Case Summaries 2024-2025

Alleged gross mismanagement and grave danger (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant engaged in gross mismanagement, created grave danger and contravened an act. The discloser also alleged that several other public servants in a ministry engaged in gross mismanagement by failing to investigate a complaint about this particular public servant.

The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation. The deputy minister found that the public servant engaged in wrongdoing by breaching various policies, procedures and protocols and by engaging in highly unprofessional and grossly inappropriate conduct. However, the deputy minister also found that management had already investigated the allegations involving this public servant and had taken corrective actions. Therefore, with respect to the other named public servants, the deputy minister found the allegations of wrongdoing were unsubstantiated. The Commissioner recommended further corrective action with respect to a manager who was not named by the discloser, but whose involvement was described in the investigative report. The deputy minister confirmed steps had been taken to address with this manager the issues identified. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and the corrective actions and closed the file.

Alleged gross mismanagement and conflict of interest (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant engaged in gross mismanagement and breached several Conflict of Interest Rules by using their employment to benefit another public servant with whom they had a romantic relationship and that they also gave or appeared to give preferential treatment to this public servant. It was alleged that the public servants failed to notify human resources and their Ethics Executive of their relationship. Finally, it was also alleged that the first public servant engaged in outside activity during work hours and used their employment to benefit their outside activity. 

The Commissioner referred the matter to the appropriate senior official, who investigated and found that all the allegations were unsubstantiated. The senior official found that the public servants were not in a romantic relationship but did have another type of relationship outside of work. However, they were not in a direct reporting relationship and there was no evidence of preferential treatment, real or apparent. The senior official also found that while the public servant did engage in outside activities, management was aware, and the activities took place outside of work hours. The senior official requested that a conflict of interest declaration be provided about the relationship and outside activity. The Commissioner made a further recommendation with respect to the conflict of interest determination to be provided but was satisfied with the investigation and the corrective actions proposed and closed the file.

Alleged grave danger, gross mismanagement and direction to contravene an act (referral)

A discloser alleged that a senior public servant created grave danger, engaged in gross mismanagement and/or directed another public servant to contravene a regulation in relation to the safe operation and maintenance of potentially dangerous equipment. The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation. The deputy minister found the allegations were unsubstantiated. However, the investigation also revealed serious concerns about the appropriate amount of training given to employees who operate the equipment. To address these concerns, the deputy minister directed that additional training be provided. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and the corrective actions and closed the file.

Alleged gross mismanagement and contravention of an act (referral)

A discloser alleged that two senior public servants engaged in gross mismanagement and/or contravened an act with respect to certain review processes permitted by the senior public servants that could affect the independence of tribunal decision-making. The Commissioner referred the matter to the appropriate senior official to investigate. The senior official found the allegations were not substantiated. The senior official determined that while staff may review and comment on draft decisions, this did not affect the independence of the decision-making process. The investigation found no evidence of any attempt by staff to influence tribunal decision-making. The investigating official did, however, make recommendations to improve the written rules and process for staff involvement to provide further clarity and avoid the appearance of interference with the independence of tribunal decision-making. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and the corrective actions and closed the file.

Alleged conflict of interest – outside activity (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant contravened various subsections of the Conflict of Interest Rules by engaging in two outside activities that interfered with his work as a public servant, that constituted full-time employment and for which he used government premises, equipment or supplies. It was also alleged the public servant contravened section 65(3) of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 by failing to inform his Ethics Executive of his outside activities.

The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation. The deputy minister found the public servant failed to inform his Ethics Executive of his outside activities, which included another full-time job for a private employer. The deputy minister found the public servant contravened subsections 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 and 8.6 of the Rules, as his outside activities interfered with his ability to perform his duties, one of them constituted full-time employment and the public servant used government resources and worked on his outside activities during work hours. Finally, the deputy minister also found the public servant engaged in other outside activities not identified by the disclosure, which also contravened the Act and the Rules. The public servant resigned during the investigation. The deputy minister identified corrective actions to strengthen management skills within the division in issue and the larger ministry. The Commissioner recommended further corrective actions, which were accepted by the deputy minister. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and closed the file.

Alleged conflict of interest (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant contravened certain sections of the Conflict of Interest Rules by being involved in the administration of the selection process for an award while also being nominated for the same award. The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister to investigate. The deputy minister initially concluded that there were no contraventions of the Rules; however, the Commissioner raised concerns about certain conclusions in the investigation report. After further review, the deputy minister agreed that there had been a technical contravention of section 6(2), in that reasonable people might perceive a conflict of interest in this situation. While senior managers had been aware of the potential conflict, they had not provided direction to the public servant to take different steps to address it. The deputy minister acknowledged that there should have been proactive steps to address the conflict. The public servant was counselled on how to proceed in order to avoid actual or perceived conflict of interest in the future. The deputy minister also took steps to clarify roles and responsibilities in the award selection process in general. Following this, the Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and the corrective actions and closed the file.

Alleged conflict of interest – self-benefit and preferential treatment (investigation)

A discloser alleged that a public servant breached the Conflict of Interest Rules by using his position as a public servant to benefit himself and by giving, or appearing to give, preferential treatment to friends and associates. The discloser also alleged that the public servant had participated in decision-making by the Crown when he could benefit from the decision. The Commissioner investigated and determined that there was no evidence to suggest that the public servant had used his position to benefit himself, that he had given or appeared to give preferential treatment or that he had participated in decision-making when he could benefit from the decision. The Commissioner found that the public servant had not breached the Rules. The Commissioner was satisfied that there was no wrongdoing and closed the file.

Alleged grave danger and gross mismanagement (referral)

A discloser alleged that several senior public servants engaged in gross mismanagement and created a grave danger by failing to properly design, implement and maintain a program. The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation. The deputy minister found that none of the individual respondents had engaged in wrongdoing but also found that there were structural and systemic issues with the program. The deputy minister directed that a review of the program be conducted and an action plan created to address the concerns identified, with regular reports back to the deputy minister by senior public servants. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and the corrective actions and closed the file.

Alleged conflict of interest – outside business (referral)

A discloser alleged that a number of public servants contravened the Conflict of Interest Rules and any related direction given by their Ethics Executive by working for their outside businesses during work hours. The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation. The deputy minister noted that all the public servants had submitted conflict of interest declarations and that their Ethics Executive had approved their outside businesses subject to certain conditions and directions, including the direction not to use government premises, equipment or supplies for activities related to their outside business. With respect to one public servant, the investigation showed some emails related to the outside activity had been forwarded to their work email account. The public servant explained that this was done to avoid scheduling conflicts. The deputy minister found that the public servant had contravened subsection 8.6 of the Rules as well as information technology policy by using government IT resources for the outside business and sending emails between personal email accounts and work email accounts. However, the deputy minister also found that this public servant did not work for an outside business during regular work hours. The deputy minister found there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate any other public servants engaged in any wrongdoing. The deputy minister proposed reminding public servants about the various policies, rules and guidelines in relation to engaging in outside businesses. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and the corrective actions proposed and closed the file.

Alleged gross mismanagement and conflict of interest – preferential treatment (referral)

A discloser alleged that two senior public servants engaged in gross mismanagement and contravened the Conflict of Interest Rules by giving preferential treatment or by failing to avoid creating the appearance of preferential treatment in their dealings with a vendor. The vendor had been awarded a large contract for a complex project. Another discloser also came forward with the same allegation.

The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation. The deputy minister found the allegations were unsubstantiated, as the decisions made by the two public servants were considered operationally necessary and reasonable. However, the investigation did identify opportunities for improvement in the communication of executive decision-making to ministry staff and education about the Rules. The deputy minister advised of steps to be taken to improve these communications. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and the corrective actions and closed the file.

Alleged contravention of a regulation (referral)

A discloser alleged that a senior public servant contravened a regulation by failing to ensure there was appropriate training for staff about the handling and use of inherently dangerous items required for their work. The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation. The deputy minister found the allegation was substantiated, as the senior public servant had failed to ensure staff received training appropriate to their particular duties. The deputy minister found other staff members breached their obligations with respect to the handling and use of these items and, while some of the breaches were attributed to inadequate oversight, others were caused by individual staff members’ substandard approach to their duties. The deputy minister advised the Commissioner that steps would be taken to address the issues related to staff members’ obligations to their duties. Further, the deputy minister provided a copy of an action plan to address the concerns identified and assigned another senior public servant to oversee the implementation of the plan. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and the corrective actions proposed and closed the file.

Alleged conflict of interest – preferential treatment (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant contravened the Conflict of Interest Rules in two matters: first, when the public servant contracted with two different companies that employed family members, and second, when the public servant offered a series of short-term contracts to a long-time friend and supervised their work. It was also considered whether the public servant contravened section 65(3) of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 by failing to inform his Ethics Executive about these actions, which could raise an issue under the Rules.

The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation. The deputy minister provided an initial report providing factual conclusions about what had taken place and proposed corrective actions. The Commissioner requested that the deputy minister also provide legal conclusions about the allegations, in particular whether wrongdoing had occurred.

In the updated report, the deputy minister made the following findings. First, he found that the public servant did not engage in wrongdoing with respect to contracting with one company where a family member worked because the public servant had filed a timely conflict of interest declaration, received direction from his Ethics Executive about how to mitigate the conflict and had followed that direction. Second, the deputy minister found the public servant had contravened the Rules and subsection 65(3) of the Act by contracting with another family member’s company on behalf of the ministry without advising his Ethics Executive. Finally, with respect to the hiring and supervision of his close friend, the deputy minister found the public servant had not engaged in wrongdoing because he had followed hiring practices approved by his managers under the terms of a collective agreement. The public servant retired from his position during the investigation. The deputy minister identified corrective actions, including reiterating the appropriate conflict of interest practices and policies, as well as those relating to the hiring obligations with staff and management.

The Commissioner Designate was satisfied with the investigation but not satisfied with the hiring practice in place whereby the hiring and supervision of friends on short-term contracts was not considered a conflict of interest within that branch. The Commissioner Designate recommended that management and staff be clearly advised that the hiring and supervision of close friends is a conflict of interest matter that must be reported promptly to the deputy minister as Ethics Executive, who is to provide a determination and direction. The deputy minister accepted the recommendation and the Commissioner Designate then closed the file.