Case Summaries 2024-2025

A Whistleblower’s Disclosure Leads to Change

One of the biggest cases of the year showed the effectiveness of the Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act (the Act) in practice.

A whistleblower disclosed alleged wrongdoings by the President and Chief Executive Officer (the CEO) of a post-secondary educational institution. The alleged wrongdoings were related to the gross mismanagement of a foreign student recruitment initiative. The CEO allegedly implemented the initiative in a reckless manner; incurred excessive travel expenses in pursuit of the recruitment program; and later directed staff to delete emails critical of the program. Finally, the disclosure stated that the CEO had harassed employees as part of creating a climate of fear and intimidation.

The whistleblower brought these serious concerns to the Commissioner. Our office opened an investigation into the potential gross mismanagement of the delivery of a public service; the gross mismanagement of public funds; the gross mismanagement of employees; and contraventions of privacy legislation.

We brought the allegations to the attention of the school’s Board of Governors (the Board). The Board engaged a law firm to conduct a thorough investigation. The Board agreed to undertake its investigation under the parameters of the Act, thereby affording whistleblower protection to the employees involved. The Commissioner provided advice when needed and reviewed the outcome of the investigation. This model of cooperation resulted in a thorough investigation, permitted the organization to manage the matter under the oversight of the Commissioner, and reduced the potential for perceptions of bias with the Board investigating its CEO.

The Board-directed investigation determined that wrongdoing had occurred. The investigation concluded that the CEO had: grossly mismanaged the delivery of a public service; incurred travel expenses that resulted in a gross mismanagement of public funds; harassed an employee in a manner that constituted a gross mismanagement of employees; and contravened privacy legislation.

The Board accepted recommendations that addressed the findings including investing in additional training on the school’s Procurement Policy, Trade Agreements, Respect in the Workplace Policy, and Occupational Health and Safety requirements.

The Commissioner reviewed the conclusions of the investigation and suggested the Board include four additional recommendations to help prevent these types of wrongdoings in the future:

1. Regular, impartial evaluations of the CEO.
2. Amending procurement policies to include safeguards that would prevent staff and leadership from engaging in non-compliant practices.
3. Reporting breaches of privacy legislation to the Information and Privacy Commissioner and Minister of Justice, in accordance with the organization’s Safe Disclosure Policy.
4. Amending the organization’s Safe Disclosure Policy to direct whistleblower complaints to either the school’s designated officer or the Commissioner.

The Board accepted the recommendations, and our office looks forward to supporting the organization as they implement preventative measures.

When whistleblowers bring allegations of wrongdoing to our office, or to their organization’s designated officer, they are protected and an independent, impartial investigation can proceed. In this instance, the allegations were confirmed and the subsequent recommendations will lead to the strengthening of internal policies and procedures.

Strengthening Trust: Enhancing Transparency in Public Spending

Another major case from the past year showcased the importance of transparency and policy safeguards when organizations spend public funds.

A whistleblower contacted our office with concerns about a sole-source contract between a public post-secondary institution (the University) and a U.S.-based business offering executive-level HR consulting services. The business owner, a former University executive, was providing services under the contract. The whistleblower was concerned about the secretive nature of the contract, which appeared to bypass the University’s procurement practices and violate provincial legislation that capped executive compensation for public institutions.

Our office opened an investigation into these serious allegations to determine whether the contract violated provincial law or involved gross mismanagement of public funds or services.

The Commissioner found no wrongdoing by the University. The investigation determined that the University faced significant pressures, including leadership turnover, when it entered the contract. The Commissioner found that the University’s President, at the time, exercised due diligence in preparing the contract and was guided by his assessment of the University’s best interests amid the ongoing challenges. The contract also complied with provincial legislation, because the former executive had relocated to the U.S. and was no longer an employee of the University.

While there was no wrongdoing, the Commissioner identified the need to improve and update the University’s procurement policies. The investigation found that these policies were outdated and had previously been bypassed by senior executives in relation to other sensitive contracts. Ultimately, the uncertainty created by the policy resulted in reduced transparency concerning the institution’s use of public funds and impacted trust among employees. Procurement policies should guide decisions at all levels of an organization and are particularly important at the executive level where spending authority is greater.

To address these issues, the Commissioner made three recommendations:

1. Establish clear guidelines for permissible deviations from policy and contract negotiations;
2. Update the outdated procurement policies to reflect actual practices; and
3. Create a policy to balance confidentiality with transparency for publicly funded contracts.

Finally, the Commissioner noted that improved succession planning for the University’s senior leadership could have mitigated the issues found in this case.

Although no wrongdoing was identified, this case underscored the importance of maintaining current and consistent procurement policies to uphold trust and transparency in public spending.

Investigating a Risk to the Environment

In 2024–2025, we closed a multi-year investigation related to a program for the protection of woodland caribou in northern Alberta, which the Government of Canada had classified as a “species at risk.”

The case started in spring 2020, when our office received a disclosure related to the Ministry of Alberta Environment and Parks, now known as Environment and Protected Areas (the Department). The whistleblower reported on the Department’s use of a toxic substance, strychnine, to control the number of wolves who prey on caribou. The Department’s use of strychnine was an aspect of Alberta’s Caribou Recovery Program (the Program).

The whistleblower contended that the Department had mismanaged the administration of the strychnine. Specifically, the complaint was that strychnine-laced baits were left in the environment, that the sites used for the strychnine were not adequately maintained, and that carcasses poisoned by the strychnine were not being properly collected. According to the whistleblower, the wrongful deployment of the strychnine resulted in the unnecessary deaths of animals scavenging on the baits and poisoned carcasses.

After a thorough assessment of the complaint, we referred the matter to Health Canada, which regulates pesticide use. Health Canada’s review left unanswered questions, so our office launched an investigation.
The investigation initially considered whether the Department created a substantial and specific danger to the environment or to the life, health, or safety of individuals. Over time, the investigation expanded to consider whether the Department’s administration of the program constituted the gross mismanagement of the delivery of a public service.

The investigation focused on the Department’s operation of the Program between 2017 and 2021. We evaluated the complainant’s evidence, conducted interviews with relevant witnesses, and reviewed extensive documentary evidence including records, reports, articles, and correspondence. The investigation did not consider the merits of the ongoing practice but focused on whether the Department’s management of the Program amounted to a wrongdoing.

The Commissioner found that the weight of the evidence did not support a finding of wrongdoing. The evidence showed that the Program generally complied with the product registration issued by Health Canada, albeit at times to a minimal standard. And while the Department’s administration of the Program was not without fault, the Commissioner found that it did not meet the threshold to be considered a wrongdoing under the Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act.

While the Commissioner did not find a wrongdoing, he identified areas of concern in the Program’s management. To help provide the Department with guidance should they consider implementing a toxicant program in the future, the Commissioner offered the following five observations:

1. If the use of a toxicant is approved by Health Canada, follow all Health Canada label restrictions explicitly.
2. Prior to the use of toxicants as part of a toxicant program, written and detailed policies and procedures must be in place. This is necessary for transparency and to ensure consistent and safe administration of any toxicant program.
3. To increase public confidence and ensure transparency, any toxicant program should include procedures for the frequent and regular monitoring of bait sites. Any monitoring schedule and observations should be clearly and consistently documented.
4. Prior to the use of a toxicant program, a measured assessment to justify its use should be documented rather than subjective visual observations. The measured assessment should include a robust plan containing procedure, targets, performance measures, and specific guidance for when and how the toxicants may be used.
5. To ensure accountability and oversight, the program should be reviewed, and the review evaluated by senior leaders of the Department annually.

Spring of 2020 would be the last time that strychnine would be used for the Program, and Health Canada would eventually cancel the use of strychnine altogether.

The Risk of Ignoring Whistleblower Protections

Last year, an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing raised important questions about the human resource processes necessary for maintaining trust and confidence in the workplace.

The case began when a teacher filed a complaint of wrongdoing with our office, alleging that his principal grossly mismanaged employees, specifically through mistreatment, bullying, and the harassment of himself and other staff. While our office was investigating this complaint, the teacher filed another complaint, this time alleging reprisal, claiming that his employer took disciplinary action against him for being a whistleblower.

The Commissioner found insufficient evidence to support a finding of gross mismanagement, and the results of this investigation were reported in the 2023–2024 Annual Report. When the investigation into the wrongdoing was opened, our investigator advised the principal that he was a subject and cautioned him against taking any action that could be perceived as reprisal. Despite this advisement, the principal filed two professional complaints against the teacher, one with the school district and one with the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA). Our office investigated four incidents, including the two professional complaints made by the principal, as possible reprisals.

The Commissioner found that in two of the incidents, no reprisal was committed because the actions were not motivated by the teacher being a whistleblower. However, the Commissioner did find that the reason the principal filed the professional complaints was because the teacher was a whistleblower. In other words, the evidence supported a finding that the principal intended to commit the reprisal even though he had been warned not to. The Commissioner concluded his final report by noting:

“Fortunately, as the Internal and ATA Complaints did not proceed, the Complainant did not suffer any adverse employment effects. Had there been an adverse effect on the Complainant’s employment or working conditions, my findings may have been different. I understand that the Internal Complaint remains in abeyance or has been withdrawn without prejudice. To be clear, regardless of the Complaint’s status, if further action is taken and my office receives another complaint of reprisal regarding this matter, I would investigate the reprisal allegation.”

The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act sets out the rules for disclosing wrongdoings and the protection of whistleblowers. There are consequences for not following these rules. For example, employers who retaliate against whistleblowers may be liable for committing a reprisal, an action defined as an offence in the legislation. Anyone who commits a reprisal is subject to potential prosecution and, if found guilty, could be liable to pay a fine of not more than $25,000 for the first offence and a fine of not more than $100,000 for the second offence.

Had the principal followed the rules and heeded our investigator’s warning, he would have avoided further investigation into his actions. In this case, potential prosecution and significant fines were avoided only by chance. Had the school district
or the ATA pursued the principal’s complaints against the whistleblower, the principal may have found himself in a much different situation.

Resolving a Disclosure and Improving Policy

Even if a whistleblower complaint results in a determination that no wrongdoing has occurred, the complaint can still reveal opportunities to improve policies and procedures.

Our office received a whistleblower disclosure about the Superintendent of an Alberta public school division (the Division). The disclosure was from an anonymous source and alleged that the Superintendent had grossly mismanaged both public funds and employees. The details of the allegations included accusations of nepotism, conflict of interest, and misconduct that created a toxic work culture.

The Commissioner opened an investigation and as a preliminary step informed the Division’s Board of Governors (the Board). The Board’s position was that the allegations were without merit and were part of a pattern of similar allegations targeting the Superintendent. The Board offered to provide information and records that demonstrated this was the case. Among the documents provided for our evaluation were two Conflict of Interest policies (the Policies).

Upon review of the materials provided by the Board, the Commissioner was satisfied that wrongdoing had not occurred. At the same time, the Commissioner identified issues with the Policies. In the Commissioner’s assessment, the Policies did not clearly apply to the Superintendent, and the Division did not have any declaration of pecuniary interest from the Superintendent.

To increase the Policies’ clarity and transparency, the Commissioner provided one recommendation, which was accepted and implemented by the Division.

The Commissioner recommended that the Board review the Division’s Policies and consider the following amendments:

a. make the Policies applicable to the Superintendent;
b. require the declaration of pecuniary interests to be documented and retained in the employee’s personnel records; and
c. require the documentation of mitigating steps taken to avoid a perceived or actual conflict of interest.

The above case shows how openness and transparency with our office can facilitate a quick resolution and avoid a time-consuming investigation.