25 March 2025
The Office of the Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) have dedicated considerable resources to addressing workplace harassment, the whistleblowing complaints process and the inequities Forces members face when they have limited or no grievance rights. Over the previous twelve months, they have produced three reports on these subjects, offering recommendations for the Minister of Defence. The three reports are similar in policy and focus on an element that needs to be addressed within the CAF and DND – communicating and mediating issues with its members. The reports addressed in the article are as follows:
Fair Decision-Making for Fair Outcomes: Complaint Mechanisms for DND Employees (2024)
Fair Decision-Making for Fair Outcomes: A Review of the Whistleblowing Process for DND Employees (2025)
Of late, much discussion concerning National Defence has been dedicated to the CAF equipment shortages and procurement projects. However, addressing CAF shortcomings also means rebuilding trust within the institution itself. On this front, considerable political attention has been directed towards the problem of sexual harassment within the CAF, yet there are other grievances within the CAF and DND that require equal attention. Two significant themes stand out from these three Ombuds reports: the lack of a grievance tracking database and the timeliness of grievance resolution.
Databases
After examining the reports, there appear to be systemic issues within the CAF and DND regarding how workplace and compensation grievances are addressed. One minor issue that needs clarifying is the role of the Treasury Board within the financial grievance process. It seems that it has not been fully articulated with CAF members.
Financial compensation is approved through Treasury Board-approved directives. The Treasury Board is responsible for “…determining and regulating payment of compensation and benefits for CAF members.”[1] This might mean that CAF members will go through the entire process only to find out that it is out of the control of the CAF/DND, as one of the reports states:
This becomes apparent when CAF members exhaust the military grievance process only to discover when the Final Authority decides they do not have the authority or means to provide redress.[2]
The Treasury Board does not accept individual submissions; rather, it only deals with cases deemed systemic.[3] This is fair enough. The Treasury Board will make policies and recommendations based on systemic problems and ultimately approve the compensation. This is based on previous cases and examining known grievances and possible trendlines.
Improvements have been made to the grievance process, but a notable element remains. As of February 2024, the CAF Grievance Process Transformation rolled out a Digital Grievance Submission Form. Thus, making it more accessible and digitizing it does have its own benefits.
Surprisingly, though, these complaints are not being compiled into a searchable database. The Ombuds Office recommended that by Spring 2025, a method be developed to track grievances to study trends and assist with prioritizing policy issues that should be the subject of a Treasury Board Submission.[4]
Because grievances are not tracked and because of the time it takes to resolve them, there can be negative outcomes. For example, when it comes to financial grievances due to the costs of moving to another post for a military family, there is a possibility that the grievance will not be resolved before that family has to move to another post.[5]
It also affects other areas of CAF grievances — such as whistleblowing. First, it should be noted that cases of whistleblowing discussed are not cases of CAF members discussing their grievances with the press, but utilising “complaint mechanisms within the Federal Public Service that allow public servants to draw attention to matters of concern so that they can be addressed internally”.[6]
When it comes to whistleblowing, the Ombuds Office found that:
“internal case-management and quality assurance practices for whistleblowing have been ineffective, resulting in inconsistent and inaccurate data entry. This has compromised internal reporting and has necessitated a manual cleanup of files.”[7]
Again, if these whistleblowing grievances cases are not correctly logged, how can those potential systemic issues be tracked? There is a risk that previously known grievances are the metaphorical carney in the coal mine. If not properly tracked, DND/CAF are unaware of an arising systemic issue. In addition to undermining the system, inconsistency and inaccuracy within any process -not just for the DND/CAF- inhibits the urgency of that very process.
The database entry for workplace harassment grievances also faces its own internal DND/CAF issue. The Ombud found that:
Data relating to individual grievances is inconsistently entered into [Workplace Case Management System]. For example, two of the resolution categories for grievances, “rejected” and “waived”, are sometimes used interchangeably. This makes pulling data, and then identifying and monitoring trends difficult.[8]
Therefore, we are forced to face the question: If DND/CAF are not inputting grievances into a searchable and trackable database, how can we be confident that their policies are not causing new systemic issues? This issue is covered in all three reports.
Database taxonomy can be tedious and arduous, especially regarding qualitative data entry. For a searchable database to be functional, it has to be succinct and accurate, with very few discrepancies from previously similar entries.
Timeliness:
Time is never the saving grace for any large institution, especially those within government. Processes—and especially effective processes—take time. The human factor of grievances adds another element to the problem of time and processes; however, matters must be addressed promptly when the human element is involved.
When discussing the whistleblowing process within DND/CAF, the Ombuds report stated that:
The longer an administrative process is delayed, the higher the likelihood that relevant witnesses or evidence will become unavailable to the decision-maker. Memories can gradually fade and pertinent information may be moved or misplaced over time. The timely administration of a process reduces these risks.[9]
Before the CAF Grievance Process Transformation in 2023, “it took on average 1,155 calendar days for grievance files to go through the [Initial Authority], the [Final Authority] and the Military Grievance External Review Committee (MGERC).[10] In layman’s terms, on average, it took over three years for grievance files to complete the process.
Whistleblowing complaints are also a victim of timeliness as: “This issue is compounded by the complete absence of timelines in either the [Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act] or applicable Treasury Board policy.”[11] New procedures require the respondent to have 21 calendar days to review the report and provide a written response; however, the administrative process can be delayed. The Ombuds report found that “DND’s policy framework for whistleblowing does not identify measures or mitigating strategies to address lengthy or untimely delays in the administration of the process.”[12]
Timeliness is an issue regarding workplace harassment as “…likelihood that relevant witnesses or evidence will become unavailable to the decision-maker.”[13]
CAF leadership has low levels of awareness about grievance rights and limitations. Some findings overlap, indicating systemic issues with the way grievances are addressed and creating unnecessary inefficiencies. Any “compensation and benefits changes are not being communicated to CAF members promptly”.[14] Again, this ties into the timeliness theme.
How can the CAF process function if these changes are not effectively communicated? This is at the heart of many of the issues highlighted by these reports.
Addressing these two themes will positively impact the CAF/DND and its members. One quote stood out in the reports attributed to the Chief of the Defence Staff:
“You can draw a line between unhappiness with grievances to operational effectiveness. It’s a core mandate impact.”
Unhappiness due to grievances stemming from institutional issues tends to erode morale and, later, employee output because of that dissatisfaction. Addressing grievance issues is one factor in how the CAF can rebuild itself. It is not just the big-ticket items that drive recruiting and retention – it’s about a functioning institution where its members’ concerns can be heard and addressed, thus creating an institution where members feel valued by leadership. Recruitment videos usually elude to the idea that in joining the Forces, one becomes part of something greater, a close community – unsettled grievances and unsure about the process do not build on that. It erodes it.
The Ombuds office is doing exemplary work, releasing reports and informing the Minister of recommendations to solve issues. We encourage you to take the time to read the reports that the Ombuds Office has released, including the ones linked in this article.
References
[1] Getting Redress Right, p. 6
[2] Getting Redress Right, p. 5
[3] Getting Redress Right, p. 16
[4] Getting Redress Right, p. 18
[5] Getting Redress Right, p. 17
[6] Fair Decision Making For Fair Outcomes: Whistleblowing, p. 1
[7] Fair Decision Making For Fair Outcomes: Whistleblowing, p. 19
[8] Fair Decision-Making for Fair Outcomes: Complaint Mechanisms, p. 37
[9] Fair Decision Making For Fair Outcomes: Whistleblowing, p. 7
[10] Getting Redress Right, p. 7
[11] Fair Decision Making For Fair Outcomes: Whistleblowing, p. 7
[12] Fair Decision Making For Fair Outcomes: Whistleblowing, p. 8
[13] Fair Decision-Making for Fair Outcomes: Complaint Mechanisms, p. 16
[14] Getting Redress Right, p. 25
Feature Photo: “Members of HMCS Margaret Brooke observe MV Asterix”, Canadian Forces Combat Camera, 2025