Report on Misconduct and Wrongdoing at Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (Fiscal Year 2024-2025)

Message from the Deputy Minister
Introduction
Process for Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing
Founded Cases of Misconduct and Wrongdoing at IRCC
External Investigations
Conclusion
Annex A – Reporting Mechanisms and Points of Contact
Annex B – Definitions

Message from the Deputy Minister

At IRCC, we make decisions that have a significant impact on people’s lives, including those who are most vulnerable. This makes it especially important for our clients, Canadians, stakeholders, and partners to have confidence in the Department.

In an organization of more than 10,000 employees, some level of wrongdoing will occur. Reporting such matters is essential, as we are committed to reviewing all allegations of perceived misconduct or wrongdoing through thorough review and investigation, and to taking administrative action when warranted.

The Department carries out important work and, in most cases, upholds the values and ethics of the public service. However, when standards are not met, it is essential to ensure accountability.

Employees have access to a range of mechanisms to address perceived misconduct or wrongdoing, including both informal conflict resolution services and formal investigative processes. When concerns arise, all reported allegations are taken seriously and reviewed appropriately. Where misconduct or wrongdoing is substantiated, it is addressed through appropriate disciplinary and/or administrative measures. The Department also maintains a zero-tolerance policy for any form of reprisal against employees who report concerns or participate in investigative processes.

In April 2025, to further strengthen the Department’s capacity to address workplace issues, IRCC established the Ombuds Office. This office provides a trusted, confidential, and impartial space where employees can raise workplace-related concerns without fear of reprisal. The Ombuds Office supports employees in exploring options and navigating available resources to help resolve workplace issues.

Ted Gallivan
Deputy Minister

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.

IRCC is a complex organization with more than 11,148 employees, of which are staffed in national headquarters, in the regions, and in missions abroad. 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.

This report highlights founded cases of misconduct and wrongdoing that resulted in formal resolution, following internal or external investigations conducted in Canada or at missions abroad during the 2024–25 fiscal year. It also outlines the options available to employees for submitting complaints or making protected disclosures 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 (accessible only on the IRCC network).

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.

“Gross” mismanagement

“Gross” mismanagement can trigger formal investigations and protections under the PSDPA. For example, if a manager consistently ignores procurement rules and awards contracts to friends, this could be gross mismanagement. Mismanagement that is not “gross” as defined by the PSDPA refers to poor or ineffective handling of resources, personnel, or responsibilities. It may involve errors in judgment, lack of oversight, or failure to follow best practices. However, it does not necessarily constitute wrongdoing under the PSDPA unless the situation escalates in severity. Mismanagement that is not “gross” as defined by the PSDPA, while problematic, may be addressed through internal measures. For example, if a manager forgets to file a report on time, it is not likely to be “gross” mismanagement in accordance with the PSDPA. To determine whether an allegation rises to the level of “gross” mismanagement or a “serious” breach of a code of conduct, the following elements may be taken into account:

Serious departure from generally accepted standards, practices, policies, or codes of conduct - reflects a significant deviation from expected norms or obligations;
Significant actual or potential impact on public trust, safety, or the organization’s ability to fulfill its mandate in the public interest;
Position of trust, responsibilities, and level of seniority of the individual involved – misconduct by those in leadership or high-responsibility roles may carry greater weight;
Number of employees reporting directly to the manager that may indicate the scope of influence and potential impact of the behaviour;
Frequency of the problem or behavior – systemic, endemic, or repeated nature of the behaviour that demonstrates a pattern of misconduct rather than an isolated incident;
Degree of management response – includes whether appropriate action was taken to address or prevent the issue;
Duration of the breaches – the length of time over which the behaviour occurred may indicate severity or neglect;
Willfulness or recklessness – involves deliberate, negligent, or malicious actions—not simply an error or oversight;
Threat to public confidence in the integrity of the public service – undermines trust in government institutions and their ability to serve the public;
Misuse of public funds or assets, especially when it results in harm to the public interest; and,
Impact on trust in IRCC or the broader public service – may affect the reputation and credibility of the institution.

Investigation Process

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, informing the Deputy Minister so that corrective actions can be taken, and publicly reporting on the wrongdoing and action taken. The SOID also identifies and reports on identified systemic problems that gave rise to wrongdoings. The SOID, who receives internal disclosures and is responsible for investigating allegations of wrongdoing, reports directly to the Deputy Minister.

Disciplinary or Administrative Measures

Disciplinary measures depend on the nature of the misconduct, related circumstances, and mitigating and aggravating factors, such as the employee's length of service, past record, seriousness of the offence, and unique context 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;
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 2024–25

This section provides an overview of findings related to misconduct and wrongdoing during the 2024–25 fiscal year. It presents founded fact findings, completed investigations, and reviews. In some instances, cases with similar characteristics or involving the same type of misconduct or wrongdoing were grouped together and summarized to provide a clearer picture of recurring issues.

“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 2024–25, a total of 105 cases were founded following investigations, fact findings, and/or reviews. Of these, three (3) were cases of wrongdoing investigated by the IRCC Senior Officer for Internal Disclosure, as the disclosure was made to the SOID. They can be consulted on the Open Government Website:

It is to note that some of the founded cases may have stemmed from an investigation, fact finding exercise or review initiated in a previous fiscal year. Of the 105 founded cases, IRCC administered various types of administrative and disciplinary measures ranging from letters of expectations or training to termination.

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 Behaviours;
Breach of Values and Ethics Code and IRCC’s Code of Conduct;
Administrative Misconduct;
Violation of IRCC’s Directive on the Acceptable Use of Electronic Networks and Devices;
Personnel Security Violation; and,
Staffing Complaint Misconduct.

Founded Cases in 2024-25 by Category bar graph, described below — Founded Cases in 2024-25 by Category

Categories	Founded
Fraud and Financial Misconduct	1
Harassment, Violence and Disrespectful Behaviours	22
Breach of Values and Ethics Code or IRCC's Code of Conduct	8
Administrative Misconduct	56
Violation of IRCC’s Directive on the Acceptable Use of Electronic Networks and Devices	13
Personnel Security Violation	2
Staffing Complaint Misconduct	3
Total	105

Founded Cases - Summary of Corrective Measures Taken
Categories	Founded	Summary of Corrective Measures Taken
Fraud and Financial Misconduct	1	Disciplinary letter and a 3-days suspension.
Harassment, Violence and Disrespectful Behaviours	22	Corrective measures included training, removal from staffing pool, internal conflict resolution process, letters of expectation, written reprimands, suspensions ranging from 1 to 15 working days, removal from Temporary duty list, repatriation, and termination.
Breach of Values and Ethics Code or IRCC's Code of Conduct	8	Corrective measures included training, letters of expectation, suspensions ranging from 1 to 20 days, written reprimand, and termination.
Administrative Misconduct	56	Corrective measures included training, letter of expectation, written reprimand, suspensions ranging from 1 to 30 days, recovery of funds to the Crown, and termination.
Violation of IRCC’s Directive on the Acceptable Use of Electronic Networks and Devices	13	Corrective measures included training, unauthorized access letters, suspension, and security briefings.
Personnel Security Violation	2	Corrective measures included training, security briefings, and completion of the New Employee Orientation Briefing.
Staffing Complaint Misconduct	3	Corrective measures included written letters of the employee’s obligations and a 7 day suspension.
Total	105	N/A

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.

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.

In fiscal year 2024–25, IRCC had one (1) case that met the definition of fraud and financial misconduct. An employee inappropriately used a Government Credit Card (Travel Card) and made unauthorized purchases while on travel status, resulting in non-payment of the account balance.

Disciplinary and administrative measures taken:

The employee received a disciplinary letter in which a 3-day suspension was imposed. In addition, the employee did not receive another travel card while abroad. A Financial Analyst at the Travel centre of expertise at IRCC was consulted and the full amount was reimbursed.

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. This may include:

aggressive or threatening behavior, including verbal threats or abuse
physical assault; or
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 2024–25, 22 cases of harassment, violence and disrespectful behaviours were deemed to be founded. Specifically these cases found that:

A supervisor humiliated a subordinate and inappropriately accused and used strong words towards the subordinate in a letter addressed to the subordinate.
Five employees displayed behavior that posed a risk to the image of Canada and the Department in the international context. This included misrepresentation, inappropriate, racist and discriminatory comments.
Nine employees displayed disrespectful behavior. This included but was not limited to using inappropriate tone and raised voices during altercations, engaging in disrespectful or unprofessional communication with colleagues, supervisors, and management, and making inappropriate comments in public settings and via email.
An employee touched a colleague inappropriately.
Two employees made inappropriate comments to other employees.
An employee engaged in sexual harassment towards a colleague.
An employee displayed violent behaviour in the workplace further to a disciplinary hearing that had occurred.
An employee made discriminatory and racist comments, was verbally aggressive and made use of profanity toward colleagues.
An employee left inappropriate voicemails to a subordinate.

Administrative actions taken were as follows:

Administrative Actions
Administrative Action	Total
Letter of expectation	3
Removal from Temporary Duty list	1
Repatriation	2
Early assignment end	1
Training	3
Branch-wide supervisory training	1
Internal Conflict Resolution	1
Removal from staffing pool	1
A clearer system of communication on the learning portal and mandatory learning roadmap for supervisors and managers was proposed.	1

In addition, levels of discipline ranged as follows:

Levels of discipline
Level of discipline	Total
Written reprimand	5
Suspension ranging from 1 to 15 days	8
Termination	1

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, and/or the Directive on Conflict of Interest.

In 2024–25, ten (10) cases were founded related to a breach of a code of conduct. These cases found that:

An executive engaged in gross mismanagement and seriously breached IRCC’s Code of Conduct by giving preferential treatment to a romantic partner, failing to address multiple conflicts of interest, and routinely using highly disrespectful language toward staff and colleagues.
An executive committed gross mismanagement and seriously breached IRCC’s Code of Conduct by pressuring subordinates to hire and assist individuals connected to them, and by directing staff to manipulate staffing and pay decisions in ways that constituted counseling others to commit wrongdoing.
An executive committed a serious breach of IRCC’s Code of Conduct by attempting to arrange a reciprocal hiring exchange involving their niece, creating an apparent conflict of interest even though the exchange never occurred.
An employee did not follow Global Affairs Canada and IRCC's departure instructions for evacuation during an assignment abroad and failed to provide accurate and timely information to government officials regarding their dependant’s whereabouts during the departure process.
An employee did not loyally implement the direction provided by an executive to respect the Department's position.
An employee had a public blog where they identified themselves as a Canadian diplomat (used their position title for outside interest) where they discussed aspects of their work at the embassy, including private conversations with embassy staff and views on the country's people and government. The employee also expressed political opinions that could potentially damage IRCC's reputation.
An employee disclosed information to a third party who was not privy to the information.
An employee did not follow the established work procedures, thus creating a privacy breach.
An employee inappropriately accessed files in GCDOCS which they did not have a need to know, thus resulting in privacy breaches.
An employee abused their authority over employees they supervised, as well as blurred the professional/friendship lines with subordinates.

The following administrative measures were taken:

Administrative measures
Administrative Action	Total
Letter of expectations	2
Training	1

The levels of discipline ranged as follows:

Levels of discipline
Level of discipline	Total
Written reprimand	2
Suspension 1-day	1
Suspension 3-day	1
Suspension 20-day	1
Termination for cause	1
Disciplinary measures pending return from leave	1
Executive voluntarily departed public service, no disciplinary action could occur	1

Administrative Misconduct

Breakdown of Administrative Conduct bar graph, described below — Breakdown of Administrative Misconduct

Administrative Misconduct Category	Number of Cases
Time theft, tardiness, absenteeism, and/or unauthorized leave	47
Insubordination or failure to carry out duties or specific tasks or to follow instructions	9
Misuse of government assets	0
Total	56

Administrative misconduct includes time theft, tardiness, absenteeism, and/or unauthorized leave, insubordination or failure to carry out duties or specific tasks or to follow instructions, and/or the misuse of government assets. In 2024–25, 56 cases were founded related to administrative misconduct.

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

47 cases were founded related to time theft, tardiness, absenteeism, and/or unauthorized leave. More specifically:

An employee held two full time positions in the Government of Canada.
An employee claimed overtime not worked.
Four employees purposely misrepresented productivity to management by falsifying activity reports and/or by sending emails at certain times, to manipulate statistics in their favor and to mislead into thinking the employee was actively working.
An employee mislead management that the project assigned to them was progressing as planned.
An employee called in sick to work but instead attended a conference.
Two employees did not work during regular scheduled work hours.
An employee shared their credentials with family members to simulate their presence at work.
An employe had extended and multiple absences from MS Teams.
Six employees had multiple unauthorized absences from the workplace.
An employee failed to submit leave for time off taken in a previous fiscal year.
An employee provided management with fraudulent medical assessments.

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

Nine (9) employees 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. This included reassigning their work to other colleagues, not adhering to their telework agreement, not completing taskings on time, not following management’s instructions and/or direction related to procedures of their duties, and disregarding management’s request to meet.

As a result, considering all mitigating and aggravating factors, the following administrative actions were taken:

Administrative actions
Administrative Action	Total
Letter of expectations	1
Reminder to review all training material, policies, and guidelines available	1
Recovery of funds to the Crown	32

In these cases, the levels of discipline ranged as follows:

Levels of discipline
Level of discipline	Total
Written reprimand	9
Suspension ranging from 1 to 9 days	10
Suspension ranging from 10 to 19 days	9
Suspension ranging from 20 to 30 days	8
Termination for cause	1

Misuse of Government Assets

Misuse of government assets refers to the inappropriate, unauthorized, or unethical use of government resources, roles, or information that violates the values and expected behaviours outlined in the IRCC Code of Conduct. For example, for other intent than official purposes – for own personal benefit or that of family members, friends or outside organizations. This may include the use of purchased, used or leased Crown assets and property such as computers, telephones, cell phones, photocopiers, equipment, vehicles, taxi vouchers, fax machines, and data banks.

In 2024–25, there were no founded cases of misuse of government assets.

Violation of IRCC’s Directive on the Acceptable Use of Electronic Networks and Devices

Violation of IRCC’s Directive on the Acceptable Use of Electronic Networks and Devices refers to any unacceptable use of the Department’s electronic networks and associated devices as per IRCC’s Directive. This may include 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. More specifically:

Twelve (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. An employee accessed GMCS on four occasions, over the course of a few years, to locate an estranged family member. The employee also used GCMS to find information on a person against whom they pursued legal action.
Additional specific situations include downloading an unauthorized software on their computer that would prevent it from entering in sleep mode, viewing explicit content on their work computer, and connecting a hacking device to a work computer or network.

IRCC systems accessed include GCMS, which supports immigration case management; the Integrated Retrieval Information System (IRIS), used to retrieve and manage administrative and operational information related to immigration and citizenship files; and AdminPPT, an internal system to manage passport applications.

In cases involving privacy breaches, managers are responsible for notifying IRCC's Privacy Division and ensuring that appropriate measures are taken to contain the breach.

As a result of these violations, the following administration measures were given:

Administration measures
Administrative Action	Total
Unauthorized access letter	2
Training	1
Security briefing	1
Reminder of IRCC Directive on the Acceptable Use of Electronic Networks and Devices and the Policy on Service and Digital	1

In these cases, the levels of discipline ranged as follows:

Levels of discipline
Level of discipline	Total
Written reprimand	9
Suspension	8

In addition, one employee resigned and another employee’s contract ended before disciplinary measures could be administered.

Personnel Security Violation

A Personnel Security Violation 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. This includes 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); or
additional changes in personal or legal status, including a change in marital status.

In 2024–25, there were two (2) founded cases of misconduct related to security clearance. Specifically:

An employee accessed office spaces access policies via other Government of Canada employees.
An employee accessed IRCC system networks without authorization to view the files of a former business acquaintance and a family member.

Administrative measures taken:

Administrative measures taken included a Review for Cause, a Resolution of Doubt interview, a GC Hub access revocation, reminder of security obligations, tailored security briefings and courses that included Fundamental of information management, Security Awareness, and Values and Ethics Foundation.

Staffing Complaint Misconduct

Staffing complaints are concerns about appointments/appointment processes related to the Public Service Employment Act.

In 2024–25, there were three (3) founded staffing complaints. Specifically:

Two employees proceeded with screening in an unqualified candidate into a development program.
An employee provided false references in a staffing process that led to an acting opportunity in a different Government of Canada department.

Disciplinary and administrative measures taken:

The disciplinary and administrative measures taken included reminder of employee’s obligations related to their work and a 7-day suspension.

External Investigations

Other Canadian entities also undertake their own investigations of our Department or staff members as part of their mandate. This section provides information regarding the types of investigations these organizations undertake, as well as a summary of known investigations completed concerning the alleged misconduct and/or wrongdoing of an IRCC employee.

Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (PSIC)

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

Public sector employees may disclose wrongdoing to:

their supervisor;
the Senior Officer designated for internal disclosure in their organization; or
the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada.

Public service employees are not obligated to exhaust internal mechanisms in their organization before contacting PSIC.

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

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

During 2024–25 fiscal year, no founded cases of wrongdoing related to IRCC was published on the PSIC website.

Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC)

Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, an individual or group of individuals may submit a human rights complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) related to any action, behaviour, decision or omission of the federal government or a federally regulated organization that they have reasonable grounds to believe resulted in the unfair or negative treatment of a person under prohibited grounds of discrimination, including race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

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

The Labour Relations Centre of Expertise is responsible for coordinating the departmental response to complaints made to the CHRC against IRCC. In reporting year 2024-2025, the CHRC accepted to review one (1) complaint against IRCC, and no IRCC-related decisions were issued.

Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC)

As part of its mandate to uphold the integrity of the staffing system and ensure the political impartiality of the federal public service, the PSC investigates concerns related to specific appointment processes and allegations of improper political activities within organizations subject to the Public Service Employment Act.

The PSC does publish summaries of investigation reports, including those related to staffing and political activities. However, most of these summaries are anonymous and do not typically identify specific departments. The PSC may disclose personal or departmental information only in certain cases, using its discretionary authority under the Public Service Employment Regulations or the Political Activities Regulations, such as a serious breach that warrants public disclosure.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB)

The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB) is an independent quasi-judicial statutory tribunal established by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act (FPSLREBA) that came into force on November 1, 2014.

The FPSLREB is responsible for administering the collective bargaining and grievance adjudication systems in the federal public service and in Parliament. It is also responsible for the resolution of staffing complaints related to internal appointments and layoffs in the federal public service. It receives complaints about appointments that were made to comply with an order in a previous FPSLREB decision, as well as revocations of internal appointments.

In fiscal year 2024–25, one decision was rendered by the FPSLREB involving IRCC. The grievance was submitted in response to a situation which dates back to 2017. The FPSLREB found that it was not within their jurisdiction, and it was subsequently denied.

Conclusion

By publishing this Report on Misconduct and Wrongdoing, we reaffirm our commitment to transparency, a safe and respectful workplace, and a culture rooted in strong values and ethics.

This report also reflects our strength as a department in ensuring that appropriate corrective measures have been—and will continue to be—applied, allowing us all to learn and grow from incidents of misconduct and wrongdoing.

Through ongoing training and awareness initiatives, we remain dedicated to fostering an environment grounded in ethical standards.

We hope this report empowers employees to speak up about misconduct and wrongdoing without fear of reprisal. We commend our employees for their continued efforts to make IRCC a better, safer, and more ethical workplace—free from misconduct and wrongdoing.

To learn more about how to report cases of misconduct, please refer to the Annex A of this report.

Annex A – Reporting Mechanisms and Points of Contact

All employees have the right to speak up when potential issues of misconduct or wrongdoing arise. Whether based at National Headquarters, in regional offices, or working abroad, any employee who is directly or indirectly affected by an incident of misconduct or wrongdoing is encouraged to report the matter to one of the following:

their immediate supervisor, unless the supervisor is the individual committing the misconduct or wrongdoing;
relevant internal sources listed in the tables below;
for Foreign Service employees abroad, issues can also be reported to International Platform Branch’s Workforce Management team at IPB at IRCC.IPBEmployeeManagement-DGPIGestiondesemployes.IRCC@cic.gc.ca
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 IRCC.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 seeking guidance and submitting an allegation of misconduct or wrongdoing:

Office of Internal Disclosure and Reprisal Protection

Roles, Responsibilities, and Points of Contact	Processes Available to Complainant
IRCC’s Office of Internal Disclosure provides you with a secure and confidential process to report wrongdoing and to protect you from reprisal. This process provides employees with legislated protection under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA). Under this Act, employees who make a protected disclosure are entitled to the following protection: Your disclosure, along with any documents created during the investigation process under the PSDPA, is handled with strict confidentiality. These records are exempt from release under both the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. The documents related to a disclosure or investigation under the PSDPA are only accessible to authorized individuals. If you believe that you are the subject of reprisal, you have the right to file a formal reprisal complaint. This process may result in a settlement that includes reinstatement and corrective measures, as ordered by the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal. The Tribunal has the authority to order compensation to victims of reprisal and to impose disciplinary action on individuals responsible for such reprisals.	Who are these services available to: Any persons employed in the public sector. What is a wrongdoing? Wrongdoing relates to serious violations that go against the public interest, such as: violating any Act of Parliament or any Act of the legislatures of the provinces; misusing public funds or public assets; gross mismanagement in the public sector; doing something—or failing to do something—that creates a substantial and specific danger to the health, safety or life 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; seriously breaching the Treasury Board or your organization's code of conduct; knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit a wrongdoing set out above. When can someone make a protected disclosure of wrongdoing? There is no time limit for making a protected disclosure under the PSDPA. However, the Senior Officer for Internal Disclosures may take the passage of time into account when determining whether an investigation is appropriate. How to Make a Protected Disclosure of Wrongdoing You may choose one of the following channels: IRCC Office of Internal Disclosure (IRCC.InternalDisclosure-DivulgationsInternes.IRCC@cic.gc.ca) Your Supervisor - You may report the wrongdoing to your supervisor, who is responsible for forwarding the disclosure to the Office of Internal Disclosure. Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (PSIC) (www.psic-ispc.gc.ca) Timeline for Investigation: Every effort will be made to complete investigations within one year Potential Outcomes (if the wrongdoing is founded) Once all measures to ensure procedural fairness have been provided to the respondent, a written report is submitted directly to the Chief Executive (Deputy Minister). Within 60 days, information about the founded wrongdoing is made available to the public, along with the corrective actions that will be taken to address the behaviour and prevent its recurrence.

Roles, Responsibilities, and Points of Contact

Processes Available to Complainant

IRCC’s Office of Internal Disclosure provides you with a secure and confidential process to report wrongdoing and to protect you from reprisal. This process provides employees with legislated protection under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA). Under this Act, employees who make a protected disclosure are entitled to the following protection:

Your disclosure, along with any documents created during the investigation process under the PSDPA, is handled with strict confidentiality. These records are exempt from release under both the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.
The documents related to a disclosure or investigation under the PSDPA are only accessible to authorized individuals.
If you believe that you are the subject of reprisal, you have the right to file a formal reprisal complaint. This process may result in a settlement that includes reinstatement and corrective measures, as ordered by the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal. The Tribunal has the authority to order compensation to victims of reprisal and to impose disciplinary action on individuals responsible for such reprisals.

Who are these services available to: Any persons employed in the public sector.

What is a wrongdoing?
Wrongdoing relates to serious violations that go against the public interest, such as:

violating any Act of Parliament or any Act of the legislatures of the provinces;
misusing public funds or public assets;
gross mismanagement in the public sector;
doing something—or failing to do something—that creates a substantial and specific danger to the health, safety or life 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;
seriously breaching the Treasury Board or your organization's code of conduct;
knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit a wrongdoing set out above.

When can someone make a protected disclosure of wrongdoing?
There is no time limit for making a protected disclosure under the PSDPA. However, the Senior Officer for Internal Disclosures may take the passage of time into account when determining whether an investigation is appropriate.

How to Make a Protected Disclosure of Wrongdoing
You may choose one of the following channels:

IRCC Office of Internal Disclosure (IRCC.InternalDisclosure-DivulgationsInternes.IRCC@cic.gc.ca)
Your Supervisor - You may report the wrongdoing to your supervisor, who is responsible for forwarding the disclosure to the Office of Internal Disclosure.
Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (PSIC) (www.psic-ispc.gc.ca)

Timeline for Investigation: Every effort will be made to complete investigations within one year

Potential Outcomes (if the wrongdoing is founded)
Once all measures to ensure procedural fairness have been provided to the respondent, a written report is submitted directly to the Chief Executive (Deputy Minister).

Within 60 days, information about the founded wrongdoing is made available to the public, along with the corrective actions that will be taken to address the behaviour and prevent its recurrence.

Harassment and Violence Prevention

Roles, Responsibilities, and Points of Contact	Processes Available to Complainant
The Office of Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention: The Office of Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention (OWHVP) is responsible for the prevention and resolution of incidents of harassment and violence in the workplace, as well as providing support to those involved. The OWHVP acts as the designated recipient of notices of occurrences (complaints of harassment and violence). The OWHVP offers impartial and confidential services to IRCC employees at all levels, supporting the resolution of harassment and violence incidents and promoting and restoring a healthy, respectful, and safe workplace. All information shared with the designated recipient is treated as strictly confidential. The designated recipient doesn’t disclose any identifying details except when required to ensure the health and safety, to comply with legal obligations, or to fulfill reporting requirements under the Regulations.	Who are these services available to: Persons employed by IRCC and former employees who have left IRCC within the first 3 months. What type of complaint can be reported: A notice of occurrence can be filed related to any action, conduct, or comment, including of a sexual nature, that can be reasonably expected to cause offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee, including any discriminatory action, conduct or comment. When can someone file a notice of occurrence: There are no prescribed timelines to file a workplace harassment and violence complaint under the Canada Labour Code, Part II. When can someone file a grievance on harassment or a discrimination complaint: A discrimination complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) can be filed within 1 year. A harassment and discrimination grievance under the applicable collective agreement can be filed not later than the twenty-fifth (25th) day after the date on which the grievor is notified or on which the grievor first becomes aware of the action or circumstances giving rise to the grievance. How do you report harassment, violence and disrespectful behaviours misconduct: Contact the OWHVP via email at IRCC.DesignatedRecipient-DestinataireDesigne.IRCC@cic.gc.ca to seek guidance or notify advisors of an incident and begin the process. Potential outcomes, if founded: No personal corrective measures are granted under the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations, however if founded, corrective measures are focused on preventing another occurrence. Some examples of corrective measures include: Training; Branch level training; and On-the-job training.

Roles, Responsibilities, and Points of Contact

Processes Available to Complainant

The Office of Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention:

The Office of Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention (OWHVP) is responsible for the prevention and resolution of incidents of harassment and violence in the workplace, as well as providing support to those involved. The OWHVP acts as the designated recipient of notices of occurrences (complaints of harassment and violence).

The OWHVP offers impartial and confidential services to IRCC employees at all levels, supporting the resolution of harassment and violence incidents and promoting and restoring a healthy, respectful, and safe workplace.

All information shared with the designated recipient is treated as strictly confidential. The designated recipient doesn’t disclose any identifying details except when required to ensure the health and safety, to comply with legal obligations, or to fulfill reporting requirements under the Regulations.

Who are these services available to: Persons employed by IRCC and former employees who have left IRCC within the first 3 months.

What type of complaint can be reported: A notice of occurrence can be filed related to any action, conduct, or comment, including of a sexual nature, that can be reasonably expected to cause offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee, including any discriminatory action, conduct or comment.

When can someone file a notice of occurrence: There are no prescribed timelines to file a workplace harassment and violence complaint under the Canada Labour Code, Part II.

When can someone file a grievance on harassment or a discrimination complaint:
A discrimination complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) can be filed within 1 year.

A harassment and discrimination grievance under the applicable collective agreement can be filed not later than the twenty-fifth (25th) day after the date on which the grievor is notified or on which the grievor first becomes aware of the action or circumstances giving rise to the grievance.

How do you report harassment, violence and disrespectful behaviours misconduct: Contact the OWHVP via email at IRCC.DesignatedRecipient-DestinataireDesigne.IRCC@cic.gc.ca to seek guidance or notify advisors of an incident and begin the process.

Potential outcomes, if founded: No personal corrective measures are granted under the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations, however if founded, corrective measures are focused on preventing another occurrence. Some examples of corrective measures include:

Training;
Branch level training; and
On-the-job training.

Conduct and Integrity Division

Roles, Responsibilities, and Points of Contact	Processes Available to Complainant
The Conduct and Integrity Division (CID) is a corporate resource responsible for enabling and supporting the Department to uphold public service values and ethics and ensure transparent, fair, efficient and unbiased processes when conducting administrative investigations by providing advice, guidance, awareness, coordination, monitoring, and reporting activities. The Conduct and Integrity Division has the mandate to receive allegations of misconduct and to conduct mandated administrative investigations when applicable. It can also communicate with law enforcement authorities for matters that pertain to their area of responsibility. In addition, the Conduct and Integrity Division is responsible for the systematic reviewing of IRCC systems (AdminPPT/IRIS) and the investigations that may ensue as it relates to employee’s unauthorized access in the system. For IRCC system users who work for other government departments (OGDs), the Conduct and Integrity Division must disseminate its findings to the appropriate OGD when system unauthorized access is suspected.	Who are these services available to: Any persons employed by IRCC, and any member of the public can submit an email to CID. What type of misconduct can be reported: Any allegations of misconduct, whereby an individual willfully contravenes a rule, a departmental policy, an approved procedure, or the IRCC Code of Conduct and/or Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. For example: absence from work without authorization; unauthorized access of networks and systems; theft; assault; and/or, insubordination and violations of legislation for which criminal sanctions are applicable. When can someone file a report: There is no timeline for when someone can file a report of misconduct. How do you report misconduct: To report actual or suspected misconduct, you may contact the Conduct and Integrity Division using the following email: IRCC.WorkplaceInvestigationsUnit-United'enquetes.IRCC@cic.gc.ca Employees and managers may also forward their allegation to the office of internal disclosure and reprisal protection (ircc.internaldisclosure-divulgationinterne.ircc@cic.gc.ca) if they believe the misconduct to be serious, or if they fear reprisal. Allegations of misconduct may also be shared with an employee’s manager. Potential Outcomes, if founded: The Conduct and Integrity Division is not responsible for issuing corrective or disciplinary measures; however, the results of an investigation or fact-finding exercise are passed on to the following functions, or individuals, who at their discretion can issue a corrective or disciplinary measure: Management of the employee who committed a misconduct; Labour Relations; Departmental Security; and/or, Office of Internal Disclosure and Reprisal Protection.

Roles, Responsibilities, and Points of Contact

Processes Available to Complainant

The Conduct and Integrity Division (CID) is a corporate resource responsible for enabling and supporting the Department to uphold public service values and ethics and ensure transparent, fair, efficient and unbiased processes when conducting administrative investigations by providing advice, guidance, awareness, coordination, monitoring, and reporting activities.

The Conduct and Integrity Division has the mandate to receive allegations of misconduct and to conduct mandated administrative investigations when applicable. It can also communicate with law enforcement authorities for matters that pertain to their area of responsibility.

In addition, the Conduct and Integrity Division is responsible for the systematic reviewing of IRCC systems (AdminPPT/IRIS) and the investigations that may ensue as it relates to employee’s unauthorized access in the system. For IRCC system users who work for other government departments (OGDs), the Conduct and Integrity Division must disseminate its findings to the appropriate OGD when system unauthorized access is suspected.

Who are these services available to: Any persons employed by IRCC, and any member of the public can submit an email to CID.

What type of misconduct can be reported: Any allegations of misconduct, whereby an individual willfully contravenes a rule, a departmental policy, an approved procedure, or the IRCC Code of Conduct and/or Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. For example:

absence from work without authorization;
unauthorized access of networks and systems;
theft;
assault; and/or,
insubordination and violations of legislation for which criminal sanctions are applicable.

When can someone file a report:
There is no timeline for when someone can file a report of misconduct.

How do you report misconduct:

To report actual or suspected misconduct, you may contact the Conduct and Integrity Division using the following email: IRCC.WorkplaceInvestigationsUnit-United'enquetes.IRCC@cic.gc.ca
Employees and managers may also forward their allegation to the office of internal disclosure and reprisal protection (ircc.internaldisclosure-divulgationinterne.ircc@cic.gc.ca) if they believe the misconduct to be serious, or if they fear reprisal.
Allegations of misconduct may also be shared with an employee’s manager.

Potential Outcomes, if founded:
The Conduct and Integrity Division is not responsible for issuing corrective or disciplinary measures; however, the results of an investigation or fact-finding exercise are passed on to the following functions, or individuals, who at their discretion can issue a corrective or disciplinary measure:

Management of the employee who committed a misconduct;
Labour Relations;
Departmental Security; and/or,
Office of Internal Disclosure and Reprisal Protection.

Labour Relations

Roles, Responsibilities, and Points of Contact	Processes Available to Complainant
Labour Relations is responsible for fulfilling IRCC’s mandate by providing advice and guidance to departmental management in terms of people management. Labour Relations is committed to: ensuring a productive work environment; fair treatment of employees through the consistent application of collective agreements, legislation and workplace policies; and, encouraging and facilitating fluid labour-management relations Labour relations advisors are available to support managers with the handling of grievances, discipline, duty to accommodate, performance management, leave management questions, interpretation of collective agreement, legislations, regulations and policies. Labour Relations provides advice and insight on current jurisprudence and precedents to management. They will ensure that mitigating and aggravating factors are taken into account in the decision-making process as it relates to corrective measures and/or disciplinary actions at the conclusion of an investigation.	Who are these services available to: IRCC managers. What type of misconduct can be reported: Breaches, deliberately, recklessly, or through negligence, related to IRCC’s policies, standards of conduct (ex. IRCC’s Code of Conduct) or the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. Examples of Misconduct: Off-duty conduct (private life): Any conduct that may bring discredit on the Department or the Government as a whole. Work-related (related to rules): attendance insubordination falsifying documents Work-related (related to duties): negligence failure to follow procedures How do you report misconduct: When a manager is made aware of the possibility of misconduct on the part of an employee, they must: act promptly; consult with their Labour Relations Advisor; and gather evidence in a preliminary fact-finding exercise. Potential Outcomes, if founded: Some examples of outcomes include, but are not limited to: Administrative measures (e.g.: training); Oral reprimand; Written reprimand; Suspension without pay; Financial penalty; Demotion; and/or, Termination.

Roles, Responsibilities, and Points of Contact

Processes Available to Complainant

Labour Relations is responsible for fulfilling IRCC’s mandate by providing advice and guidance to departmental management in terms of people management.

Labour Relations is committed to:

ensuring a productive work environment;
fair treatment of employees through the consistent application of collective agreements, legislation and workplace policies; and,
encouraging and facilitating fluid labour-management relations

Labour relations advisors are available to support managers with the handling of grievances, discipline, duty to accommodate, performance management, leave management questions, interpretation of collective agreement, legislations, regulations and policies.

Labour Relations provides advice and insight on current jurisprudence and precedents to management. They will ensure that mitigating and aggravating factors are taken into account in the decision-making process as it relates to corrective measures and/or disciplinary actions at the conclusion of an investigation.

Who are these services available to: IRCC managers.

What type of misconduct can be reported:
Breaches, deliberately, recklessly, or through negligence, related to IRCC’s policies, standards of conduct (ex. IRCC’s Code of Conduct) or the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector.

Examples of Misconduct:

Off-duty conduct (private life): Any conduct that may bring discredit on the Department or the Government as a whole.
Work-related (related to rules):
- attendance
- insubordination
- falsifying documents
Work-related (related to duties):
- negligence
- failure to follow procedures

How do you report misconduct:
When a manager is made aware of the possibility of misconduct on the part of an employee, they must:

act promptly;
consult with their Labour Relations Advisor; and
gather evidence in a preliminary fact-finding exercise.

Potential Outcomes, if founded:
Some examples of outcomes include, but are not limited to:

Administrative measures (e.g.: training);
Oral reprimand;
Written reprimand;
Suspension without pay;
Financial penalty;
Demotion; and/or,
Termination.

Departmental Security

Roles, Responsibilities, and Points of Contact	Processes Available to Complainant
Departmental Security is responsible for investigating breaches to the Policy on Government Security (PGS). As such, it must be immediately informed of any security event, as defined in the PGS. Departmental Security conducts investigations when security events occur outside the scope of management’s authority or capability to address the issue. Under Departmental Security, the Investigations and Security screening unit is responsible for conducting security screenings, maintaining a central registry of all IRCC’s security-related personnel files, and conducting security interviews and personnel security investigations. Departmental Security may be required to liaise with law enforcement agencies and/or other government departments such as (but not limited to) the Competition Bureau of Canada, the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and Shared Services Canada. Departmental Security works in partnership with the Conduct and Integrity Division to: Conduct and coordinate fact finding exercises and administrative investigations of allegations or suspected misconduct of a criminal nature or a breach of any other legislation or statute or those involving law enforcement interventions and Security Incident as defined in the Policy on Government Security; Provide case management coordination and support to the Department; and Report to the CSO and to senior management.	Who are these services available to: Any member of the public and federal government employees can report an incident to IRCC’s Departmental Security branch. What type of misconduct can be reported: Employees are required to report any of the following changes in personal circumstances, where if not reported, it is considered a misconduct: 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); and/or, additional changes in personal or legal status, including a change in marital status. When can someone file a report: An individual can report an incident, regardless of how much time as passed. Investigations will only occur on active IRCC employees. How do you report a misconduct or wrongdoing: For incidents not in progress and no threat of immediate harm to anyone, please file a Security Incident Report: Online Security Incident Reporting (accessible only on the IRCC network). If the incident you would like to report is not listed contact IRCC.CorporateSecurity-SecuriteMinisterielle.IRCC@cic.gc.ca. For life-threatening emergencies, call 911, be prepared to provide: the nature of the emergency your location (building, floor, and room number) your name the telephone number you are calling from For other emergencies, call the Emergency Line at the Security Operation Centre at (613) 941–2110 Inform your manager of security incidents. Potential outcomes, if founded: The measures administered by Departmental Security include revocation of an employee’s reliability status, facilitating requests to revoke an employee’s security clearance, and administering training.

Roles, Responsibilities, and Points of Contact

Processes Available to Complainant

Departmental Security is responsible for investigating breaches to the Policy on Government Security (PGS). As such, it must be immediately informed of any security event, as defined in the PGS. Departmental Security conducts investigations when security events occur outside the scope of management’s authority or capability to address the issue.

Under Departmental Security, the Investigations and Security screening unit is responsible for conducting security screenings, maintaining a central registry of all IRCC’s security-related personnel files, and conducting security interviews and personnel security investigations.

Departmental Security may be required to liaise with law enforcement agencies and/or other government departments such as (but not limited to) the Competition Bureau of Canada, the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and Shared Services Canada. Departmental Security works in partnership with the Conduct and Integrity Division to:

Conduct and coordinate fact finding exercises and administrative investigations of allegations or suspected misconduct of a criminal nature or a breach of any other legislation or statute or those involving law enforcement interventions and Security Incident as defined in the Policy on Government Security;
Provide case management coordination and support to the Department; and
Report to the CSO and to senior management.

Who are these services available to:
Any member of the public and federal government employees can report an incident to IRCC’s Departmental Security branch.

What type of misconduct can be reported:
Employees are required to report any of the following changes in personal circumstances, where if not reported, it is considered a misconduct:

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); and/or,
additional changes in personal or legal status, including a change in marital status.

When can someone file a report: An individual can report an incident, regardless of how much time as passed. Investigations will only occur on active IRCC employees.

How do you report a misconduct or wrongdoing:

For incidents not in progress and no threat of immediate harm to anyone, please file a Security Incident Report: Online Security Incident Reporting (accessible only on the IRCC network). If the incident you would like to report is not listed contact IRCC.CorporateSecurity-SecuriteMinisterielle.IRCC@cic.gc.ca.
For life-threatening emergencies, call 911, be prepared to provide:
- the nature of the emergency
- your location (building, floor, and room number)
- your name
- the telephone number you are calling from
For other emergencies, call the Emergency Line at the Security Operation Centre at (613) 941–2110
Inform your manager of security incidents.

Potential outcomes, if founded: The measures administered by Departmental Security include revocation of an employee’s reliability status, facilitating requests to revoke an employee’s security clearance, and administering training.

People Management Operations

Roles, Responsibilities, and Points of Contact	Processes Available to Complainant
According to the Public Service Employment Act, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB) is responsible for handling complaints for appointments within the Public Service involving: abuse of authority in applying the merit criteria; abuse of authority in choosing between an advertised and a non-advertised appointment process; omission to assess the candidate in the official language of his/her choice. The Board also deals with complaints involving: Layoff: The ground for complaint is that the selection of the complainant for layoff constitutes an abuse of authority. Revocation: The decision of a deputy head or the Public Service Commission to revoke an appointment. The ground for complaint is that the revocation was unreasonable. Appointments made or proposed as a result of the implementation of the corrective action. The ground for complaint is that the person was not appointed or proposed for appointment by reason of an abuse of authority in the implementation of the corrective action ordered by the Board in a previous decision.	Who are these services available to: Abuse of Authority: Any unsuccessful candidate in the area of selection in an advertised appointment process; or Any person in the area of selection in a non-advertised appointment process. Layoff: any employee informed by the deputy head that he or she will be laid off is entitled to file a complaint on the ground that the deputy head’s selection of that employee to layoff constitutes an abuse of authority. If an appointment or proposed appointment occurs as a result of corrective action taken in response to a prior successful complaint, the following parties have a right of complaint on the ground that there was abuse of authority in implementing the corrective action ordered by the Board in the previous decision: the person who filed the original complaint; the person originally proposed for appointment or appointed; or any person directly affected by the implementation of the corrective action. Revocation: Any person whose appointment is revoked following an internal appointment process is entitled to file a complaint on the ground that the decision to revoke was unreasonable. What type of complaint can be filed: The Board handles complaints for appointments within the Public Service involving: abuse of authority in applying the merit criteria; abuse of authority in choosing between an advertised and a non-advertised appointment process; and/or, omission to assess the candidate in the official language of his/her choice. How to file a staffing complaint: Consult the FPSLREB’s website: E-filing and Forms) Timelines to file a complaint: All complaints must be filed within 15 calendar days (not working days) of the date on which the notice of the appointment or proposed appointment, or revocation or layoff (that is the subject of the complaint) was received. Potential Outcomes, if founded: Corrective measures can range from: the sub delegation being removed; an apology to the complainant be requested; or, the complainant be re-assessed. Note: The Board lacks the ability to mandate financial compensation to the complainant, except in the event where it has been founded that the complainant’s human rights were violated. The Board cannot mandate that the department appoint the complainant.

Roles, Responsibilities, and Points of Contact

Processes Available to Complainant

According to the Public Service Employment Act, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB) is responsible for handling complaints for appointments within the Public Service involving:

abuse of authority in applying the merit criteria;
abuse of authority in choosing between an advertised and a non-advertised appointment process;
omission to assess the candidate in the official language of his/her choice.

The Board also deals with complaints involving:

Layoff: The ground for complaint is that the selection of the complainant for layoff constitutes an abuse of authority.
Revocation: The decision of a deputy head or the Public Service Commission to revoke an appointment. The ground for complaint is that the revocation was unreasonable.
Appointments made or proposed as a result of the implementation of the corrective action. The ground for complaint is that the person was not appointed or proposed for appointment by reason of an abuse of authority in the implementation of the corrective action ordered by the Board in a previous decision.

Who are these services available to:

Abuse of Authority: Any unsuccessful candidate in the area of selection in an advertised appointment process; or Any person in the area of selection in a non-advertised appointment process.
Layoff: any employee informed by the deputy head that he or she will be laid off is entitled to file a complaint on the ground that the deputy head’s selection of that employee to layoff constitutes an abuse of authority.
If an appointment or proposed appointment occurs as a result of corrective action taken in response to a prior successful complaint, the following parties have a right of complaint on the ground that there was abuse of authority in implementing the corrective action ordered by the Board in the previous decision:
- the person who filed the original complaint;
- the person originally proposed for appointment or appointed; or
- any person directly affected by the implementation of the corrective action.
Revocation: Any person whose appointment is revoked following an internal appointment process is entitled to file a complaint on the ground that the decision to revoke was unreasonable.

What type of complaint can be filed:
The Board handles complaints for appointments within the Public Service involving:

abuse of authority in applying the merit criteria;
abuse of authority in choosing between an advertised and a non-advertised appointment process; and/or,
omission to assess the candidate in the official language of his/her choice.

How to file a staffing complaint: Consult the FPSLREB’s website: E-filing and Forms)

Timelines to file a complaint: All complaints must be filed within 15 calendar days (not working days) of the date on which the notice of the appointment or proposed appointment, or revocation or layoff (that is the subject of the complaint) was received.

Potential Outcomes, if founded: Corrective measures can range from:

the sub delegation being removed;
an apology to the complainant be requested; or,
the complainant be re-assessed.

Note: The Board lacks the ability to mandate financial compensation to the complainant, except in the event where it has been founded that the complainant’s human rights were violated. The Board cannot mandate that the department appoint the complainant.

Ombuds Office

Roles, Responsibilities, and Points of Contact	Processes Available to Complainant
Ombuds Office provides a confidential and impartial space for staff at all levels of the organization to openly discuss a workplace-related issue, concern or conflict without fear of reprisal, and help them explore options and navigate available resources to resolve issues. Ombuds does not engage in formal investigations, grievances or complaints or act as an agent of legal notice of occurrence on behalf of IRCC. Its key roles include: Offering information, support and assistance to employees, managers and executives in navigating the mechanisms of resolution and exploring alternatives to report and/or surface concerns including potential issues of misconduct and wrongdoing; Guiding or coaching individuals to help improve their skills and confidence in giving voice to their concerns directly, including developing informal resolution options and the use of formal processes internal and external to IRCC in support of disclosures of misconduct and wrongdoing; Referring individuals to other IRCC resources for resolution including the range of specialized informal conflict resolution services provided by the Office of Conflict Resolution (OCR); Assisting employees at all levels in confidentially raising a concern at organizational level, and providing anonymous feedback to senior leadership about systemic issues, trends, workplace climate and culture.	Who are these services available to: Any persons employed by IRCC, including locally engaged staff assigned to migration sections in missions abroad. What Ombuds Office can and can not do: Ombuds can: Listen to understand the issue from the perspective of the individual; Provide an informal and confidential space to support individuals impacted by actual or suspected misconduct or wrongdoing, including instances of racism, discrimination and harassment; Assist individuals in developing and evaluating a range of options; Guide or coach individuals to deal directly with other parties, including the use of formal resolution resources; Facilitate informal resolution processes; Identify issues and opportunities for systemic change for IRCC. Ombuds cannot: Advocate for one person or group, but instead must remain impartial in individual cases while being an advocate for fairness within the organization; Replace existing resources or channels for resolution; Conduct formal investigations; Receive complaints, disclosures of wrongdoing or misconduct, or act as an agent of notice on behalf of IRCC. When and how can someone contact Ombuds Office: Contact the Ombuds Office at any time when facing workplace concerns - not just as a last resort. Request an appointment by sending a confidential email to IRCC.Ombuds.IRCC@cic.gc.ca or calling 1-833-662-0123. Appointment requests are acknowledged within two business days. Consultations and services are offered both in person and virtually. Potential Outcomes: Individuals are better informed, equipped and empowered to navigate processes of reporting and resolving potential concerns of misconduct or wrongdoing. Senior leadership receives anonymous feedback to ensure fairness, strengthen workplace culture, and improve informal and formal recourse mechanisms for addressing issues.

Roles, Responsibilities, and Points of Contact

Processes Available to Complainant

Ombuds Office provides a confidential and impartial space for staff at all levels of the organization to openly discuss a workplace-related issue, concern or conflict without fear of reprisal, and help them explore options and navigate available resources to resolve issues. Ombuds does not engage in formal investigations, grievances or complaints or act as an agent of legal notice of occurrence on behalf of IRCC.

Its key roles include:

Offering information, support and assistance to employees, managers and executives in navigating the mechanisms of resolution and exploring alternatives to report and/or surface concerns including potential issues of misconduct and wrongdoing;
Guiding or coaching individuals to help improve their skills and confidence in giving voice to their concerns directly, including developing informal resolution options and the use of formal processes internal and external to IRCC in support of disclosures of misconduct and wrongdoing;
Referring individuals to other IRCC resources for resolution including the range of specialized informal conflict resolution services provided by the Office of Conflict Resolution (OCR);
Assisting employees at all levels in confidentially raising a concern at organizational level, and providing anonymous feedback to senior leadership about systemic issues, trends, workplace climate and culture.

Who are these services available to:
Any persons employed by IRCC, including locally engaged staff assigned to migration sections in missions abroad.

What Ombuds Office can and can not do:

Ombuds can:

Listen to understand the issue from the perspective of the individual;
Provide an informal and confidential space to support individuals impacted by actual or suspected misconduct or wrongdoing, including instances of racism, discrimination and harassment;
Assist individuals in developing and evaluating a range of options;
Guide or coach individuals to deal directly with other parties, including the use of formal resolution resources;
Facilitate informal resolution processes;
Identify issues and opportunities for systemic change for IRCC.

Ombuds cannot:

Advocate for one person or group, but instead must remain impartial in individual cases while being an advocate for fairness within the organization;
Replace existing resources or channels for resolution;
Conduct formal investigations;
Receive complaints, disclosures of wrongdoing or misconduct, or act as an agent of notice on behalf of IRCC.

When and how can someone contact Ombuds Office:

Contact the Ombuds Office at any time when facing workplace concerns - not just as a last resort.

Request an appointment by sending a confidential email to IRCC.Ombuds.IRCC@cic.gc.ca or calling 1-833-662-0123.

Appointment requests are acknowledged within two business days. Consultations and services are offered both in person and virtually.

Potential Outcomes:

Individuals are better informed, equipped and empowered to navigate processes of reporting and resolving potential concerns of misconduct or wrongdoing.
Senior leadership receives anonymous feedback to ensure fairness, strengthen workplace culture, and improve informal and formal recourse mechanisms for addressing issues.

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.

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 prescribed action, conduct or comment.

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.

Page details

2026-05-14

Language selection

Search

Report on Misconduct and Wrongdoing at Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (Fiscal Year 2024-2025)

Table of Contents

Message from the Deputy Minister

Introduction

Process for Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing

What is Misconduct and Wrongdoing?

Investigation Process

Disciplinary or Administrative Measures

Founded Cases of Misconduct and Wrongdoing at IRCC

Overview of Founded Cases in Fiscal Year 2024–25

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

Violation of IRCC’s Directive on the Acceptable Use of Electronic Networks and Devices

Personnel Security Violation

Staffing Complaint Misconduct

External Investigations

Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (PSIC)

Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC)

Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC)

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB)

Conclusion

Annex A – Reporting Mechanisms and Points of Contact

Office of Internal Disclosure and Reprisal Protection

Harassment and Violence Prevention

Conduct and Integrity Division

Labour Relations

Departmental Security

People Management Operations

Ombuds Office

Annex B – Definitions

Page details