Case Summaries 2022-2023

Alleged Conflict of Interest IN HIRING (Referral)

A discloser alleged that public servants in a ministry breached the Conflict of Interest Rules by hiring family members and friends and that one of them engaged in gross mismanagement by failing to address complaints about these possible conflicts in hiring.

A second discloser came forward with allegations of wrongdoing about the same public servants, as well as allegations that these and other public servants were creating a culture of nepotism through the hiring and promoting of friends and family members. If true, these allegations could rise to the level of gross mismanagement. The second discloser also alleged that one of the public servants breached the Rules by participating on the hiring panel for a family member.

The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation, who found that two of the public servants had engaged in gross mismanagement by being complicit in the culture of nepotism through the hiring of friends and family. The investigation also found that one public servant had breached section 6(2) of the Conflict of Interest Rules by failing to endeavour to avoid the appearance of preferential treatment. With respect to the other named public servants, the investigation found the allegations against them were either not substantiated or the evidence was inconclusive. The deputy minister further found that certain hiring strategies may have created favourable circumstances to promote a culture or the perception of a culture of nepotism and identified corrective actions to address these issues. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and the proposed corrective actions and closed the file.

Alleged MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS (Referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant in a ministry engaged in wrongdoing by misusing public funds for a personal expense, directing an assistant to use the assistant’s OPS purchasing card for a personal expense and then approving the purchase. The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister. The investigation found that the public servant did not engage in wrongdoing, as the public servant had received prior approvals from assistant deputy ministers to expense the purchases in question. However, guidelines regarding documentation and usage of purchasing cards were not followed and the deputy minister identified corrective actions to address the issue. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and the proposed corrective actions and closed the file.

Alleged PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT, mismanagement and creation of a grave danger (Referral)

A discloser alleged that several public servants in a ministry engaged in gross mismanagement by failing to investigate complaints and for creating the appearance of or giving preferential treatment to employees with whom they had a personal relationship, contrary to the Conflict of Interest Rules. The discloser also alleged that other public servants created grave danger and contravened an Act. Two other disclosers also came forward with the allegation of preferential treatment by one of the public servants already named by the first discloser.

The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister for investigation, who found that one of the public servants breached section 6 of the Conflict of Interest Rules by creating the appearance of or giving preferential treatment to one employee. With respect to the other named public servants, the allegations were unsubstantiated. However, the deputy minister found some of the public servants contravened various policies and procedures related to the disclosures. The deputy minister identified corrective actions to address the wrongdoing and improve the processes in place at the ministry. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and the proposed corrective actions and closed the file.

Alleged MISUSE OF GOVERNMENT VEHICLE (Referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant engaged in gross mismanagement and breached section 3(1) of the Conflict of Interest Rules by using government vehicles and OPS fuel purchasing cards for personal use. The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister, whose investigation found that the public servant breached section 3(1) of the Conflict of Interest Rules when he misused one government vehicle by using it on limited occasions for no apparent business reason and not providing operational reasons for its use. The deputy minister found that the public servant did not intend to garner significant financial benefit and concluded that the allegation did not amount to gross mismanagement. The deputy minister identified corrective actions that were satisfactory to the Commissioner, and the file was closed.