures, and that our Department does not tolerate measures of reprisal taken against employees who report misconduct or wrongdoing.

This report highlights cases of founded misconduct and wrongdoing, and the options available to employees for submitting a complaint or protected disclosure of wrongdoing.

Process for Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing

What is Misconduct and Wrongdoing?

The expectations about our employee’s conduct are clarified in various IRCC and Government of Canada policies, including but not limited to the IRCC Code of Conduct which builds upon the Values and Ethics Code for the Public sector, the Directive on Conflict of Interest, and IRCC’s Fraud Management Framework.

Misconduct is any action or inaction whereby an individual willfully contravenes an act, a regulation, a rule, a departmental policy, an approved procedure, or the IRCC Code of Conduct and/or Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. Some examples include:

• unauthorized access of networks and systems;
• theft;
• assault; and/or
• insubordination.

Wrongdoing, as per the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA), is:

• 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 the PSDPA;
• a misuse of public funds or a public asset;
• a gross mismanagement in the public sector;
• 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;
• a serious breach of a code of conduct; and/or
• knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit one of the wrongdoings mentioned above.

In determining whether an allegation constitutes “gross” mismanagement, or a “serious” breach of a code of conduct, the following factors are taken into consideration:

Gross mismanagement

• importance of the matter;
• seriousness of the error;
• effect on the ability of the organization or unit to carry out its mandate;
• systemic nature;
• deliberateness;
• frequency of the problem or behaviour;
• number of employees reporting directly to the manager;
• degree of management response;
• impact on the public interest; and
• impact on trust in IRCC or in the public service.

Serious breach of a code of conduct

• degree of departure from generally accepted practices within IRCC and the federal public service;
• impact or potential impact on IRCC employees, clients, and on public trust;
• level of seniority and trust of the alleged wrongdoer;
• systemic or endemic nature, or repetitive nature of the breach(es);
• amount of time over which the breaches occurred;
• degree of willfulness or recklessness; and
• threat to public confidence in the integrity of the public service.

For misconduct cases, the allegations submitted are reviewed to determine whether a breach of IRCC’s Code of Conduct may have occurred. If a breach appears to have occurred, a preliminary fact finding exercise is conducted to obtain information relating to the reported allegations and circumstances. If the collected facts are not sufficient to determine whether the allegations are founded, an administrative investigation is launched. The investigator documents and analyzes all relevant facts. The results of an investigation are used to support management in making an informed decision on the next steps, and/or to administer appropriate disciplinary and/or administrative measure(s).

For wrongdoing cases, when a protected disclosure is received, the Senior Officer for Internal Disclosure (SOID) makes the determination whether an investigation should be launched based on the results of an initial assessment of the allegations.

Investigations under the PSDPA are for the purpose of determining if a wrongdoing has occurred in the Department, to inform the Deputy Minister so that corrective actions can be taken, and to publicly report on the wrongdoing and action taken. The SOID, who receives internal disclosures and is responsible for investigating allegations of wrongdoing, reports directly to the Deputy Minister.

Disciplinary measures depend on the nature of the misconduct, related circumstances, and  mitigating and aggravating circumstances, such as the employee's length of service, past record, seriousness of the offence, and unique circumstances of each situation. Disciplinary measures may include the following:

• oral reprimand;
• written reprimand;
• suspension without pay;
• financial penalty;
• demotion; and/or,
• termination.

The purpose of discipline is to correct a behaviour and maintain order in the workplace. The application of disciplinary measures is not to be punitive, and is generally progressive, increasing in severity with successive acts of misconduct.

Administrative measures are measures that are taken to correct a situation, but may not constitute discipline. Such measures may include:

• providing training or coaching to an individual;
• reassigning an individual to other tasks or another team;
• removing a delegation of authorities; and/or
• issuing a letter of expectations regarding one's conduct.

In some instances, a situation may warrant the application of both disciplinary and administrative measures.

Founded Cases of Misconduct and Wrongdoing at IRCC

Overview of Founded Cases in Fiscal Year 2023-2024

This section will detail the founded fact findings, investigations, and reviews completed in fiscal year 2023-24. Some of the founded cases were grouped and summarized as they share similar characteristics or fall within the same type of misconduct or wrongdoing.

“Founded” is a term used to describe a case where the evidence supports at least one of the allegations of misconduct or wrongdoing.

In fiscal year 2023-24, a total of 86 investigations, fact findings, and/or reviews were initiated within IRCC. Of the 76 investigations that were completed, 62 were founded. Some of the founded cases may have stemmed from an investigation initiated in a previous fiscal year. There was no founded case of wrongdoing. Of the 62 founded cases, IRCC administered various types of administrative and disciplinary measures ranging from warning letters to termination.

Below is an overview of the findings related misconduct in fiscal year 2023-24.

Text Version: Founded Cases in 2023-24 by Category

Category	Founded
Fraud and financial misconduct	0
Harassment, violence and disrespectful behaviour	9
Breach of values and ethics code or ircc's code of conduct	3
Administrative misconduct	37
Violations of ircc network acceptable use policy	12
Misconduct related to security clearance	1
Staffing complaint misconduct	0
Total	62

Text Version: Breakdown of Administrative Misconduct

Administrative Misconduct Category	Number of Cases
Time theft, tardiness, absenteeism, and/or unauthorized leave	27
Insubordination or failure to carry out duties or specific tasks or to follow instructions	9
Misuse of government assets	1
Total	37

Text Version: Total Misconduct and Wrongdoing cases in fiscal year 2023-24

Total Initiated	Total Completed	Total Report Founded
86	76	62

Corrective Measures Taken By Category

For this report, misconduct and wrongdoing cases have been further organized into the following categories to provide clarity on the topics of misconduct and wrongdoing and how IRCC addressed these cases:

• Fraud and Financial Misconduct;
• Harassment, Violence and disrespectful behaviour;
• Breach of Values and Ethics Code and IRCC’s Code of Conduct;
• Administrative Misconduct;
• Violations of IRCC’s Network Acceptable Use Policy; and
• Misconduct Related to Security Clearance.

Fraud and Financial Misconduct

Fraud and financial misconduct is the deliberate misuse of public funds, assets, resources, delegated authorities or knowledge. It may involve using deception to make a personal gain or a gain for another, or to create a loss for another.

In fiscal year 2023-2024, IRCC did not have any founded cases that met the definition of fraud and financial misconduct.

IRCC takes allegations of fraud very seriously. IRCC has developed a Fraud Management Policy Framework (FMPF) as the Department’s overarching frame for policies, procedures and activities that directly or indirectly address fraud. The FMPF establishes a common approach to fraud management across IRCC which manages fraud through awareness and prevention, detection, risk assessment and response, and reporting.

Harassment, Violence and Disrespectful Behaviours

Harassment and violence is 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 discriminatory action, conduct or comment. For example:

• aggressive or threatening behaviour, including verbal threats or abuse
• physical assault
• spreading malicious rumours or gossip about an individual or a group

This section also includes cases of misconduct which involved disrespectful behaviours that did not necessarily amount to harassment or violence.

In 2023-2024, nine cases of harassment, violence and disrespectful behaviours were deemed to be founded. Specifically these cases found that:

• An employee sent multiple emails to their director containing disrespectful comments about the employee's manager and criticizing the manager's competency. The employee refused to accept feedback from the director and refused to attend meetings requested by management. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee made racist comments about their team lead through a work messaging application to another employee. The employee received a suspension without pay.
• An employee made disrespectful and discriminatory remarks that a group of people of a specific nationality believe they are above the law. The employee received a suspension without pay.
• An employee made racist comments during a conversation with a subordinate. The employee received a suspension without pay.
• An employee screamed at another employee during an after work social event. The employee also made inappropriate comments and gestures about client’s appearances while processing vulnerable clients for intake. The employee received a suspension without pay.
• An employee made inappropriate comments, used disrespectful language and tones in meetings and emails, and made threatening comments verbally to a security guard. The employee also failed to submit leave when required, failed to report for work on time, failed to respond to emails and phone calls from management, and, blocked their manager on a work messaging application. Three fact finding exercises were completed on three separate cases in fiscal year 2023-24 for the employee. The employee received two suspensions without pay and was eventually terminated for cause.
• An employee made a death threat to their supervisor, coerced them into adjusting their performance appraisal, and accused the supervisor of being a liar. The supervisor filed a complaint several years after the incidents, as the supervisor did not feel that the work environment was supportive enough to initially report the incidents. An investigation was conducted under the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations, and determined that the founded incidents constituted harassment. The entire branch, including the employee who was found to have harassed their supervisor, received training in support of improving workplace health and safety. All employees in a supervisory position and positions above in the branch also received leadership training. The employee and supervisor are no longer working together. At the time of writing this report, an application for judicial review is currently before the Federal Court.

Breach of Values and Ethics Code and IRCC's Code of Conduct

A breach of a code of conduct is any conduct that contravenes IRCC’s code of conduct and/or the Values and Ethics Code for the public sector.

In 2023-2024, three cases were founded related to a breach a code of conduct. These cases found that:

• An employee spoke negatively about IRCC's clients from certain countries, and described them as "pushy" in a discussion with colleagues. The employee also spoke negatively about a client from a specific country to a mentee. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee cheated on an exam with the assistance of a direct subordinate. The completion of the exam and subsequent receipt of accreditation was a mandatory requirement for the employee's secondment to a managerial position at another Government of Canada Department. The allegations were made after the employee completed the secondment and returned to IRCC. This employee received a suspension without pay.
• An employee had formed a social relationship with a claimant met at an IRCC Asylum Hotel, provided preferential treatment by coaching the claimant on how to engage with the Department, and co-signed on the claimant's car loan. It was found that there was an apparent conflict of interest, and the employee received a suspension without pay.

Administrative Misconduct

Cases of administrative misconduct include time theft, tardiness, absenteeism, unauthorized leave, insubordination, failure to carry out duties or specific tasks or to follow instructions, and/or the misuse of government assets.

In 2023-2024, 37 cases were founded related to administrative misconduct.

Time theft, tardiness, absenteeism, and/or unauthorized leave

26 employees, in 27 separate cases, were found to have committed one or more of the following misconduct:

• not working their scheduled work hours;
• not reporting their absence prior to the start of their shift, and/or not submitting leave for their absences;
• being absent without authorization;
• falling asleep during their shift;
• failing to produce a medical note for sick leave when asked by management; and/or,
• demonstrated tardiness.

Of these cases, nine employees also falsely claimed to have worked overtime.

In some of these cases, some employees also falsified information provided to management, failed to comply with management expectations, and/or failed to follow management directions.

As a result, considering all mitigating and aggravating factors, employees received a range of measures including: written reprimand (five), suspension without pay (nineteen), and/or termination (two). One employee resigned before disciplinary or administrative measures were taken. In some cases, the Department initiated a cost recovery process for time theft, and in others, the employees made up the time.

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

Eight employees, in nine cases, were insubordinate, unresponsive to their supervisor's attempts to contact them, worked from a location that was not approved by management, committed privacy breaches by not following the correct procedures, and/or did not meet their management’s expectations.

As a result, considering all mitigating and aggravating factors, employees received a written reprimand (six) or a suspension without pay (three).

Misuse of Government Assets

In 2023-24, in one case, an employee breached IRCC’s Code of Conduct by misusing government assets. The employee used a departmental travel card for personal purchases on four occasions, totalling less than $1,000. The transactions were flagged by Finance. After being notified, the employee paid the credit card amount owing, and there was no loss of public funds. The employee received a written reprimand.

Violations of IRCC’s Network Acceptable Use Policy

Violations of IRCC’s Network Acceptable Use Policy refers to any unacceptable use of the Department’s electronic networks and associated devices as per IRCC’s Directive on the Acceptable Use of Electronic Networks and Devices. For example:

• authorized users using an electronic device provided by IRCC outside of Canada without obtaining prior authorization; and/or,
• authorized users gaining, or attempting to gain, access to any computer systems not authorized for their use.

In 2023-24, 12 employees leveraged their role and system access privileges to obtain information from IRCC’s information systems to check or request the status of files for themselves, family members, friends, and/or acquaintances, and/or to check the status of files out of curiosity. In some cases, the employee also tried to get the file fast tracked or asked another employee to make corrections to the file. Some examples of the systems accessed include: IRCC’s Global Case Management System, Integrated Retrieval Information System, and/or AdminPPT. In cases related to privacy breaches, managers have a responsibility to inform IRCC's privacy division of the privacy breach, and to ensure the breach is contained.

The employees received administrative or disciplinary measures ranging from an unauthorized access letter (five), written reprimand (two), and/or suspension without pay (four). One employee resigned before a disciplinary measure could be administered.

Misconduct Related to Security Clearance

Misconduct related to security clearance is any misrepresentation of personal information or documents provided for security screening, or contravening the individual requirement section set out in Treasury Board Secretariat’s Standard on Security Screening. For example, omitting to report the following information to the personnel security function:

• a change in criminal record status (criminal conviction, suspension of a criminal record, other judicial prohibitions)
• involvement with law enforcement (e.g., suspect in a criminal investigation, arrest)
• association with criminals
• significant change in financial situation (e.g., bankruptcy, unexpected wealth)
• additional changes in personal or legal status, including a change in marital status

In 2023-24, an IRCC case processing agent asked another employee through a work messaging application if they would accept money in exchange for approving a study permit. The employee who received the request, informed the agent that the request violates IRCC's Code of Conduct. The agent quickly responded with a falsified story, stating that another individual, to whom the agent owed money, had taken control of their laptop and requested the information. Upon further investigation, it was found the agent was under financial hardship. The reliability status of the case processing agent was revoked.

Conclusion

By issuing this Report on Misconduct and Wrongdoing we aim to reinforce our commitment to transparency, a safe and respectful workplace, and a culture of strong values and ethics. This report also highlights our strength as a Department to ensure that the appropriate corrective measures were and will be applied so that we all can learn and grow from incidents of misconduct and wrongdoing.

Through training and awareness campaigns, we will continue to actively create an environment with strong ethical standards. This report should encourage employees to feel empowered to bring forth matters of misconduct and wrongdoing when they occur without fear of reprisal. We celebrate our employees for striving to make IRCC a workplace that is better, safer, ethical, and free of misconduct and wrongdoing.

To learn more about how to report cases of misconduct, consult Annex A of this report.

Annex A – Reporting Mechanisms Points of Contact

All employees have the right to speak up when potential issues of misconduct or wrongdoing arise. Any employee—at headquarters, regional offices, or around the world—who is directly or indirectly affected by an instance of misconduct or wrongdoing should bring the matter to the attention of:

• their supervisor, unless the supervisor is the individual committing the misconduct or wrongdoing; or
• relevant internal sources listed in the tables below;
• depending on the issue, their union representative and/or a point of contact of the locally engaged staff (LES); or,
• IRCC’s Senior Officer for Internal Disclosures at InternalDisclosure-DivulgationsInternes.IRCC@cic.gc.ca .

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

• Discrimination – Canada Human Rights Commission;
• Serious Breach of a Code of Conduct and/or another wrongdoing listed at section 8 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act – Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada; or
• Staffing Processes – Public Service Commission

The following internal resources are available to employees for submitting an allegation of misconduct or wrongdoing:

Office of Internal Disclosure and Reprisal Protection

Office of Internal Disclosure and Reprisal Protection

Conduct and Integrity Division

Labour Relations

Departmental Security

People Management Operations

Office of Conflict Resolution

Annex B – Definitions

Employee (Public Servant): is a person employed in the public sector, which includes indeterminate, term employees, students, casual employees as well as locally engaged staff and part-time workers.

Formal Resolution: is an approach to resolving a complaint, where an issue is resolved by filing a complaint in writing and having an impartial person determine whether or not a misconduct or wrongdoing took place, and an appropriate corrective and/or disciplinary measures was determined. Formal resolution may include, for example, verbal reprimand, written reprimand, suspension without pay, and dismissal.

Founded: is a term used to describe the status of a case as being substantiated, where the evidence or findings of an investigation supports at least one of the allegations contained in the complaint of misconduct or protected disclosure of wrongdoing.

Informal Resolution: is an approach to resolving a complaint, where an issue is resolved in a satisfactory manner, acceptable to both parties, and empowers the parties to focus on solutions to meet their needs, rather than focusing on who is right and who is wrong. Informal resolution may include, for example, training, dialogue or mediation.

Investigation: is a systematic process of gathering evidence, by an investigator, to prove or disprove the validity of a set of allegations. The investigator is required to obtain and evaluate information regarding the circumstances and facts surrounding an allegation or set of allegations in a fair and impartial manner. Based on a balance of probabilities or a preponderance of the evidence, the investigator will determine if the allegations are founded or unfounded.

Misconduct: is any action or inaction whereby an individual willfully contravenes an act, a regulation, a rule, a departmental policy, an approved procedure, or the IRCC Code of Conduct and/or Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. Some examples include:

• unauthorized access of networks and systems;
• theft;
• assault; and/or
• insubordination.

Non-Executive (EX) Employee: is an employee occupying a position that is classified under an occupational group other than one defined under IRCC Executive (EX).

Protected Disclosure: The process to disclose an allegation of wrongdoing. This process offers legislated protection against reprisal measures. The documents created for the purpose of making a protected disclosure or in the course of an investigation conducted under the PSDPA are exempt from requests made under the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act. 

Wrongdoing: as per the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA), is:

• 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 the PSDPA;
• a misuse of public funds or a public asset;
• a gross mismanagement in the public sector;
• 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;
• a serious breach of a code of conduct; and/or
• knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit one of the wrongdoings mentioned above.