Departmental context

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada provides legal services to the federal government and its departments and agencies. The Minister is responsible for seeing that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law. The Department of Justice Canada is a medium-sized organization with over 5,500 full-time equivalent employees in 2024-25. Our employees deliver legal services or work in support of the justice system, some residing within the departments and agencies they support.

Maintaining a healthy, respectful, safe, and harassment-free workplace is a departmental priority and a shared responsibility among all employees. All employees are expected to adhere to the Values and Ethics Code of the Department of Justice (the Code), which clearly outlines the standards for employee behaviour. It encourages employees to report any misconduct or wrongdoing, ensuring their protection in the process.

Acceptance of these values and respect of the expected behaviours is a condition of employment for every public servant in the federal public sector, regardless of their level or position.

Department of Justice employees, whether at headquarters, in regional offices, or legal services units, are encouraged to report any misconduct or wrongdoing they experience or witness, regardless of the role or level of the individuals involved. All complaints will be taken seriously, thoroughly assessed, and, if substantiated, addressed with timely administrative and/or disciplinary actions. No one should fear reprisal or punishment for doing the right thing and bringing complaints forward.

Defining misconduct and wrongdoing

Misconduct refers to any actions, deliberate or not, by an individual that violates an act, regulation, rule, departmental or Treasury Board Secretariat policy, collective agreement, condition of employment, approved procedure, reasonable and lawful management request, or the Values and Ethics Code of the Department of Justice. Essentially, misconduct happens when an employee fails to follow the obligations that they agreed to when joining the Department. Employees are reminded of these obligations on an annual basis.

Wrongdoing is strictly used to describe incidents addressed under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA). According to the PSDPA, wrongdoing is defined as:

  1. 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;
  2. a misuse of public funds or a public asset;
  3. a gross mismanagement in the public sector;
  4. 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;
  5. a serious breach of a code of conduct established under section 5 or 6 of the PSDPA; and
  6. knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit a wrongdoing set out in any of paragraphs (a) to (e).

While some behaviours falling under misconduct may also meet the PSDPA’s definition of wrongdoing, the key distinction lies in their gravity and impact. Wrongdoing typically involves serious actions or omissions that could significantly undermine the integrity of the public service or erode public confidence.

Addressing misconduct and wrongdoing at the Department of Justice

The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that all employees feel safe when reporting any instances of misconduct or wrongdoing, without fear of retaliation. There are several recourse processes available to employees to report misconduct or wrongdoing. Detailed information on these processes can be found in the Annexes of this report.

Managers should generally be the first point of contact for employees. They play a key role in helping address concerns and guiding employees to the appropriate resources. Employees may also seek confidential assistance from the Ombuds and Informal Resolution Services Office, which can help them explore available recourse options (see Annex D for more details).

However, when it comes to disclosures of wrongdoing under the PSDPA, employees are not required to report the matter to their manager. Section 12 of the PSDPA provides that a public servant may disclose information to either their immediate supervisor or the Senior Officer for Internal Disclosure (SOID). Alternatively, they may choose to make a disclosure directly to the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (PSIC).

The Department of Justice handles all suspected cases of misconduct and wrongdoing by adhering to the applicable legislation, policies and guidelines of the Department and the Government of Canada. This involves conducting fair and objective investigations as needed, and upholding procedural fairness for all parties involved, including individuals under investigation and those who filed a complaint or made allegations.

While all allegations of misconduct or disclosures of wrongdoing are assessed to determine the appropriate course of action, not all lead to an investigation. For cases of misconduct, an initial fact-finding exercise is undertaken to determine whether the matter can be addressed with the information available to the manager or whether an investigation may be required. Misconduct can be addressed following the initial fact-finding when a situation is relatively straightforward, the facts are not in dispute by the individuals involved, and the facts do not require an extensive investigation process. When the situation is more complex and additional information is required, an investigation may be initiated.

For cases of wrongdoing, when a protected disclosure is received, an admissibility analysis is conducted to determine whether there is a requirement to launch an investigation. In some cases, a disclosure may not proceed to investigation because it does not meet the definition of wrongdoing under the PSDPA or because it is more appropriately addressed under another process.

Measures taken in founded cases of misconduct and wrongdoing

Allegations of misconduct or wrongdoing can be determined to be unfounded or founded after reviewing the available facts and applying the standard of proof for administrative investigations, which is the balance of probabilities.

If misconduct is found to have occurred, the delegated manager is responsible for implementing appropriate disciplinary or administrative measures, noting that both types of measures may be applicable in certain situations.

If wrongdoing is founded, the Deputy Minister must take appropriate disciplinary and/or administrative measures. The Deputy Minister must also promptly provide public access to information describing the wrongdoing and any recommendations set out in the report, and the corrective action taken, if any, or the reasons why no corrective action was taken.

Members of the public can access these reports online:

Disciplinary measures

Disciplinary measures are formal corrective actions taken to address an inappropriate behaviour. These measures are typically progressive, increasing in severity with repeated instances of misconduct. Managers must consider all aggravating and extenuating circumstances when determining the appropriate disciplinary action. In some cases, severe action may be warranted for a first offense. Disciplinary measures can be subject to grievances and may include:

Administrative measures

Administrative measures are actions taken to address a concern, mitigate risk, or help stabilize a situation. Some situations may require one or multiple administrative measures, and in certain instances, an administrative measure alone may suffice to address the issue. These measures can include: