Case Summaries 2025-2026

Alleged Gross Mismanagement of Public Funds and Public Assets Related to the Sale of School Property

We received a disclosure from a whistleblower about the planned sale of equipment owned by an Alberta school district to a senior employee (the Employee). The whistleblower alleged that the sale would contravene the district’s policy and was not in the organization’s best interests.

The whistleblower explained that the district was preparing to auction some equipment that was no longer required. However, a senior administrator with the district made a verbal exception to the disposition process, allowing the Employee to purchase some of the equipment directly from the auctioneer before the date of the public auction. The senior administrator further agreed to reduce the price of the equipment below the agreed market value, which would offset a fee and benefit the Employee.

The Commissioner conducted preliminary inquiries into the allegations and the potential gross mismanagement of public funds. Notably, the Employee and the district’s senior administration fully cooperated with our investigators and promptly provided all requested records.

Subsequent to our inquiries, the sale to the Employee was quickly reversed and the equipment was sold at public auction for a higher price. The district also informed us that they engaged an external consultant to review and update their policies related to the disbursement of assets, among other finance matters.

The Commissioner was satisfied that the district addressed the alleged wrongdoing and decided that a full investigation was not required. The circumstances of this matter demonstrated that existing policies, while generally sound, were vulnerable to informal decision-making, undocumented exceptions, and conflicted with discretion at senior levels. For these reasons, the Commissioner provided the following recommendations:

1. That the district follow their asset disposition policy to ensure that future decisions are transparent, independently verifiable, and demonstrably aligned with the best interests of the district.
2. Administration indicated that they engaged an external consultant to review and update the district’s administrative procedures related to surplus asset disposition and other finance matters to ensure clarity, consistency, and alignment with public sector best practices. The Commissioner requested a copy of this updated procedure once it is finalized.

The Commissioner also commended the whistleblower for coming forward with their concerns and for serving the public interest. This case demonstrated how a timely disclosure can correct potential wrongdoing without the need for a full investigation.

Alleged Wrongdoing Posing an Immediate Threat to a Patient’s Safety

An employee at an Alberta hospital submitted a disclosure of workplace wrongdoing involving a doctor’s orders. The disclosure expressed urgent concern, alleging that a patient’s improper restraint was causing injury and posing an immediate health and safety risk. Due to the nature of the allegations, our office expedited its review of the allegation.

The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act (the Act) requires our office to report disclosures involving the imminent risk to life, health, or safety to the appropriate law enforcement agency or to the public entity responsible for controlling or containing the risk.

We quickly learned that the whistleblower had already reported the matter to the police and to Protection for Persons in Care (PPC). The PPC investigates reports of abuse of adults receiving care from service providers identified in the for Persons in Care Act.

Having confirmed that the issue was being handled by the proper authority and under suitable statutory frameworks, an investigation was not required. However, our office exercised due diligence by opening and maintaining a line of communication with the PPC until the completion of their investigation and their final decision.

This case demonstrates the Commissioner’s role in ensuring that disclosures are managed by the most appropriate oversight bodies, which is especially important when allegations involve imminent risks to health and safety. Further, since the disclosure was made under the Act, the whistleblower also received the Act’s legislative protections.

Alleged Gross Mismanagement of Public Funds Involving a Potential Conflict of Interest

We received a disclosure of wrongdoing alleging the gross mismanagement of public funds at an Alberta high school. The allegation was centred around a fundraising initiative managed by a school employee, which involved students selling products made by a specific company.

Through preliminary inquiries, we discovered the initiative did not adhere to the school district’s fundraising policies, and it appeared to be operating at a loss, providing no benefit to the students. Further complicating matters, the school’s principal had a familial connection to the company that made the products, which presented a potential conflict of interest.

During our review of the matter, we were notified that both the principal and the employee who managed the initiative resigned, and the fundraising initiative was discontinued. During the course of the Commissioner’s inquiries, the school also confirmed that it signed an agreement ensuring that future fundraising initiatives would conform with the district’s fundraising policies.

Since the individuals connected to the allegations were no longer employed at the school, and considering that the school agreed to align any future fundraising with district policies, the Commissioner considered the matter informally resolved.

Without these corrective measures, the Commissioner may have supported a finding of wrongdoing. School authorities must adhere to policies that outline the rules for fundraising, ensuring that fundraising is for the benefit of the students and free of any conflicts of interest.

Alleged Reprisal Against an Employee at a College

The Commissioner opened an investigation after receiving two complaints of reprisal from a former employee of a college (the Employee). The first was directed at a former colleague; the second was directed at the college.

Central to the case was an internal complaint the Employee submitted to the college alleging workplace bullying and harassment by a colleague. The Employee contended that the internal complaint resulted in adverse working conditions and ultimately the termination of their employment.

Our investigation therefore considered whether the internal complaint was a disclosure of wrongdoing under the Act; whether their employment or working conditions were adversely affected; and whether any adverse effect occurred because of the Employee’s complaint.

We conducted a thorough review, which included written and virtual interviews with the parties involved, as well as reviews of email records, policies, and complaint records obtained in accordance with the Act.

Of particular importance in this investigation was how the internal complaint was made. The college used a form that required complainants to select the policies related to their concerns. The policies on the form were the Code of Conduct Policy; the Respectful Workplace and Learning Environment Policy; and the Safe Disclosure Policy.

The Employee submitted their concerns under the Code of Conduct Policy and the Respectful Workplace and Learning Environment Policy.

Upon receiving the internal complaint, the college made it clear that they would conduct a thorough investigation of the allegation in accordance with the selected policies. The Employee subsequently acknowledged that the matter would be handled as a workplace investigation and reviewed under the college’s human resources process.

Our investigation determined that the Employee did not make a disclosure of wrongdoing under the Act. Further, we found no evidence that the Employee expressed interest in submitting the allegation under the Act, or that the college considered, or ought to have considered, the internal complaint to be a disclosure of wrongdoing. In light of these findings, the Commissioner concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, no reprisal occurred because the Employee did not engage in a protected activity under the Act.

The Commissioner also found that the content of the internal complaint suggested an interpersonal dispute and was not related to conduct that appeared to be wrongdoing under the Act.

While reprisal was not found, the Commissioner noted that the college’s practice of blending different policies on one form could create confusion and possibly lead some employees to expect reprisal protections under the Act for all internal complaints.

In response, the college separated the processes for public interest disclosures from all other workplace matters. This was a positive and proactive step by the college that will provide clarity for employees in the future.

This investigation highlighted the importance of a clear mechanism for submitting disclosures under the Act. Disclosures of workplace wrongdoing only invoke reprisal protection if they are clearly made as disclosures under the Act.

Reprisals Against Persons Involved in a Disclosure of Wrongdoing

In 2022, the former acting Commissioner found that a school principal committed a reprisal against five individuals who had participated in an investigation by filing professional misconduct complaints against them.

This action contravened the Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act (the Act), which protects employees who make disclosures of wrongdoing or cooperate with investigations under the Act.

The investigation determined the decision to submit the professional conduct complaints was arrived at through the advice of the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA), a trusted source of advice and support for its members.

As a result, the Commissioner at the time started an investigation to determine if the ATA counselled the principal to commit a reprisal.

This second investigation found that the ATA based its advice on its interpretation of the Code of Professional Conduct in place at the time, which required the teachers to speak to the principal before participating in the Commissioner’s investigation. However, the investigation determined that the ATA did not act with malicious intent when providing this advice.

The Act is the legislated mechanism for teachers to confidentially report serious wrongdoing in the workplace and receive protections for doing so. Any interpretation of a professional code that might permit retaliatory measures against whistleblowers would be contrary to the Act and its protective provisions.

Given the circumstances of this case, we perceived an opportunity to educate ATA staff on the Commissioner’s mandate, the Act, and especially its protective provisions. The ATA welcomed our guidance and insights, which allowed the Commissioner to resolve the case informally.

Alleged Reprisal Against an Employee for Refusing to Participate in a Wrongdoing

We received a complaint of reprisal alleging that an administrator at a public agency punished an employee (the Complainant) for refusing to participate in wrongdoing.

The administrator allegedly directed the Complainant to perform tasks that the Complainant believed should only be performed by a lawyer. Examples included drafting decisions, providing legal information during hearings, and conducting legal research. The Complainant refused to perform these tasks on the grounds that they contravened the Legal Profession Act, which outlines the standards and processes for the practice of law in Alberta.

After refusing the work, the Complainant claimed that he was relieved of some duties and received an increased workload in other areas. Shortly afterward, the Complainant resigned from the position and complained to the Commissioner.

The former Commissioner opened an investigation to determine whether the Complainant was directed to participate in a wrongdoing and, if so, whether the refusal resulted in reprisal.

In addition to interviewing witnesses, including the Complainant, the Commissioner’s office reviewed documentary evidence as well as the relevant legislation, which in this case included analysis of the Legal Profession Act. Further complicating matters, during the investigation the government agency in question was dissolved and its purview was transitioned to a different agency.

The Commissioner determined that the Complainant was not instructed to contravene the Legal Profession Act. The assigned tasks in question were permissible administrative duties and the statute allowed for the exemption of employees who prepared legal documents. Further, we found that any changes to the Complainant’s duties or workload were the result of legitimate efforts to address organizational backlog and resource constraints.

The Commissioner found that there was no wrongdoing, and therefore, no reprisal.

This case illustrated how our investigations can become highly complex. This example involved legal analysis and the careful review of evidence, while also considering the evolving circumstances associated with a significant transformation of the public agency involved.