PIDA for Designated Officers: Assessing Disclosures

These quick guidance tips provide a brief overview of assessing disclosures of wrongdoing made by employees under PIDA. PIDA designated officers are encouraged to seek advice from Manitoba Ombudsman as needed.

Initial Considerations

The disclosure is in writing and includes:

• Description of the wrongdoing
• Name of individual(s) alleged to have committed the wrongdoing
• Date of the wrongdoing
• Information which may be reasonably required to investigate
• Who else have they reported to and response received

Who is the disclosure from?

• Employee of your organization
• Non-employee: Non-employees can only make a disclosure under PIDA directly to Manitoba Ombudsman. Communicate lack of jurisdiction to accept as a disclosure under PIDA and use other process and refer them to Manitoba Ombudsman to make a PIDA disclosure. Is there another internal process available to address their concerns?

Jurisdiction

• It occurred in your organization

Referring a Disclosure

• Refer a disclosure to the ombudsman if it would be inappropriate for the designated officer to deal with it because of the nature of the wrongdoing or the persons involved
• Refer a disclosure to another designated officer if the wrongdoing is in or relates to another public service

Assessing the disclosure

Is it wrongdoing?

A disclosure can be made about a “wrongdoing”. A wrongdoing is a very serious act or omission that is defined by PIDA as:

• an act or omission that is an offence under another law
• an act or omission that creates a specific and substantial danger to the life, health or safety of persons or the environment
• gross mismanagement, including mismanagement of public funds or a public asset
• knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit a wrongdoing

Is an investigation warranted?

Designated officers must review disclosures and make a decision regarding whether an investigation is required.

• Your organization’s procedures should be referred to for guidance
• Designated officers may also consider other circumstances for when an investigation may not be required as outlined in the act

What may not require an investigation:

• It could be dealt with more appropriately under another act
• The matter/disclosure is frivolous or vexatious, or has not been made in good faith or is not sufficiently serious
• Investigating would not serve a useful purpose due to how much time has passed between the date the matter occurred and the date of the disclosure
• It relates to a matter that resulted from a balanced and informed decision-making process on a public policy or operational issue
• There is insufficient information about the wrongdoing
• It could be dealt with more appropriately under a collective agreement or employment agreement
• There is another valid reason for not investigating the disclosure

Communicating the decision

Declining:

• PIDA disclosures are matters of public interest. If the disclosure does not deal with a form of wrongdoing, or there are other valid reasons for declining to investigate, the employee must be advised of the decision and of any alternate and more appropriate pathway.
• When the designated officer declines to investigate a disclosure, they must advise the employee that they may make their disclosure to Manitoba Ombudsman.

Initiating:

• Initiate your investigation in accordance with your organization’s procedures and inform the chief executive, complainant and persons accused of wrongdoing

Confidentiality

PIDA requires enhanced confidentiality provisions to protect the identities of those involved. Even if a disclosure is declined for investigation, the discloser’s identity is protected and has protection from reprisal for making the disclosure.