Annual Report on the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act 2024 to 2025

Enquiries

Public servants are encouraged to contact the senior officer for internal disclosure in their organization when they need information about the disclosure process or have questions. They can do this without officially reporting a disclosure or allegation.

In the 2024–25 fiscal year, public sector organizations reported that 398 enquiries were made about the Act. This is an increase from the 279 enquiries reported in 2023–24.

Disclosures and allegations of wrongdoing

When a public servant or a group of public servants gives information to their supervisor or senior officer for internal disclosure about possible wrongdoing in the public sector, they are making an internal protected disclosure.^{Footnote 2}

A single disclosure may contain one or more allegations. An allegation refers to the communication of a possible instance of wrongdoing as defined in section 8 of the Act. An allegation must be made in good faith, and the person making it must have reasonable grounds to believe that it is true.

The following chart (Figure 1) depicts five years of data on the number of public servants who have come forward with a protected disclosure of wrongdoing, the resulting number of disclosures, and the number of allegations received in these disclosures.

Figure 1 - Text version

Figure 1 – Text version

Type	2020-21	2021–22	2022–23	2023-24	2024-25
Number of public servants who made disclosures under the Act	123	194	152	250	279
Number of disclosures received	101	178	246	266	278
Number of allegations under the Act	174	381	356	425	727

In 2024–25, 279 public servants made 278 internal disclosures that encompassed 727 allegations of wrongdoing. In the previous year, 250 public servants made 266 internal disclosures concerning 425 allegations of wrongdoing. Although allegations of wrongdoing have increased from the previous year, the number of public servants who have come forward with a protected disclosure of wrongdoing increased by a little more than 10%. The significant increase in allegations of wrongdoing could point to more allegations being made within disclosures but could also be related to enhanced record keeping or reassessment of disclosures.

Allegations carried forward from previous years

Depending on the complexity and volume of allegations received in any given year, organizations may carry forward some allegations into the next years before they are resolved. Allegations that do not reach a conclusion by March 31 are not considered as “acted on” and are reported as being carried forward into the next fiscal year.^{Footnote 3}

Figure 2 - Text version

Figure 2 – Text version

Type	2020–21	2021–22	2022–23	2023-24	2024-25
Number of allegations carried over from previous fiscal year	192	160	277	330	359
New allegations received in disclosures in fiscal year	174	381	356	425	727
Total	366	541	633	755	1086

As shown in Figure 2, in 2024–25, there was an increase in the number of allegations carried over from the previous fiscal year, from 330 in 2023–24 to 359 allegations in 2024–25, which is in keeping with the increase in disclosures.

Federal organizations reported that delays in handling allegations (assessing, investigating and reporting) are often associated with:

• difficulties in finding a qualified investigator
• having to postpone interviews with disclosers or witnesses due to extended leave or other factors

These circumstances result in longer process times and allegations being carried over to the next fiscal year.

Preliminary analysis of allegations

Of the 1,086 total allegations that were active in 2024–25, which include allegations carried over from previous fiscal years and those newly received during 2024–25, 727 (67%) were assessed in 2024–25. The 2024–25 rate of assessment is higher than that of the previous year, during which 56% (425 of 755 total allegations) were assessed.

The total number of allegations assessed in a fiscal year continues to rise year over year.^{Footnote 4.}

Breakdown of allegations assessed in 2024–25

When a disclosure of wrongdoing is received, the organization’s senior officer for internal disclosure conducts a preliminary analysis to determine whether the allegation or allegations meet the Act’s definition of wrongdoing and categorizes the allegation by type of wrongdoing.

Each allegation is categorized under one of the six types of wrongdoing specified in section 8 of the Act (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 - Text version

Figure 3 – Text version

Type	2020-21	2020-21 (%)	2021-22	2021-22 (%)	2022-23	2022-23 (%)	2023-24	2023-24 (%)	2024-25	2024-25 (%)
A serious breach of a code of conduct	63	36	191	50	261	73	275	65	320	44
Gross mismanagement in the public sector	47	27	74	19	56	10	56	13	264	36
A misuse of public funds or a public asset	20	11	30	8	24	7	34	8	71	10
A contravention of any act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province or territory	24	14	33	9	14	4	35	8	38	5
Knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit a wrongdoing	10	6	23	6	12	3	14	3	16	2
An act or omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life, health or safety of persons or the environment	10	6	30	8	9	2	11	2	18	2
Total	174	100	381	100	356	100	425	100	727	100

Of the 727 allegations assessed in 2024–25, 320 were categorized as a serious breach of a code of conduct. This represents an increase of 16% when compared to 2023–24 (275 allegations). However, in 2023–24, a serious breach of a code of conduct represented 65% of total allegations, whereas in 2024–25, it represented only 44%.

In 2024–25, the number of allegations categorized as gross mismanagement (264) in the public sector increased by 370% when compared to 2023–2024 (56). The number of allegations categorized as a contravention of any act of Parliament or of a provincial or territorial legislature increased by 9% in 2024–25.

Reasons allegations were not acted on

In 2024–25, 319 allegations were not acted on under the Act. Figure 5 illustrates how they were handled.

Figure 5 - Text version

Figure 5 - Text version

Type	2020-21	2020-21 (%)	2021-22	2021-22 (%)	2022-23	2022-23 (%)	2023-24	2023-24 (%)	2024-25	2024-25 (%)
Referred to the harassment and violence complaint process provided for under the Canada Labour Code	17	22	35	23	30	37	37	13	36	11
Not referred to an official recourse process	21	27	28	18	24	30	101	34	172	54
Referred to the grievance process provided for under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act	3	4	12	8	8	10	16	5	36	11
Referred to the staffing complaint process provided for under the Public Service Employment Act	1	2	0	0	3	4	7	2	1	1
Referred to the official languages complaint process provided for under the Official Languages Act	0	0	0	0	1	1	3	1	0	0
Referred to the human rights complaint process provided for under the Canadian Human Rights Act	9	12	28	18	0	0	4	1	13	4
Referred to the privacy complaint process provided for under the Privacy Act	1	2	2	1	0	0	0	0	5	2
Other action taken	24	30	49	32	15	18	126	43	56	18
Total	76	100	154	100	81	100	294	100	319	100

A total of 29% of the 319 allegations were referred to a legislative recourse mechanism, as listed in Figure 5.^{Footnote 5} There was a 125% increase in referrals to the grievance process in 2024–25 compared to the previous year. However, the total number of referrals remained stable from the previous year.

There are many other recourse mechanisms available to organizations for referral outside of those that are legislated, and organizations have increased their use of these by 70%. They categorize many of the allegations as follows:

• not meeting the definition of wrongdoing and not referred to a recourse process as listed above (172, or 54%)
• other action taken such as a recommendation to speak with their manager, the Ombuds, a values and ethics advisor and/or referred to the Employee Assistance Program (56, or 18%)

Organizations indicated that they put allegations in the category of “not meeting the definition of wrongdoing and not referred to a listed recourse process” when:

• not enough information was received, and no additional information was provided by the discloser
• too much time had passed since the alleged wrongdoing had taken place
• there were misunderstandings and miscommunications that could be better handled by informal conflict management systems and management
• possible ethical or conflict of interest issues were involved that could be better handled by their manager and a values and ethics advisor
• an issue could be better resolved through the organization’s Ombuds office
• the discloser required support through the Employee Assistance Program
• the subject matter was found to be frivolous, malicious or vexatious

Organizations reported that “other action was taken” for reasons such as:

• the issue was resolved informally
• the discloser was referred to security or a financial authority or the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner^{Footnote 6}

Allegations carried forward to the next year

Allegations are carried forward to the next year when the conclusion (i.e., to act on or not and subsequent outcomes, including a finding of wrongdoing) is not made before March 31. Organizations reported that they carried forward 651 allegations into 2025–26. Given the increase in allegations received in 2024–25 (727) vs. the previous year (425), it is reasonable that a higher volume of allegations would be carried forward.

Investigations

An investigation looks at all relevant evidence and witness testimony to decide whether a disclosure is founded, based on a balance of probabilities. An investigation can examine one or more allegations. If the preliminary analysis does not lead to a formal investigation, it is not counted as an investigation; however, preliminary analyses can still lead to a finding of wrongdoing and/or corrective measures (view Figure 6).

Organizational investigations can be handled by investigators on staff or hired through a National Master Standing Offer (NMSO).

Figure 6 - Text version

Figure 6 – Text version

Type	2020–21	2021–22	2022–23	2023-24	2024-25
Number of investigations carried over from previous fiscal year	3	33	34	30	25
Number of investigations commenced in fiscal year	60	52	16	21	38
Total investigations	63	85	50	51	63
Number of investigations closed in fiscal year	30	51	20	30	25

In 2024-25, 63 investigations were launched or underway, which is an increase compared to the 51 investigations that were launched or underway in 2023-24. By March 31, 2025, 25 investigations were closed. This is five fewer than were closed in the previous year.

There were 38 investigations still ongoing at the end of 2024-25, which will continue into 2025-26.

Findings of wrongdoing and corrective measures

Investigations can lead to findings of wrongdoing and corrective measures, corrective measures without a finding of wrongdoing, a finding of wrongdoing without corrective measures, or no finding of wrongdoing and no corrective measures.

Figure 7 - Text version

Figure 7 – Text version

Type	2020–21	2021–22	2022–23	2023-24	2024-25
Allegations that led to a finding of wrongdoing and corrective measures	12	4	12	31	20
Allegations that led to a finding of wrongdoing but no corrective measures	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable	0	1
Allegations that led to corrective measures without a finding of wrongdoing	7	22	2	8	17
Allegations that led to no corrective measures and no finding of wrongdoing	93	164	309	160	78

In 2024-25, the 25 investigations that were closed by March 31, 2025, examined 38 allegations that resulted in the following:

• 20 allegations led to a finding of wrongdoing and corrective measures^{Footnote 7}
• 17 allegations led to corrective measures without a finding of wrongdoing
• 1 allegation led to a finding of wrongdoing but no corrective measures

Of the 116 allegations acted on, 78 led to no finding of wrongdoing and no corrective measures.

On average, investigations took 191 workdays to complete.

Integrity and ethics

The Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (OCHRO) acts as the focal point for driving people management excellence across the federal public service. As part of this mandate, it develops and disseminates policies, guidelines, and guidance in the areas of integrity and ethics in order to promote an ethical and healthy workplace. As it pertains to this report, the policies, programs and initiatives of OCHRO that are described below contribute to fostering a workplace environment where public servants are aware of the resources available for addressing workplace issues and feel comfortable coming forward with enquiries or allegations of possible wrongdoing.

It is also OCHRO’s role to support the implementation and administration of the Act, the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector and the Directive on Conflict of Interest, and to support the President of the Treasury Board in their responsibility under the Act to promote ethical practices across the public sector.

Senior officers and communities of practice

OCHRO’s policy centre engages with the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal, public sector organizations, senior officers for internal disclosure, international organizations, bargaining agents and other stakeholders with an interest in integrity and ethics in the federal public sector workplace.

In particular, OCHRO facilitates government-wide communities of practice by disseminating information and hosting meetings of the Interdepartmental Network on Internal Disclosure (INID) and the Interdepartmental Network on Values and Ethics (INVE). These meetings allow for discussion and collaboration on values and ethics, ethical leadership, fostering a healthy workplace culture, managing ethical risks such as conflict of interest, and promoting integrity within the public sector. The INID meetings provide an opportunity for sharing strategies and recent developments in the disclosure of wrongdoing, reprisal protection and related topics.

Other activities

Working with the CSPS, OCHRO’s policy centre is updating the mandatory “Values and Ethics Foundations” courses for employees and managers. The centre also developed Guidance for Public Servants on their Personal Use of Social Media, which contains values-based guidance for public servants on balancing their freedom of expression and the duty of loyalty of public servants.

Public Service Employee Survey: ethics in the workplace

To inform, support and strengthen people management in the federal public service and other practices in government, OCHRO conducts the Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) every two years. A total of 186,635 employees in 93 federal departments and agencies responded to the most recent PSES, which gathered responses from October 28, 2024, to December 31, 2024.

The PSES includes questions that gauge public servants’ perceptions of the ethical environment in their workplace, and its results provide insights into how equipped public servants feel to address values and ethical dilemmas. Results of the questions on ethics were analyzed by disaggregating the data by:

• employment equity group
• racial group
• province and territory
• employment community
• organizational mandate

Key results related to values and ethics in the workplace from the 2024 PSES:

• Five of the six questions relating to values and ethics in the workplace have seen declines since 2019. For the remaining question, in 2019, 50% of respondents felt they could initiate a formal recourse process (for example, grievance, complaint, appeal) without fear of reprisal. Positive responses increased to 55% in 2020 and 56% in 2022 before declining to 51% in 2024.
• Persons with disabilities consistently reported the lowest results on all six questions in comparison to other employment equity groups
• 68% of public servants indicated that they would know where to go for help in resolving a situation if faced with an ethical dilemma or a conflict between values in the workplace. The security employment community is an outlier here, with 51% responding positively to this question
• 68% of public servants indicated that they felt that their department or agency does a good job of promoting values and ethics in the workplace. Some of the highest results are found in the Atlantic provinces (New Brunswick (74%), Nova Scotia (68%), Prince Edward Island (74%), and Newfoundland and Labrador (76%))
• 51% of public servants indicated that they felt they could initiate a formal recourse process (for example, grievance, complaint or appeal) without fear of reprisal. This indicator has declined after reaching a 10-year high of 56% in 2022. Some of the employment demographic groups reporting higher scores include Information Technology at 59%, Access to Information and Privacy and Client Contact Centre at 58%. As much as 58% of employees in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island also responded positively to this question

Appendix B provides further details on PSES results on ethics in the workplace.

Diversity and inclusion in the workplace

A public service that is diverse, equitable and inclusive is essential for a workplace culture where all public servants, including employees from equity-seeking groups, can feel comfortable disclosing wrongdoing. To improve workplace culture and support culturally safe workplaces where employees feel comfortable disclosing wrongdoing, OCHRO advanced efforts to promote diversity and inclusion in 2024–25. Initiatives and activities included:

• collecting and disseminating disaggregated enterprise data on the composition and experience of employment equity groups and subgroups while continuing to develop a modernized self-identification approach to provide data on the representation of employment equity groups and to foster an inclusive workplace
• conducting a TBS-Public Service Alliance of Canada Joint Review of diversity and inclusion training programs and informal conflict resolution systems
• promoting the Maturity Model on Diversity and Inclusion as an optional self-assessment tool informing organizations on progress in five dimensions of diversity and inclusion

Some notable projects include the development of guidance on:

• assessing inclusive and anti-racist behaviours in performance management
• consequential accountability
• establishing performance indicators to measure and report on inclusion outcomes

OCHRO also continued to engage with enterprise-wide equity-seeking networks and manage enterprise-wide initiatives to raise awareness and address barriers faced by equity-seeking employees such as

• the Mosaic Development Program
• the Mentorship Plus Program
• the Federal Speakers’ Forum on Lived Experience

The Action Plan for Black Public Servants

The Action Plan for Black Public Servants (Action Plan) initiatives aim at establishing career development initiatives and mental health supports for Black public servants. The Task Force for Black Public Servants oversees the development and implementation of the Action Plan. In 2024–2025, the Task Force for Black Public Servants made significant progress implementing the Action Plan including:

• The Black-centric enhancements to the Employee Assistance Program, delivered by Health Canada, has increased the number of mental health professionals in its network who self-identify as Black from 43 to 103, as of March 2025
• The first 2 cohorts of the Executive Leadership Development Program, led by the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS), started the program in September 2024 and graduated in April 2025
• Following the success of the career counselling and coaching for Black public servants’ initiative, led by the Public Service Commission of Canada, the initiative was expanded in winter 2025 to enable more Black public servants to access these services
• The Second Official Language Training Initiative for Black Public Servants, led by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS), launched in winter 2025

Preventing and resolving harassment and violence in the workplace

Creating a workplace free from harassment and violence is essential for public servants to report concerns or allegations of wrongdoing without fear of retaliation. The Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (OCHRO) is dedicated to supporting public service organizations in preventing and addressing workplace harassment and violence. This is achieved through the implementation of Part II of the Canada Labour Code (CLC), the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations (the Regulations) and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s (TBS Directive on the Prevention and Resolution of Workplace Harassment and Violence (the Directive).

The Occupational Health and Safety Centre of Expertise (OHS CoE) at OCHRO actively engages with the OHS Community of Practice (CoP) and the Designated Recipients (DR) CoP. To support these communities, the OHS CoE:

• responds to hundreds of inquiries
• offers advice and guidance on the application of the Regulations and the Directive
• organizes knowledge transfer discussions
• participates in public service–wide learning events
• leads the development of related training and tools

Key initiatives include:

• Quality Assurance Guide: Developed to establish high standards in managing harassment and violence investigations, while safeguarding employees’ rights and fostering a healthy, respectful work environment
• GCXchange platform: Established to facilitate information sharing and enhance collaboration within both CoPs

The OHS CoE also collaborates with the mental health team. For example, it co-developed the Pathways to Success tool, which aims to:

• update and clarify existing guidance
• provide additional support where required
• improve the user-friendliness of the guide: Building Success: A Guide to Establishing and Maintaining a Psychological Health and Safety Management System in the Federal Public Service

The OHS CoE leverages various monitoring tools to track progress, identify trends and pinpoint areas requiring support. It compiles each organization’s annual harassment and violence occurrence report, produced annually since 2021.

OCHRO also works closely with key stakeholders, including bargaining agents through the National Joint Council, to prevent workplace harassment and violence. Recently developed and published resources include:

• the Employee Guide
• the Employer Guide
• a FAQ providing clarification on appointing investigators and conducting investigations in alignment with the Regulations

Mental health in the workplace

Workplace environments that prioritize psychological health and safety help prevent harm, build trust and create conditions for employees to feel supported and heard. This, in turn, leads to higher levels of employee engagement and enhances public servants’ confidence in coming forward with concerns about wrongdoing. To foster positive mental health in the workplace, OCHRO co-leads the joint Centre of Expertise on Mental Health in the Workplace with the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC). The centre works to support departments in aligning with the National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace and implementing the objectives of the Federal Public Service Workplace Mental Health Strategy.

In 2024–25, key resources developed or updated and promoted by the centre included:

• PSAC and TBS’ Joint Study on Mental Health Support Mechanisms for Employees who are exposed to risks of trauma as part of their duties at work
• enhancements to the Federal Public Service Workplace Mental Health Dashboard, a statistically validated tool that assists organizations in measuring psychological health and safety strengths and gaps
• resources on the centre’s site, including those available to support employees, managers and executives
• a promising practices repository available to federal public service organizations

International engagement

In 2024–25, OCHRO continued to collaborate with international bodies and organizations to promote global integrity and address corruption. Through these international engagements, OCHRO stays updated and involved in global activities, research and sharing of knowledge on integrity, accountability, anti-corruption, and best practices on disclosure regimes around the world. OCHRO’s involvement also allows for promoting Canada’s practices, approaches and strategies. International engagements that occurred during the 2024–25 fiscal year included Canada’s participation in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Working Party on Public Integrity and Anti-Corruption (PIAC), through which OCHRO contributes to strengthening public sector governance and safeguarding the integrity of public policymaking.

A.1 Disclosure activity from 2020–21 to 2024–25

A.2 Organizations reporting activity under the Act in 2024–25^{Footnote 10}

A.3 Organizations that reported a finding of wrongdoing under the Act, 2024–25

A.4 Organizations that reported no disclosure activities in 2024–25

1. Accessibility Standards Canada
2. Administrative Tribunals Support Services of Canada
3. Atlantic Pilotage Authority Canada
4. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
5. Canada Council for the Arts
6. Canada Development Investment Corporation
7. Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions
8. Canada Infrastructure Bank
9. Canada Lands Company Limited
10. Canada Science and Technology Museum
11. Canada Water Agency
12. Canadian Air Transport Security Authority
13. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) / Radio-Canada
14. Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety
15. Canadian Commercial Corporation
16. Canadian Dairy Commission
17. Canadian Human Rights Commission
18. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
19. Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat
20. Canadian Museum for Human Rights
21. Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21
22. Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency
23. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
24. Canadian Race Relations Foundation
25. Canadian Transportation Agency
26. Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
27. Copyright Board Canada
28. Correctional Investigator Canada, The
29. Defence Construction Canada
30. Destination Canada
31. Environment and Climate Change Canada
32. Farm Products Council of Canada
33. Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario
34. Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
35. Financial Consumer Agency of Canada
36. Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
37. Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
38. Great Lakes Pilotage Authority
39. Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada
40. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
41. Indian Oil and Gas Canada
42. International Joint Commission (Canadian Section)
43. Invest in Canada
44. Laurentian Pilotage Authority
45. Law Commission of Canada
46. Library and Archives Canada
47. Military Grievances External Review Committee
48. Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada
49. National Arts Centre
50. National Film Board
51. National Gallery of Canada
52. National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Secretariat
53. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
54. Office of the Auditor General of Canada
55. Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada
56. Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections
57. Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada
58. Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
59. Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
60. Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
61. Office of the Intelligence Commissioner
62. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
63. Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
64. Office of the Secretary of the Governor General
65. Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada
66. Pacific Economic Development Canada
67. Pacific Pilotage Authority Canada
68. Patented Medicine Prices Review Board Canada
69. Polar Knowledge Canada
70. Prairies Economic Development Canada
71. Privy Council Office
72. Public Sector Pension Investment Board
73. RCMP External Review Committee
74. Secretariat of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
75. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
76. Standards Council of Canada
77. Supreme Court of Canada
78. Telefilm Canada
79. The Federal Bridge Corporation Limited
80. The National Battlefields Commission
81. Transportation Safety Board of Canada
82. Veterans Review and Appeal Board
83. Women and Gender Equality Canada

A.5 Organizations that do not have a senior officer for disclosure of wrongdoing that declared an exception under subsection 10.4 of the Act

1. Administrative Tribunals Support Services of Canada
2. Canada Lands Company Limited
3. Canadian Dairy Commission
4. Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat
5. Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21
6. Canadian Race Relations Foundation
7. Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
8. Law Commission of Canada
9. Military Grievances External Review Committee
10. Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada
11. National Film Board
12. Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections
13. Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada
14. Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
15. Office of the Intelligence Commissioner
16. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
17. Patented Medicine Prices Review Board Canada
18. Polar Knowledge Canada
19. RCMP External Review Committee
20. Telefilm Canada
21. Transportation Safety Board of Canada

Other relevant terms

allegation of wrongdoing

The communication of a potential instance of wrongdoing as defined in section 8 of the Act. The allegation must be made in good faith, and the person making it must have reasonable grounds to believe that it is true.

disclosure

The provision of information by a public servant to their immediate supervisor or to a senior officer for disclosure of wrongdoing that is made in good faith and includes one or more allegations of possible wrongdoing in the public sector, in accordance with section 12 of the Act.

disclosure that was acted upon (admissible disclosure)

An allegation received in a disclosure where action, including preliminary analysis, fact-finding and investigation, was taken to determine whether wrongdoing occurred and whether that determination was made during the reporting period.

disclosure that was not acted upon (inadmissible disclosure)

An allegation received in a disclosure for which the designated senior officer for disclosure of wrongdoing determined that the definition of wrongdoing under the Act was not met, or should be referred to another process, or required no further action.

general enquiry

An enquiry about procedures established under the Act or about possible wrongdoings, not including actual disclosures.

investigation

A formal investigation triggered by a disclosure. An investigation may look into one or more allegations that result from a disclosure of possible wrongdoing.