Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing at Global Affairs Canada: Second Annual Report

(Fiscal year 2023-2024)

Table of contents

• Message from the Deputy Ministers
• Introduction
• 2023-2024 Overview of Misconduct and Wrongdoing
• Internal Investigations and Administrative Reviews
  • Financial Mismanagement Cases
  • Harassment and Violence Cases
  • Breach of the Departmental Values and Ethics Code and Code of Conduct for Canadian Representatives Abroad Cases
  • Administrative Misconduct Cases
  • Personnel Security Violations
  • GAC Network Acceptable Use Policy (NAUP) Cases
• External Investigations
• Conclusion
• Annex A - Definitions
• Annex B - GAC Employees Resources for Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing
• Annex C - Formal Reporting Mechanism Points of Contact
• Annex D – Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General Services

Message from the Deputy Ministers 

Dear Colleagues,

We are pleased to present the second edition of the Annual Report on Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing at Global Affairs Canada, as part of our ongoing efforts to cultivate a workplace culture that is healthy and respectful for all.

The North Star statement that we released earlier this year in the context of GAC’s Transformation reflects the strong, collective aspiration we share for a culture that focuses on its people and embraces honesty, integrity, and continuous improvement. This report is an integral part of the efforts we are making to embody this culture, by recognizing the negative and deeply disturbing impacts that instances of misconduct and wrongdoing have on our work environments, and increasing transparency around how they are addressed.

The publication of our first report last year generated a lot of reaction, both within our department and in the Canadian public service more broadly. As we had expected, it has led to a notable increase in the reporting of potential misconduct and wrongdoing over the 2023-2024 period, which in turn enabled us to identify problematic behaviour earlier and take remedial action sooner when needed. The conversations generated by the report also contributed to the necessary reflection launched by the Deputy Ministers’ Task Team on Values and Ethics Report to the Clerk of the Privy Council on how we, as public servants, live our values and ethics in our work.

Since then, the human resources, corporate security, and investigations functions of our department have continued to work together to improve the ecosystem involved in addressing misconduct and wrongdoing at GAC. Efforts are being made to foster more seamless coordination between teams, reduce timelines and improve support provided to employees and managers throughout the investigative, discipline, and administrative processes.

In parallel, we continue to invest in prevention measures and employee well-being, notably via the Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General. As a safe and confidential first port of call for all employees experiencing workplace issues, this Office not only stands ready to provide information and orient you toward the resources you may need to resolve issues informally, but they can also help you navigate the more formal recourses that are available to you.  Please don’t hesitate to contact them whether you are considering a formal recourse or subject to allegations yourself.

With this second edition of the report, we are now able to better analyze the types of misconduct and wrongdoing occurring at GAC, including year-over-year comparisons of aggregated data. Going forward, this will allow us to refine our understanding of trends, better identify warning signs and systemic root causes, and target areas for intervention as necessary.

While we recognize that it is impossible to completely eradicate bad behaviour, we are steadfast in our commitment to foster a culture of zero tolerance in which all employees feel they can report what they believe to be misconduct and wrongdoing without fear of reprisal and know that their concerns will be addressed effectively. Thank you to all of you at headquarters, in regional offices, and around the world for contributing to foster this positive work environment with us, together.

David Morrison  
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs  

Rob Stewart  
Deputy Minister of International Trade  

Christopher MacLennan  
Deputy Minister of International Development

Cindy Termorshuizen
Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs 

Introduction

This annual report aims to increase transparency on how misconduct and wrongdoing is addressed at Global Affairs Canada. It presents a summary of the cases of misconduct and wrongdoing deemed founded in the department over the 2023-2024 fiscal year, as well as of the investigations completed by external bodies over the period. It also provides information on the informal and formal mechanisms available to employees to report issues.

Your feedback is important to improve subsequent editions of this annual report. Please send comments and suggestions to HWD@international.gc.ca.

Departmental Context 

Global Affairs Canada (GAC) is a large and complex organization of over 13,000 employees. More than 7,500 Canada-based staff and nearly 6,000 locally engaged staff work in 182 missions in 112 different countries around the world. GAC also provides the international platform for 21 other government departments and agencies, three (3) Crown corporations, and six (6) provincial governments working abroad in its missions. 

All employees and managers in the department play a part in ensuring that our workplace is healthy, respectful, safe, and free of harassment and discrimination. We are also all responsible for following the department’s values and ethics codes of conduct that set forth clear expectations for employee behaviour. With an emphasis on integrity, stewardship and respect for others, the Departmental Values and Ethics Code encourages employees to report misconduct or wrongdoing while ensuring the protection of those who do. The Code of Conduct for Canadian Representatives Abroad provides guidance on the Government of Canada’s expectations of its representatives abroad.

Any employee—at headquarters, regional offices or at our missions around the world, whether Canada-based or locally engaged—who is directly or indirectly affected by an instance of misconduct or wrongdoing can and should make this known, no matter the level or occupation of the offender. GAC employees should know that all complaints will be taken seriously, properly assessed and, if proven founded, followed up with administrative and/or disciplinary actions in a timely fashion. No one should be afraid of reprisal or punishment for doing what is right, and they should know that their privacy will be respected and protected.

What is the Difference Between Misconduct and Wrongdoing?

Misconduct is defined as any action whereby an individual willfully contravenes, an act, a regulation, a rule, a departmental or Treasury Board policy instrument, an approved procedure, a departmental code of conduct, a reasonable and lawful management request, and/or the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service. In short, when an employee contravenes any of the obligations they agree to abide by when becoming an employee of the department.

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

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

Descriptions of specific categories of misconduct and wrongdoing are provided throughout the report.

Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing at Global Affairs Canada

All Global Affairs Canada (GAC) employees should feel safe reporting any situation where they feel there may be misconduct or wrongdoing, without fear of reprisal. Several recourse processes are available to employees facing real or apparent misconduct or wrongdoing. More information on these processes is provided in the Annexes, including details on available mechanisms (Annex B) and contact information (Annex C).

To navigate the process and manage issues, managers always remain available as a first point of contact. Employees can also reach out to the Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General for confidential and informal services and assistance, or to navigate the various recourse options (see Annex D for more details).

GAC addresses all suspected cases of misconduct and wrongdoing by following the guidance provided by policies and guidelines of the Department and the Government of Canada. This includes conducting fair and objective investigative processes as needed and as expeditiously as possible, taking all measures to protect the confidentiality of the information collected and the privacy of individuals involved, and ensuring that there is procedural fairness for all. This includes those who are under investigation as well as those who have initiated a formal process.

For cases of misconduct, when the information initially disclosed is insufficient to make a determination, an investigative process is launched and can take the form of a fact-finding exercise or an investigation. A fact-finding exercise is undertaken when a situation is relatively straightforward, the facts are not in dispute by various parties, and the facts do not require an important level of investigation. When the situation is more complex and additional information is required, a formal investigation may be initiated.

For cases of wrongdoing, when a disclosure is received, an admissibility analysis is undertaken, based on a number of criteria to determine whether there is a requirement to launch an investigation.  Investigations are conducted as informally and expeditiously as possible, with appropriate rigour throughout the process. Procedures for the disclosures under the Public Service Disclosure and Protection Act (PSDPA) are available on the department’s intranet site.

While all complaints and allegations are received and assessed to ensure they are addressed appropriately, not all allegations are subject to a formal investigation process. In some cases, the complaint or allegation may not be substantiated, or informal recourse mechanisms may be more appropriate. Either way, management plays a crucial role in maintaining a healthy work environment and services are available for all parties involved. The Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General provides various independent and confidential services, including the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and informal conflict management services (ICMS), to support employees and to help to restore the work environment. Additionally, the Workplace Relations and Corporate Health Bureau (HWD) can support managers to promote and reinforce the importance of the values and ethics codes, as well as the code of conduct, and address inappropriate behaviours.

Measures Taken in Founded Cases of Misconduct and Wrongdoing

An allegation 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. As an employer, Global Affairs Canada has a responsibility to take appropriate disciplinary or administrative measures when misconduct or wrongdoing is determined to be founded. In some instances, a situation may warrant the application of both disciplinary and administrative measures. 

• Disciplinary measures are formal corrective measures that seek to correct behaviours and are generally progressive, increasing in severity with successive acts of misconduct. To determine the appropriate measure, the manager must consider all aggravating and extenuating circumstances. In some cases, the misconduct may be sufficiently serious to warrant severe action even on a first offence. Disciplinary measures may be subject to grievances.
  
  Disciplinary measures range from verbal reprimand, written reprimand, temporary suspension without pay, financial penalty, demotion, up to termination of employment.  

• Administrative measures are measures that may be taken to make the necessary adjustments to a situation. Some situations may require the application of one or several administrative measures. In some instances, it may be determined that an administrative measure is sufficient to address the situation.
  
  Administrative measures may include placing an employee on administrative leave without pay, temporarily removing human resources and/or financial delegation, or other measures as appropriate and depending on the situation.
  
  Administrative measures can also be used to provide tools to the employee with a view to ensuring the misconduct does not happen again.  For example, providing a letter of expectations, developing an action plan for them to change their behaviour, providing training or coaching, or scheduling regular meetings with management.

2023-2024 Findings

In fiscal year 2023-2024, 290 complaints or allegations were brought forward, and 129 investigations were launched. Not all allegations are subject to a formal investigation process and when investigations do occur, not all allegations are founded. This year, 115 investigations were completed, which included investigations commenced in a previous year. Of these, 94 (82%) were deemed to be founded and resulted in the application of administrative and/or disciplinary measures.

The next pages provide an overview of the findings and compares them with 2022-2023.

2023-2024 Overview of Misconduct and Wrongdoing

Outcomes of investigations by category, 2023-2024

Internal Investigations and Administrative Reviews

Financial Mismanagement Cases 

Financial mismanagement cases involve a loss of public funds and/or Crown property. This may include but is not limited to suspected fraud; misuse, embezzlement or theft of government property or funds; contract or procurement fraud; contractor misconduct; and mismanagement or misappropriation of funds.

Some financial mismanagement cases are investigated as possible wrongdoing under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA) as a misuse of public funds or a public asset. When the wrongdoing is founded, it must be published.

Over the period, four (4) financial mismanagement investigations concluded that financial misconduct had occurred: 

• An employee exhibited fraudulent conduct through willful misrepresentation and deliberate concealment of material facts. The employee demonstrated lack of integrity toward their employer by knowingly misrepresenting their personal relationship status and eligible dependents on file, which resulted in the extension of unwarranted health/dental plan coverage and other corresponding claims payments for two (2) former dependents over a period of approximately eight (8) years. The employee was terminated.
• An employee inappropriately used their position to facilitate the systemic awarding of contracts to a company with which the employee was affiliated, and that belonged to a family member. By failing to report the conflict-of-interest situation in question, the employee was able to extend preferential treatment to the company unbeknownst to their employer. The employee was terminated.
• An employee unlawfully purchased and misappropriated electrical materials for their own benefit, thereby causing a loss of funds to the Crown. The employee intentionally abused their manager’s trust by giving them false explanations to convince them that the merchandise purchased was or would be used to perform the tasks assigned to them daily. After abusing the trust of their manager, the employee misused public property by unlawfully selling the Crown-owned electrical materials for their own benefit. The employee confessed to the wrongdoing and their employment was terminated as a result. The Senior Officer for Internal Disclosure (SOID) recommended that the delegated manager liaise with legal services regarding potential civil action against the employee. Furthermore, the SOID recommended Canada’s mission abroad strengthen controls over materials procurement processes in accordance with the best practices in place within the department. This act of founded wrongdoing was published as per paragraph 11(1)c) of the PSDPA. 
• An employee conducted an auction for mission vehicles and sold them for significantly less than market value. The vehicles were sold to the employee’s sibling and to contractors with whom the employee had a close relationship, which was not disclosed to the mission. Moreover, the employee manipulated several bidding processes for mission contracts that the employee was responsible for managing and coordinating by fabricating documents and colluding with the different contracting companies. Additionally, another employee was complicit in the manipulation of the bidding process for some of the mission contracts. The employment of both employees was terminated. In addition, the mission in question was also provided guidance on how to detect misrepresentation and deceitful practices in contracting processes. This act of founded wrongdoing was published as per paragraph 11(1)c) of the PSDPA.

Harassment and Violence Cases 

Harassment and violence in the workplace cases pertain to 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.

Some harassment and violence cases are investigated as possible wrongdoing under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA) as a serious breach of a code of conduct. When the wrongdoing is founded, it must be published.

Over the period, two (2) harassment and violence investigative processes concluded that harassment had occurred: 

• A senior executive made an unwanted sexual advance and offered to send inappropriate images of themself to a departmental employee. The senior executive also sent inappropriate images of themself to various women who are part of their professional network. The senior executive did not demonstrate the judgment and leadership expected from a person in a position of authority within the organization. The senior executive’s employment was terminated for cause, the related performance assessment rating was reassessed, and the performance pay has been recovered accordingly.  This act of founded wrongdoing was published as per paragraph 11(1)c) of the PSDPA.
• An employee alleged that they had suffered disrespectful remarks, degrading comments and the use of profanity in discussions about their work, and that this had occurred in front of colleagues. Following analysis of the testimonies and evidence, the allegations of harassment were founded. The investigator recommended a workplace assessment, 360 evaluations and that the manager who committed harassment complete training.

Breach of the Departmental Values and Ethics Code and Code of Conduct for Canadian Representatives Abroad Cases

The Departmental Values and Ethics Code includes a very wide range of conduct that employees must adhere to and uphold. A breach occurs when an employee contravenes expected values and ethics as enumerated in the Departmental Values and Ethics Code. A breach can also occur when an employee  breaches the Code of Conduct for Canadian Representatives Abroad.

Examples of a breach include the undue use of influence or access to resources, misrepresenting or providing false personal information, threatening or intimidating a coworker, or not disclosing a conflict of interest.

Some breaches are investigated as possible wrongdoing under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA) as a serious breach of a code of conduct. When the wrongdoing is founded, it must be published.

Over the period, there were 43 investigations that found a breach of the Departmental Values and Ethics Code or the Code of Conduct for Canadian Representatives Abroad had occurred. 

Inappropriate or Unprofessional Behaviours

• An employee attended a reception organized by a foreign embassy without being invited. Following the reception, it is alleged that the employee invited two (2) local individuals, who were at the reception, to an apartment and administered illicit drugs in their drinks, and subsequently sexually assaulted them. The incident was reported to the local police authorities. The employee has since been terminated.
• An executive communicated inappropriately by belittling and intimidating their employees. The executive also used mission budget resources for personal gain by claiming personal expenses. The executive received a temporary suspension and was required to reimburse the funds and undergo values and ethics, communication, and employee management training.
• An executive demonstrated unprofessional behaviour towards employees on their team by yelling and belittling them and making inappropriate and disrespectful comments. Taking into consideration mitigating factors, management issued a written reprimand to the executive.
• Following a perceived conflict between employees of different sections, an employee’s direct manager and managers from other divisions isolated the employee and removed some of their functions without addressing the conflict between the employees. The managers were requested to take conflict resolution and effective communication training.
• An employee made inappropriate advances and comments of a sexual nature toward a colleague. The employee resigned before disciplinary action could be taken.
• An employee exhibited inappropriate behaviour by raising their voice toward subordinates. The investigation also revealed a neglect to take the necessary precautions to ensure that personal household staff had appropriate access to their work premises. Given the employee had already corrected their behaviour and took the initiative to take part in remedial training, no further corrective measures were deemed necessary.
• In seven (7) different cases, employees demonstrated unprofessional behaviour towards their colleagues by making inappropriate comments, raising their voice, or using offensive language. Considering mitigating factors when relevant, these cases resulted in two (2) verbal reprimands, two (2) written reprimands and one (1) temporary suspension. The employees in the remaining two (2) cases received letters of expectations, an administrative measure used to communicate expected behaviours.
• An employee made inappropriate comments towards a subordinate and failed to promote a healthy and collaborative work environment. The employee received a temporary suspension.
• An employee made inappropriate advances and attempts of a sexual nature toward a colleague. The employee received a temporary suspension.
• An employee demonstrated unprofessional behaviour by provoking unwelcomed physical closeness with a colleague, making them feel uncomfortable. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee and a work colleague were involved in a confrontation during a social function with colleagues which occurred outside of working hours. Mitigating factors, such as the employee being provoked and remorse were considered, and the employee received a written reprimand. The investigation into the work colleague’s behaviour is ongoing at time of publication.
• An employee demonstrated inappropriate behaviour towards their manager by threatening physical harm during a verbal altercation. The employee received a temporary suspension.
• An employee made disrespectful and disparaging comments to their manager. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee demonstrated inappropriate behaviour towards a manager by sending an email to the manager that was inflammatory, disrespectful, and insubordinate. The employee received a written reprimand.

Breach of Integrity

• An employee demonstrated gross negligence in the performance of their duties by failing to follow Consular Service Standards pertaining to initiating and maintaining contact with arrested or detained Canadian citizens. Management had applied progressive discipline to address and correct the employee’s behaviour, however the employee had reoccurring behaviours and serious instances of misconduct. The employee was subsequently terminated.
• An employee allowed unidentified/unvetted individuals with whom they had a personal connection to enter an official event. These actions compromised the security of the event and relevant established protocols. The employee was terminated.
• An employee stole assets in the workplace for their personal use. The employee was terminated.
• An employee fabricated travel claims to obtain benefits for which they were not eligible. The employee was terminated while on probation.
• An employee fraudulently completed timesheets with forged approval signatures. They also used their credentials to influence stakeholders and clients of a family member’s business for personal benefit. The employee was terminated.
• An executive contacted several employees to offer them money in exchange for including their former partner’s personal effects in their diplomatic shipment. Neither the executive nor their former partner was accredited to this host country at the time.  One of the solicited employees accepted the offer from the executive and included personal effects of the ex-partner in their diplomatic shipment. The actions of the executive and the employee constituted a serious breach of the Departmental Values and Ethics Code by demonstrating a serious lack of integrity and stewardship by using their position and their diplomatic privileges for personal gain. The employee was subject to a period of suspension without pay, and measures for the executive are pending following their return from extended leave.  The employee also had to reimburse the department for the additional costs incurred by the government. This act of founded wrongdoing was published as per paragraph 11(1)c) of the PSDPA.
• An employee threatened to take medical leave and not show up for work for their assigned work schedule due to what they perceived as the unfair assignment of overtime hours.  Mitigating factors were considered, including the employee finally reporting to work and completing the tasks assigned. The employee received a verbal reprimand.
• An employee purposely withheld information from management regarding their fitness to work, creating a safety risk for themselves and others. This amounted to negligence in the performance of their duties. The employee received a temporary suspension because management had already applied progressive discipline for a previously unauthorized absence, and the employee had previously provided misleading information.
• An employee took the spare tires of a mission car for personal use without authorization. Mitigating factors were considered, including the reimbursement of the tires, and the employee received a verbal reprimand for their actions.
• An employee acted in an unprofessional manner by using inappropriate language and being under the influence of alcohol during an event hosted by the Government of Canada. These actions resulted in a negative and unprofessional public image of the event and the organization. The employee received a temporary suspension.
• An employee failed to adhere to established processes and follow management instructions pertaining to stakeholder communications by expressing frustration in an unprofessional manner to an external stakeholder. The employee received a written reprimand.

Undue Use of Influence or Access to Resources

• An employee failed to disclose their ownership of leased land in the host country to develop a commercial venture and did not take all possible steps to prevent and resolve an apparent conflict of interest. Additionally, diplomatic agents are prohibited from engaging for personal profit in “any professional or commercial activity” inconsistent with their diplomatic status in the host country.  The employee was given a written reprimand and the Senior Officer for Internal Disclosure (SOID) recommended they take training on values and ethics, namely as it relates to conflict of interest. This act of founded wrongdoing was published as per paragraph 11(1)c) of the PSDPA.
• An employee inappropriately offered a personal gift to an external partner as a gesture of appreciation for quickly processing their request. These actions created the potential for a conflict of interest. The employee received a written reprimand.
• An employee inappropriately took leftover goods from a Government of Canada funded event and provided them to external contractors. The employee received a verbal reprimand.
• An employee inappropriately used their role for personal benefit by contacting other missions to obtain privileged information on the immigration status of their family. Mitigating circumstances were considered and the employee received a verbal reprimand.
• An employee inappropriately used their role for personal benefit by inappropriately asking for information and pressuring staff to action their family members’ visa applications. The employee received a temporary suspension.

Stewardship of Public Resources

• An employee irrevocably broke the trust necessary to fulfill their duties associated with their position while engaging in external political activities during working hours and using employer resources for the external activities. The employee was terminated.
• An employee stole and misused government property. The employee was dishonest about the incident and demonstrated a lack of judgment. The employee was terminated.
• An employee proceeded with the demolition of the Official Residence kitchen, a Crown-owned property, without the required authorization from headquarters (HQ) Real Property division. The employee did not have a fulsome plan for the renovation project before proceeding with the demolition. This created a significant delay between the demolition and the renovation, which caused stress amongst Official Residence employees in carrying out their duties, as well as an unexpected strain on Real Property resources in HQ and additional expenses to the Crown. The employee received a written reprimand. This act of founded wrongdoing was published as per paragraph 11(1)c) of the PSDPA.
• An employee failed to attend planned work-related travel at the last minute where the employer incurred some of the costs. Following consideration of mitigating factors, including acknowledgement of misconduct, health considerations and actions being taken to correct their own behaviour, the employee received a written reprimand.

Safeguarding of Information

• An employee shared information on social media containing information not publicly available and obtained during their duties. The employee was terminated.
• An employee divulged personal information obtained through the course of their duties to their colleagues. The employee received a verbal reprimand and was provided training to increase awareness of their obligations related to privacy and security.
• An employee posted content on their social media that could negatively impact the reputation of the Government of Canada and/or their colleagues. The employee received a written reprimand.

Administrative Misconduct Cases

Administrative misconduct cases cover a range of inappropriate behaviour(s) in the workplace, such as theft of time, tardiness, absenteeism, unauthorized leave and/or personal activities during work hours, insubordination, failure to carry out duties or specific tasks or to follow instructions, or the misuse of government assets.

Over the period, 37 cases of administrative misconduct were deemed founded.

Theft of time, tardiness, absenteeism, unauthorized leave and/or personal activities during work hours

Fourteen (14) employees were absent without authorization, falsely reported leave, used their personal cellular phones during work hours (theft of time), and/or demonstrated tardiness.

In these cases, some employees also failed to comply with management expectations, failed to communicate with management, were intoxicated at work, failed to adhere to the smoke-free policy, demonstrated insubordination, and/or breached the Departmental Values and Ethics Code.

As a result, considering all mitigating and aggravating factors, employees received a range of measures including terminations (2), temporary suspensions (3), verbal (1) and written reprimands (7), mandatory training (1) and other administrative measures (1). One employee resigned before disciplinary or administrative measures were taken.

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

Nineteen (19) employees demonstrated insubordination, failed to carry out their duties and specific tasks, and/or did not meet management expectations or instructions. In some circumstances, employees were also unresponsive, and/or demonstrated aggressive, unprofessional, and inappropriate behaviour. Notably, six (6) employees failed to comply with required onsite presence or their telework agreement by willfully refusing or not coming to work onsite, as directed by their manager.

As a result, considering all mitigating and aggravating factors, employees received a range of measures from temporary suspensions (4), verbal (1) and written reprimands (10) to a letter of expectation (1) and other administrative measures (1). Three (3) employees resigned before disciplinary or administrative measures were taken.

Misuse of Government Assets

Four (4) employees misused government assets, including for personal benefit.

As a result, considering all mitigating and aggravating factors, employees received a range of measures from verbal (2) and written reprimand (1) to a temporary suspension along with mandatory training (1).

Personnel Security Violations

Under the Chief Security Officer, the Corporate Security (Personnel Security Unit):

• conducts investigations to establish and evaluate the facts surrounding security incidents or allegations relating to security policy compliance, misconduct, suspected criminal activity, or workplace violence;
• acts on and reports to the appropriate law enforcement authority or lead security agency; and
• conducts reviews for cause of individual's eligibility to hold a security status or clearance which may call into question employee’s reliability and/or loyalty to Canada and revokes the security status or clearance previously granted.

Personnel security investigations relate to security of information (improper transmittal and transportation or unauthorized access of classified material), national security (questionable conduct related to loyalty to Canada), misconduct (mischief) insider threats (unauthorized information dissemination, espionage), reliability status reviews, and other matters which would not fall under the purview of any of the other departmental investigation units.

A review of an employee’s reliability status or security clearance is conducted based on information or behaviour that may call into question an employee’s reliability and/or loyalty to Canada.

Over the period, two (2) personnel security investigations were deemed to be founded:

• One (1) investigation uncovered a prior criminal conviction, the employee was terminated, and their security clearance was administratively cancelled.
• One (1) investigation related to an employee accessing an unauthorized location abroad and was referred to the employee’s home department for further investigation.

GAC Network Acceptable Use Policy (NAUP) Cases

Under the responsibility of the Chief Security Officer, Corporate Security (Information Security (IT)/Cyber Security Unit) administers the Network Acceptable Use Policy (NAUP). NAUP investigators gather and process electronic information and conduct forensic investigations into the misuse of the department’s electronic network and associated devices and assist with IT forensics of other investigative bodies at Global Affairs Canada.

Violations of the GAC Network Acceptable Use Policy (NAUP) involve the misuse of the department’s electronic networks and associated devices. This includes using the department’s SIGNET systems or network, including Wi-Fi or departmental smartphones, to conduct activities that can be considered a criminal offence; may impede departmental operations or the delivery of services or lead to data loss; or involve processing sensitive or classified information on a system not accredited for that level of information.

During fiscal year 2023-2024, Corporate Security (IT/Cybersecurity Unit) opened ten (10) new Network Acceptable Use Policy (NAUP) investigations and had two (2) carried over from 2022-2023. Examples of investigations include breach of security of information and installing unauthorized software. Nine (9) were inconclusive due to insufficient evidence. Three (3) were ongoing as of March 31, 2024.

Inappropriate Access to Information on Government System

Five (5) additional instances of misconduct stemmed from inappropriate access to information for personal benefit and/or to process unauthorized requests. Three (3) employees were terminated, one (1) employee was issued a temporary suspension, and one (1) employee resigned prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary process.

Security Infractions

As part of the Network Acceptable Use Policy (NAUP) infraction program, when an infraction is discovered, the Corporate IT Security Unit (CSCI) will send a notice to both the employee who triggered the infraction and to the employee’s manager. The infraction program is proving an effective method of enforcing the NAUP as CSCI is seeing a noticeable decline in infraction numbers from fiscal 2022-2023 to fiscal 2023-2024, and no repeat offenders.

Forty-two (42) Network Acceptable Use Policy infractions were issued in fiscal year 2023-2024. Sixteen (16) infractions related to the use of unauthorized software on the corporate network, eleven (11) related to the viewing of adult content, and fourteen (14) infractions related to other categories (improper protection of confidential and protected information during electronic transmission, unauthorized connection of devices into classified systems, and one (1) case of an exposed credential).

Mouse Jigglers

In June 2023, the Chief Security Officer issued security infractions to 29 employees in relation to the use of unauthorized software, known as 'mouse jigglers' whereby employees download software that simulates computer mouse movement, creating the impression that the employee is active on the computer network. Following these investigations, employees received a security infraction, and a notice to their Director General, inviting them to discuss security and values and ethics implications of such a NAUP violation. The manager of one of these employees commenced a disciplinary process where the employee received a temporary suspension and training. Only four (4) similar infractions were recorded over the rest of the year, after June 2023.

IT Forensic Support

Corporate Security (IT/Cybersecurity Unit) also provides support to partner investigative bodies within Global Affairs Canada (Fraud, Values and Ethics, and Labour Relations). Fourteen (14) new investigations were started in 2023-2024, and twelve (12) were carried over from the previous fiscal year.

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 any investigations completed concerning the alleged misconduct and wrongdoing of a GAC employee or vendor.

Interactions With Police Services

The Personnel Security and Contracting unit (CSCP) acts as the liaison between GAC and Canadian law enforcement agencies. CSCP may refer cases to law enforcement agencies if information uncovered provides reasonable grounds to suspect that a person may pose a serious threat to others or may be involved in fraud or other criminal conduct.

As the interlocutor with police services, no referrals were made in 2023-2024, though two (2) prior cases relating to ongoing criminal investigations remain outstanding.

Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner

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

The Office contributes to strengthening accountability and increases 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.
• 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 the past year, no report related to Global Affairs Canada has been published.

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, an individual or group of individuals may submit a Canadian human rights complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) related to any action or decision for which they have reasonable grounds to believe resulted in the unfair or negative treatment of a person under the prohibited grounds of discrimination, such as:

• race, national or ethnic origin, colour
• religion
• age
• sex
• sexual orientation, gender identity or expression
• marital status, family status
• genetic characteristics
• disability
• 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 (CHRT) to decide if there has been discrimination. Please consult the CHRC website for more information on their review process.

The Labour Relations Centre of Expertise unit (HWL) is responsible for coordinating the departmental response to the CHRC complaints against GAC. In fiscal year 2023-2024, the CHRC accepted to review 2 complaints against GAC. No decision from the CHRT related to GAC was issued in fiscal year 2023-2024. 

Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)

ESDC investigations relate to the department’s occupational health and safety program and the workplace. Investigations can be initiated under 3 circumstances:

• in the event of a critical injury or a fatality.
• after a complaint under the Canada Labour Code section 127.1 (Internal Complaint Resolution Process): an employee believes that there has been a contravention of Part II of the Code and that an accident, injury or illness can or has occurred.
• after a complaint under the Canada Labour Code section 128.1 (refusal to work if danger) if the employee is not satisfied with GAC’s decision and believes there is still a danger to their health.

In these circumstances, ESDC can:

• request that the employer/employee submit an assurance of voluntary compliance (AVC). An AVC is the employer or employee’s written commitment to a health and safety officer that a contravention of the Canada Labour Code will be corrected within a specified period.
• issue a direction, which is a legal written notice ordering the employer/employee to address a contravention of Part II of the Code within a specified period.

The department had no infractions under Part II of the Canada Labour Code in 2023-2024.

Public Service Commission (PSC)

As part of its mandate to oversee the integrity of the staffing system and the political impartiality of the federal public service, the Public Service Commission investigates concerns relating to specific appointment processes and allegations of improper political activities for organizations that are subject to the Public Service Employment Act.

At the request of GAC, the Public Service Commission initiated three (3) investigations over the current year, all of which are still ongoing. 

One (1) investigation from the previous year was deemed founded. The Public Service Commission found that three (3) candidates in the 2021 FS-01 process had committed fraud by accessing and sharing standardized test questions prior to writing the exam, knowing that this was in contravention of the exam’s instructions. All three (3) candidates are required to notify the Public Service Commissioner before accepting an appointment in the public service for a one-year period. The two (2) candidates who remain employees of the department were required to take values and ethics training and have a discussion with their director.

Conclusion

The 2023-2024 Report on Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing at Global Affairs Canada is the second edition of this annual report and marks another step in our department’s commitment to ethical conduct, accountability and transparency.

This report reaffirms the importance placed by GAC on ensuring that all allegations of misconduct and wrongdoing are thoroughly investigated, and that any founded cases are met with appropriate action. 

By providing practical information on the resources, support services, and recourse mechanisms available to GAC employees, the report also seeks to raise awareness and empower employees to actively contribute to fostering a more respectful, healthy, and inclusive work environment.

Ultimately, the report’s significance extends beyond its content; it symbolizes the department’s unwavering commitment to upholding the highest standards of professionalism and ethical conduct, in keeping with the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service, the Departmental Values and Ethics Code and the Code of Conduct for Canadian Representatives Abroad.

Annex A - Definitions

Administrative Investigation

The gathering and analysis of information related to an incident of alleged misconduct to address any risk of harm and prevent future occurrences. 

Conflict of Interest

Conflict of interest is any situation where public servants have private interests that could improperly influence the performance of their official duties and responsibilities or where public servants use their offices for personal gain.

A conflict of interest may be:

• real (existing at the present time)
• apparent (perceived by a reasonable observer to exist, whether or not that is the case)
• potential (reasonably foreseen to exist in the future)

Disciplinary Process

Is a structured process to deal with employees who have violated departmental processes or policies.  It involves a series of steps.

Discrimination

Any action or decision that results in the unfair or negative treatment of a person under the prohibited grounds of discrimination, such as race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Fact-Finding Exercise

A limited scope assessment to identify the issue and clarify relevant facts.  It involves gathering information before deciding whether to proceed with a full-scale investigation.

Grievance

A grievance is a written complaint that may be filed by an individual on their own behalf, by a bargaining agent representative on behalf of a group of individuals or, in the case of a policy grievance, by a bargaining agent or an employer.

Misconduct

Any action whereby an individual willfully contravenes, notably, an act, a regulation, a rule, a departmental or Treasury Board policy instrument, an approved procedure, a departmental code of conduct, and/or the Departmental Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service. In short, when an employee contravenes any of the obligations they agree to abide by when becoming a public servant. Examples of misconduct may include absence from work without authorization, insubordination, and tardiness.

Preliminary Assessment

A limited scope assessment designed to help identify potential issues and scope of work to determine if there requires a further in-depth investigation.

Wrongdoing

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA) defines wrongdoing as one or more of the following:

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

Annex B – GAC Employee Resources for Addressing Misconduct and Wrongdoing

Everyone has the right, and the responsibility, to speak up when a difficult issue occurs. Any employee can report an issue of concern, whether you are in Canada or abroad, Canada-based or Locally Engaged, and regardless of your employment classification or status.

If you have experienced, witnessed, or been informed of an incident:

Step 1: please speak with:

• Your manager, if you feel comfortable to do so.
• The Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General, as a confidential safe space for employees to raise concerns outside the formal reporting channels (See Annex D).
• Depending on the issue and your situation, you may also want to speak to a union representative, a locally engaged staff (LES) Council representative (at Mission), the LES engagement officer (at HQ), a mentor and/or a representative of one of GAC’s employee networks. Executive employees can reach out to the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada (APEX).

Step 2:  the following GAC teams can help you with the initiation of informal and formal mechanisms, including investigations into misconduct and wrongdoing. Contact points vary depending on the issue at stake:

• Harassment and Violence: HWP
• Breach of Code of Conduct: HWP
• PSDPA: VBZ
• Fraud and Financial misconduct: VBZ
• Personal security: CSCP
• Network Acceptable Use Policy: CSCI

You can also directly contact other Government of Canada organizations for the following issues:

• Discrimination: CHRC
• Breach of Code of Conduct and PSDPA: PSIC (if you prefer not to engage with GAC’s SOID)
• Occupational Health and Safety: ESDC
• Staffing processes: PSC

For further information on reporting an incident, employees can visit this Intranet page.

Managers managing difficult situations with their employees may also communicate with HWL (hwl@international.gc.ca).

Annex C - Formal Reporting Mechanism Points of Contact

While the Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General is the first port of call for employees experiencing workplace issues, formal reporting mechanisms and their points of contact are identified below.  Detailed descriptions follow.

Ethical Conduct and Harassment Prevention Division (HWP)

• Promotion of Values and Ethics and Code of Conduct
• Informal Negotiation and/or Conciliation
• Reports of Workplace Harassment and Violence

Values and Ethics Unit (HWP)

• Promotion of Values and Ethics Code and Code of Conduct
• Orientation and Guidance on Conflicts of Interest
• Departmental Values and Ethics Code Investigations (Conflict of Interest)

Labour Relations Division (HWL)

• Guidance to Managers on Labour Relations and Allegations of Misconduct
• Assistance in Discipline Processes
• Human Right Complaints
• Administrative Investigations

Locally Engaged Staff Bureau (HLD)

• Support to Missions with Complaints and Recourse Mechanisms
• Guidance on Labour Relations Matters within Local Employment Laws
• Guidance to Missions on Administrative Investigations or Fact-Finding Inquiry
• Ensuring Disciplinary Processes are Fair, Transparent, and Lawful

Special Investigations and Internal Disclosure Division (VBZ)

• Guidance on the PSDPA and Allegations of Wrongdoing
• Potential Wrongdoing under the PSDPA Investigations
• Potential Fraud or Financial Misconduct Investigations

Corporate Security Division (CSC)

• Employee's Reliability Status or Security Clearance Reviews and Investigations
• Violations of the Network Acceptable Use Policy Investigations

Ethical Conduct and Harassment Prevention Division (HWP)

HWP’s responsibility is to promote the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service, the Departmental Values and Ethics Code and the Code of Conduct for Canadian Representatives Abroad. These codes set out the values and expected behaviours that guide all departmental employees—Canada-based staff (CBS) and locally engaged staff (LES) alike—in their professional activities. In the 2024-2025 year, GAC will review the Departmental Values and Ethics Code and update the Code of Conduct. HWP is responsible for receiving and responding to all reports of workplace harassment and violence and providing guidance to supervisors and employees and develops training material and courses, with a focus on prevention initiatives.

Since the new Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations were implemented on January 1, 2021, HWP is also responsible for receiving and responding to all reports of workplace harassment and violence as prescribed in the Canada Labour Code (CLC). CLC investigations focus on the workplace and do not lead to individual administrative or disciplinary measures. However, the delegated manager, in consultation with HWL or the Human Resources Operations Division – LES (HLDS), can also initiate a separate process to determine if administrative and/or disciplinary measures are warranted. This may require a separate investigation.

Since the new regulations came into force in 2021, a significant number of complaints have been resolved informally at GAC through negotiated resolution and/or conciliation. The unit also offers guidance and advice to supervisors and employees, develops guidelines and tools, and provides training with a focus on prevention initiatives. In its work, HWP will:

• identify the root cause of the harassment, if any; and
• if warranted, provide recommendations to prevent any reoccurrence of harassment in the workplace.

For more information, please contact: Harcelementviolence@international.gc.ca.

Values and Ethics Unit (HWP)

The Values and Ethics Unit’s responsibility is to create awareness and promote the Departmental Values and Ethics Code (the Code), the Code of Conduct for Canadian Representatives Abroad and to provide orientation and guidance on an array of topics related to conflicts of interest, such as the application of post-employment restrictions for designated positions, outside employment or activities and political activities. The Unit also conducts investigations under the Code.

Investigations under the Code begin with a complaint of alleged breaches on matters that could be either personal or departmental in nature. In this process, the confidentiality of the complainant’s identity is not guaranteed. Findings resulting from an investigation under the Code may be founded, unfounded or inconclusive.

In cases where the allegations are founded, the respondent’s delegated authority is responsible for taking appropriate redress measures, up to and including dismissal.

For more information, please contact: 

valuesandethics-valeursetethique@international.gc.ca.

Labour Relations Division (HWL)

The mandate of the Labour Relations Centre of Expertise unit (HWL) is to promote harmonious and productive workplace relations by providing expert advice and assistance to managers on labour relations matters. To that end, HWL delivers numerous services to help managers create and maintain a workplace that is conducive to the achievement of departmental objectives. These services include offering training and developing directives, guidelines and tools to promote good people management practices and initiatives.

One of HWL’s services is to provide guidance and advice to managers when an administrative investigation, organizational climate assessment or fact-finding inquiry into allegations of misconduct are warranted or required. This includes ensuring that managers address breaches or violations of a policy or code, acts of insubordination, breaches of trust or any other unacceptable behaviour, including breaches of the Departmental Values and Ethics Code.

When a manager becomes aware of potential misconduct, they consult with HWL to explore available options. If an administrative investigation is necessary, the delegated manager mandates HWL to investigate and notifies the respondent(s) about the allegations, their rights, and responsibilities during the process. The investigator identifies potential witnesses and relevant documentation, emphasizing procedural fairness and confidentiality. All witnesses, including the respondent, review and confirm their interview information. Once all relevant facts are gathered, a preliminary report is shared with the respondent for review and comments. The investigator then assesses the evidence for each allegation, determining if it is more likely than not to be founded.

Following an administrative investigation, a discipline process may be required to address allegations that are founded. To that end, HWL is responsible for assisting delegated managers to ensure that the discipline process is fair and transparent and that it respects the rules of procedural fairness.

In some circumstances however, a disciplinary hearing may be initiated without the need for an administrative investigation. This would occur when the facts in a case are clear and known by all parties involved.

For more information, please contact hwl@international.gc.ca.

Locally Engaged Staff Bureau (HLD)

HLD supports the Government of Canada in its role as an employer of locally engaged staff. The bureau defines and oversees how this workforce is managed, including supporting missions with labour relations and employee recourse, to effectively support Government of Canada programs and services abroad.

HLDS has a mandate to support missions in maintaining harmonious and productive workplace relations with locally engaged staff (LES). The division achieves this by providing a variety of services, including:

• developing HR policies and tools to promote good people management practices;
• establishing LES terms and conditions of employment;
• providing expert advice and guidance to heads of mission and program managers on labour relations matters within the context of local employment laws; and
• supporting missions with complaints and recourse mechanisms.

Among its services, HLDS provides assistance and guidance to missions when an administrative investigation or fact-finding inquiry into allegations of misconduct is warranted or required. This includes supporting staff in addressing alleged breaches or violations of a policy or code, acts of insubordination, breaches of trust or any other unacceptable behaviour.

Following an investigation, a discipline process may be required to address allegations that are founded. To that end, HLDS helps ensure that the disciplinary process is fair and transparent and that it respects requirements related to local laws and procedural fairness. In some circumstances, a discipline process may be initiated without the need for an administrative investigation. This would occur when the facts in a case are clear and known by all parties involved.

For more information, please contact:

LES-HR-Program-Support/Soutien-RH-programme-ERP.HLDS@international.gc.ca.

Special Investigations and Internal Disclosure Division (VBZ)

VBZ is under the authority of the Office of the Chief Audit Executive (VBD). The Senior Officer for Internal Disclosure, who is also the Chief Audit Executive, leads VBD.

VBZ has 2 distinct responsibilities: investigating allegations of potential wrongdoing under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and investigating potential fraud or financial misconduct.

Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act

The PSDPA gives federal public service employees and others a secure and confidential process for disclosing wrongdoing in the workplace as well as protection from acts of reprisal. It is part of the Government of Canada’s ongoing commitment to promoting ethical practices in the public sector.

Employees may make a protected disclosure to the designated Senior Officer for Internal Disclosure, their supervisor or the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

VBZ’s mandate as it relates to the PSDPA is as follows:

• Receive and address disclosures from GAC employees.
• Ensure the confidentiality of all information obtained under disclosures.
• Provide PSDPA-related advice and guidance to GAC employees.
• Investigate allegations of wrongdoing.
• Promote ethical practices in the public sector and a positive environment for disclosing wrongdoing.

For more information, please contact:

Disclosure-wrongdoing.Divulgation-acte-reprehensible@international.gc.ca

Investigations into potential fraud or financial misconduct

VBZ also provides the following core services as part of its responsibilities over investigations into potential fraud and financial misconduct in the department:

• assisting with and/or conducting administrative investigations into losses of public funds and Crown property in accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s Directive on Public Money and Receivables.
• preventing and detecting potential fraud or any other financial misconduct resulting in the loss of public funds.
• coordinating the fraud risk assessment process and fraud risk management at the departmental level.
• making recommendations to senior management at missions and headquarters on strengthening internal controls.
• carrying out fraud awareness training.

For more information, please contact SpecialInvestigations@international.gc.ca.

Corporate Security Division (CSC)

Corporate Security (CSC) is under the authority of the Chief Security Officer (CSD). CSC undertakes fact findings and conducts investigations into employees’ reliability status or security clearance needs (review for cause). CSC also leads investigations into violations of the Network Acceptable Use Policy (NAUP). Given the volume and corporate importance of the security-related investigative work of CSC, a Deputy Chief Security Officer was named this year.

The mandate of Personnel Security Services (CSCP) is to conduct security investigations related to security of information, national security and reliability issues, along with conducting investigations into possible insider threats.

For more information, please contact:

D-SCPInvestigation_Enquetes@international.gc.ca.

The mandate of the Corporate IT Security unit (CSCI) is to conduct investigations into the misuse of the department’s electronic network and associated devices. It is also responsible for assisting with investigations conducted by other investigative bodies mentioned in this report. The unit gathers and processes electronic information by conducting forensic analysis once the Chief Security Officer grants a mandate.

For more information, please contact:

DFATD.ITSEC-SECTI.MAECD@international.gc.ca.

Annex D - Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General Services

Our on-demand services

Your gateway to support from the Office of the Well-being Ombud and Inspector General is an email to ombud@international.gc.ca. Our services are offered to all Canada-based staff employees and their dependents and locally engaged staff. We also offer certain services to employees of other government departments working at our missions.

Ombud Services: confidential conversations with the Ombud or Deputy Ombud are your starting point to help you address your situation and navigate the system.

What are Ombud Services? A safe environment where you can discuss your concerns or issues by exploring your options with you. An advisor is available to deal specifically with LES issues.

How does Ombud Services work? When you have a confidential conversation with the Ombud, Deputy Ombud or staff, we

• listen to understand issues from your point of view,
• reframe them to develop potential options for resolution, and
• guide you in dealing directly with other people and improving your skills in addressing concerns including making referrals to other services.

What else can Ombud Services do? We bring issues to the surface and identify opportunities for systemic change within the organization.

Employee Assistance program (EAP): confidential conversations with our counsellors can help you address various life and work-related issues.

What is EAP? A voluntary and confidential service available to assist individuals in overcoming personal and professional challenges.

How does EAP work? We help people understand their personal situations better. We empower them to seek appropriate help and support.

What else can EAP do? We provide advice to managers on how to handle challenging interpersonal situations at work. We also provide training to all staff on issues related to psychological health.

Informal Conflict Management Services (ICMS): confidential conversations with our practitioners can help manage conflicts and promote positive interactions.

What is ICMS? A voluntary, quick, informal approach to managing and resolving conflicts in the workplace. We assist employees, managers, and teams in overcoming workplace issues and challenges.

How does ICMS work? We provide:

• individual conflict management coaching sessions to receive guidance during your reflections and explore ways for handling conflict situations,
• facilitated discussions/mediations with the goal of improving communication and understanding, and
• customized group interventions with a focus on improving team dynamics and creating a psychologically healthy and safe workplace.

What else can ICMS do? We provide advice to managers on how to handle challenging workplace situations. We also provide training to all staff on issues related to team dynamics and a healthy workplace.