Case Summaries 2017-2018

Allegation of contravention of the Conflict of Interest Rules and gross mismanagement (Referral)

It was alleged that public servants contravened the Conflict of Interest Rules set out in O. Reg. 381/07 under the Act and engaged in gross mismanagement by using their status as managers to schedule themselves for their own benefit for additional overtime shifts, improperly using their government vehicles and credit cards for personal use and undertaking personal activities during work hours. The Commissioner referred the matter for investigation to the appropriate Ethics Executive. The investigation concluded that there was some evidence of meal claims made that were not in accordance with the Travel, Meal and Hospitality Directive and that some inappropriate purchases were made with purchasing cards. The allegations pertaining to overtime scheduling and the inappropriate use of government vehicles were unfounded. The Commissioner had concerns about the sufficiency of the information provided in the report, which required him to seek numerous clarifications from the investigator. Ultimately, the Commissioner found that he was satisfied with the investigation but recommended to the Ethics Executive pursuant to subsection 121(1) of the Act that a review be undertaken regarding the preparation of investigation reports and that consideration be given to whether reimbursement should be sought for purchases and claims that were found to be inappropriate.

Allegation of contravention of the Conflict of Interest Rules (Referral)

It was alleged that a public servant contravened the Conflict of Interest Rules set out in O. Reg. 381/07 under the Act by using information he obtained as a public servant to avoid being charged for participating in an illegal activity. The Commissioner referred the matter for investigation to the appropriate Ethics Executive. The Commissioner agreed that the investigation could be put on hold to allow for the completion of an existing process relating to the events that gave rise to the disclosure. Following the completion of that process, the public servant was charged under a provincial statute and the Commissioner was advised that the public servant was no longer with the public service. As a result, there being no other systemic issues to be addressed, the Commissioner found that there were valid reasons for not proceeding with the disclosure and ceased to be involved.

Allegation of breach of an act and gross mismanagement (Investigation)

It was alleged that a public servant breached an act and engaged in gross mismanagement in relation to the delivery of a ministry program. The Commissioner referred the matter for investigation to the appropriate Ethics Executives. The Ethics Executives, as permitted under the Act, referred the matter back to the Commissioner who then undertook an investigation into the matter. Following the completion of the investigation, the Commissioner concluded that no wrongdoing by a public servant had occurred because the public servant had discretion regarding how the program was delivered. The Commissioner found that this discretion had not been exercised in bad faith or for an improper purpose (the evidence in fact suggested that the public servant had been diligent in regard to the public servant’s duties). The Commissioner did, however, recommend to the deputy minister that an assessment be conducted to determine whether sufficient resources are available to manage the program. This recommendation was accepted, and the Commissioner closed the file.

Allegation of contravention of the Conflict of Interest Rules and gross mismanagement (Referral)

It was alleged that a senior public servant breached the Conflict of Interest Rules set out in O. Reg. 381/07 under the Act by hiring a friend without a job competition and giving him preferential treatment in a number of ways. The senior public servant was also alleged to have engaged in gross mismanagement by then allowing that friend, who had become a ministry employee, to conduct private business with the ministry for which he worked. Allegations were also made against the friend for awarding ministry work to his personal business while employed by that same ministry and for using a government credit card to pay for that work. The Commissioner referred the matter to an Ethics Executive for investigation. Over the course of the investigation, evidence of potential criminal wrongdoing was uncovered, and the matter was referred by the Ethics Executive to a law enforcement agency; the Commissioner agreed that this was appropriate in the circumstances. Subsequently, both public servants resigned from the public service. A report was prepared for the portion of the investigation that, in light of the referral to law enforcement, could be concluded. Findings were made that there had been wrongdoing in respect to several of the allegations. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation report, and although the public servants involved had resigned from the public service, he issued recommendations which both the ministry and the Secretary of the Cabinet addressed to prevent similar wrongdoing from occurring in the public service in the future.