Shared responsibility for addressing staffing irregularities

There are several types of measures available to address staffing irregularities and uphold the integrity of appointment processes in the federal public service. This includes corrective actions imposed by the Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC), as well as administrative and disciplinary actions that deputy heads may take following an investigation. Together, these measures promote accountability, support proper staffing practices and maintain trust in organizational decision‑making.

Safeguarding the integrity of public service staffing processes relies on both PSC‑led corrective actions and departmental measures tailored to the situation. While the PSC’s authority focuses on protecting the appointment system, deputy heads retain the responsibility to address broader performance, behavioural or security concerns within their department or agency. By using the full range of available actions and measures (corrective, administrative and disciplinary) departments and agencies can ensure accountability, support sound decision‑making and reinforce confidence in the public service.

Corrective actions by the PSC

When the PSC conducts an investigation under sections 66, 69, or 118 of the Public Service Employment Act, and the investigation is founded, the PSC may order corrective actions to be put in place. These measures are intended to uphold the integrity of the appointment process and prevent similar occurrences. Corrective actions must fall under the PSC’s jurisdiction, be reasonable and proportionate and be clearly connected to the identified issue. Examples of corrective action include training, notification requirements and revocation of appointment.

• More examples of corrective actions  

Individuals wishing to challenge a corrective action may seek judicial review before the Federal Court of Canada.

Administrative actions from deputy heads

When an irregularity is detected, deputy heads can decide to take other actions under their authorities, either alongside a staffing investigation or when no authority exists to conduct one. There is no need to wait for the conclusion of one investigation before starting another, since each investigative authority operates independently. Each department and agency has different authorities and standards of review; as a result, each deputy head may reach different conclusions.

Different sections of an organization may be involved, depending on the nature of the allegations. For example, Labour Relations may recommend an administrative investigation into a possible non-compliance allegation to the departmental code of conduct or the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. This may lead to disciplinary actions, up to and including the employee’s dismissal.

In some cases, Corporate Security of the organization could be involved, and may conduct their own investigation, which may include a resolution of doubt or review-for-cause interview. This may lead to a suspension or revocation of the employee’s security clearance.

Following any investigation, deputy heads may also consider:

• withholding a person’s staffing authorities for a set period
• reducing or restricting the person’s involvement in staffing activities
• reviewing and adjusting access to staffing‑related systems or documents
• assessing whether a manager is ready to have their staffing sub‑delegation restored
• extending sub‑delegation withdrawal, if warranted
• encouraging the person to review staffing best practices
• requiring additional training (for example, on leadership, staffing, or organizational values)
• providing coaching or mentoring for ongoing staffing activities
• requiring someone to work with a colleague during staffing processes (tool development, interviews, decisions)
• putting monitoring measures in place for the person’s staffing activities, including occasional or regular check‑ins or meetings
• requiring timely and ongoing consultation with a human resources advisor as a condition of their sub‑delegation

Higher expectations may be set for those holding a position of influence (supervision, advisory role, budget or contract management, staffing sub-delegation).

Disciplinary action by deputy heads

Disciplinary action falls under the authority of deputy heads, as outlined in Section 12 of the Financial Administration Act. This authority enables them to address employee misconduct within their department or agency. Disciplinary actions are guided by principles of progressive discipline and proportionality.

Examples of disciplinary action include reprimand, suspension, financial penalty or termination of employment. Employees subject to disciplinary action may have access to recourse mechanisms such as the departmental grievance process or adjudication by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board.

A deputy head may choose to initiate disciplinary action against an employee within their department or agency, regardless of any corrective actions ordered or recommended by the PSC following an investigation.