Case Summaries 2023-2024

Alleged conflict of interest - outside business, confidential information (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant breached sections 8 and 3(1) of the Conflict of Interest Rules by engaging in an outside business that would benefit from his employment as a public servant, could conflict and interfere with his work, and could constitute full-time employment. The discloser also alleged that the public servant breached section 5 of the Rules by disclosing and using confidential information and that he breached section 65(3) of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 by failing to inform his Ethics Executive of his business.

The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister. The deputy minister found that the public servant notified his Ethics Executive about his outside business more than a year after he commenced the business and that he did not provide sufficient details about this activity. Thus, the deputy minister found the public servant breached section 65(3) of the Act. The deputy minister found that the investigation did not substantiate the other allegations but did find that the public servant had violated an Ontario Public Service information technology resource policy. The deputy minister identified corrective actions to address the breach of the Act and the OPS policy. The Commissioner was satisfied both with the investigation and the proposed corrective actions and closed the file.

Alleged preferential treatment (referral)

A discloser alleged that a senior public servant engaged in gross mismanagement and breached sections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Conflict of Interest Rules by giving preferential treatment and/or failing to avoid creating the appearance of preferential treatment when contracts were awarded to a friend’s company.

The Commissioner referred the matter to the appropriate senior official to investigate. The senior official did not find evidence that the public servant directly influenced decision-making in awarding the contracts to the company. However, they did find that the public servant had a close relationship with the vendor, did not notify their Ethics Executive of this relationship, and recommended that this company be considered for specific contracts. The senior official determined that the public servant breached section 6(2) of the Conflict of Interest Rules by failing to endeavour to avoid creating an appearance of preferential treatment. The senior official then took corrective action to address the finding. The investigation confirmed there was no breach of section 6(1) of the Conflict of Interest Rules or gross mismanagement. The Commissioner was satisfied both with the investigation and the corrective action and closed the file.

Alleged conflict of interest - outside business, use of government resources (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant breached sections 3(1) and 8.5 of the Conflict of Interest Rules by engaging in outside businesses that would benefit from his employment as a public servant. It was also alleged that the public servant used government equipment in his businesses, was giving preferential treatment by offering assistance to clients of his businesses, and had disclosed or used confidential information in his businesses. Based on the information provided, it was also alleged that the public servant failed to notify his Ethics Executive of his outside businesses, as required by the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006. The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister. The investigation substantiated the allegations and, therefore, it was determined the public servant breached the Conflict of Interest Rules and the Act. The Commissioner was satisfied both with the investigation and the deputy minister’s proposed corrective actions and closed the file.

Alleged conflict of interest - outside activity (referral)

A discloser alleged that a senior public servant breached section 8 of the Conflict of Interest Rules by engaging in an outside activity that could conflict and interfere with his work and where his outside activity would benefit from his employment as a public servant. It was also alleged that the public servant breached section 65(3) of the Act by failing to inform his Ethics Executive of his outside activity. The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister, who determined that the public servant was engaged in the outside activity as part of his assigned duties and, as a result, there were no breaches of the Rules or the Act. While no wrongdoing was found, the deputy minister directed that the public servant would not be involved in contractual dealings with the outside organization. The deputy minister also reminded the public servant of his duties of confidentiality and to ensure that the organization would not derive an advantage from his employment as a public servant. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and closed the file.

Alleged conflict of interest - outside business (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant breached several Conflict of Interest Rules by operating an outside business that offered services comparable to those provided in her role as a public servant. The business website featured information about her public service experience. The Commissioner referred the matter to the appropriate senior official to investigate. The senior official found that the public servant had disclosed her intentions to commence the outside activity to a former Ethics Executive. This was in accordance with the Rules, but it was also not clear that the Ethics Executive was aware of the website content. In the circumstances, the senior official concluded that the public servant had not engaged in wrongdoing. The public servant was directed to provide information and seek a new determination from her current Ethics Executive. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and proposed corrective actions, and he closed the file.

Alleged preferential treatment (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant breached sections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Conflict of Interest Rules by giving preferential treatment and/or failing to avoid creating the appearance of preferential treatment by making allowances for an employee that were contrary to a workplace policy. The Commissioner referred the matter to the appropriate senior official to investigate. The senior official found the public servant’s decision with respect to the employee was not based on preferential treatment and that they had not contravened the Rules. The Commissioner raised concerns about certain conclusions in the investigation report, but he decided not to conduct his own investigation as he was ultimately satisfied that there were reasonable operational explanations for the public servant to make a decision that was contrary to the policy. The Commissioner closed the file.

Alleged conflict of interest and gross mismanagement (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant breached several Conflict of Interest Rules by using his employment to benefit himself, disclosing confidential information, and engaging in an outside business that conflicted with his role as a public servant and in which he used government resources. It was also alleged that the discloser engaged in gross mismanagement by permitting some of his staff to use ministry vehicles for personal travel unrelated to their employment. The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister. While the investigation found no wrongdoing with respect to all the allegations referred, the investigation did uncover an additional issue in that the respondent awarded a small contract to a close friend. The deputy minister concluded that preferential treatment had not been given but also that there was no question that there was a perception of preferential treatment.

The investigation also revealed that the public servant’s managers had been aware of his outside activities for years but did not escalate them to his Ethics Executive for a determination and direction, as required by the Act, until the disclosure of wrongdoing was received. The investigation also confirmed that the public servant used his government cell phone for his outside business on many occasions and that it was common practice for a person in the public servant’s role to use government cell phones for personal use. The deputy minister’s corrective actions included reminding the public servant of the directions he had issued with respect to the outside activity, which included not using his government cell phone for his outside business, and advising the public servant to be cognizant of personal relationships and recuse himself where there is a relationship that could create a perception of preferential treatment. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and agreed with the corrective action identified by the deputy minister, but he made further recommendations. These included that the managers involved be made aware of the obligation to escalate conflicts of interest to the Ethics Executive and that the deputy minister follow up with respect to information revealed in the investigation about unexplained disabling of telematics on numerous occasions.

Alleged gross mismanagement (referral)

A discloser alleged that a public servant engaged in gross mismanagement by asking employees to submit inaccurate information in relation to their work. The Commissioner referred the matter to the appropriate senior official, whose investigation substantiated the allegation. The senior official also identified and investigated additional issues and found that the public servant also breached sections 6(1), 6(2) and 7(2) of the Conflict of Interest Rules. The public servant had given or failed to avoid creating the appearance of preferential treatment when contracts were awarded to someone with whom he had a close personal relationship and had also engaged in gross mismanagement when he was aware of another individual engaging in inappropriate financial transactions but failed to respond appropriately. The public servant is no longer working at the public body. The Commissioner was satisfied with the investigation and the corrective actions taken, and he closed the file.

Alleged preferential treatment, conflict of interest – outside employment (referral)

A discloser alleged that a senior public servant at a public body had given preferential treatment, or failed to avoid creating the appearance of giving preferential treatment, to certain employees in her role as an Ethics Executive by allowing them to engage in outside employment without conflict of interest determinations. The discloser also alleged that several public servants contravened the Conflict of Interest Rules by engaging in outside employment. This included allegations that a public servant used his position to obtain outside employment, used government premises, equipment, and services for his outside employment, and used his position as a public servant to further his private interest by securing contracts between the public body and his outside employer.

The Commissioner referred the matter to the deputy minister of the responsible ministry for investigation. During the investigation, two of the several respondents left the public service. The investigator retained for the matter also identified important additional issues.

The deputy minister provided an initial report, but the Commissioner had concerns, including that findings against one respondent were made without notifying the respondent or providing an opportunity to respond. The Commissioner also requested additional information and analysis. Following this, the deputy minister delivered an updated investigation report and advised that among other things, he would be taking steps to ensure employees at the public body were provided with information and training about the Conflict of Interest Rules.

The Commissioner reviewed the report and determined he was still not satisfied with several aspects. He questioned whether factual findings had been made with respect to conflicting evidence. While accepting some of the deputy minister’s conclusions, he also questioned the reasonableness of some other legal findings. As an example, the Commissioner was concerned about whether the investigation considered the fact that a respondent had previously received the Ethics Executive’s approval for some outside activities and use of resources.

Because of unique circumstances, including but not limited to the fact that some public servants who were integral to the investigation had left the public service, the Commissioner determined further investigation would not be beneficial or change any corrective action required at the public body. Instead, he provided feedback on the issues with the investigative report and recommended, in addition to the educational steps planned by the deputy minister, that to ensure compliance with the Rules, the deputy minister also request the Ethics Executive to issue new conflict of interest determinations for all the remaining respondents with outside activities.