A Federal Court judge has ordered the Parole Board of Canada to reconsider three grievances filed by a senior executive who alleged harassment and discrimination following her return from medical leave, finding the board’s dismissal of her complaints was both procedurally unfair and unreasonable.
The court ruled that H.H., a regional director general with more than 32 years of federal public service, was denied a fair process when the board relied on undisclosed performance concerns she reasonably believed had been resolved to justify adverse employment actions.
Background and initial performance
H.H. joined the Parole Board of Canada in November 2018 as regional director general of the Prairies Region, despite lacking experience in corrections or criminal justice. Her mandate was to improve a toxic workplace culture and integrate two regional offices.
Initially, H.H. received positive performance ratings. Her 2018-2019 rating was “Succeeded Plus,” while 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 were both “Succeeded.” In September 2020, the chairperson formally commended her for uniting the two offices. By June 2021, her regional team won more than half of the National Chairperson’s Awards of Distinction for excellence.
Performance concerns emerge
In February 2022, Deputy Chairperson D.C. asked if H.H. was satisfied in her role. When she confirmed her satisfaction and asked about performance issues, he replied there were none. However, during a follow-up meeting, he raised concerns about her timeliness and engagement.
Additional concerns emerged over the following months, including late consultation on office lease renewal, requiring additional support for day-to-day tasks, lack of succession planning initiative, and delayed approvals for part-time board members’ hours causing payroll disruptions.
H.H. responded to each concern with explanations. For the payroll delays, she explained they corresponded to statutory holiday periods when the Pay Centre changed approval deadlines without notice. Team members later acknowledged via email that the delays were internal errors and confirmed H.H.’s timely submissions.
Despite these explanations, D.C. informed H.H. in June 2022 that she had failed to meet performance expectations for 2021-2022. Her rating was adjusted to “Succeeded Minus” and she was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan.
Medical leave and return to work
In June 2022, H.H. requested mediation to address the misunderstanding about her position. During scheduled annual leave, she became seriously ill and required medical attention. Her physician determined she should temporarily cease work for medical reasons.
H.H. promptly informed D.C. and provided medical certificates with regular health updates every two to three weeks over three months. On Sept. 22, 2022, she notified D.C. of her medical clearance to return to work.
Upon her return, H.H. received a Letter of Expectations imposing new work conditions: fixed hours and breaks, mandatory medical certificates for any sick leave, exclusive telework arrangements, and restriction from management matters pending mediation. These restrictions weren’t applied to other executives in comparable roles.
Before H.H.’s scheduled return and before mediation commenced, D.C. informed regional staff by email that another individual would assume her position, indicating H.H. would return in a new supportive role. H.H. wasn’t notified directly and only learned through another employee.
Mediation breakdown and special deployment
During mediation on Oct. 17, 2022, D.C. expressed dissatisfaction with H.H.’s decision to request mediation and take medical leave, perceiving these actions as disrespectful. He indicated these perceived transgressions had “irreparably damaged trust” and explicitly refused to allow H.H.’s return to her substantive position.
Following mediation, the chairperson issued a Letter of Offer proposing a Special Deployment to lead a pre-selected project. The project was categorized as Tier 3 priority — “discretionary and non-essential” — and had been previously rejected and unfunded due to its low priority.
Changed working conditions
After returning from medical leave, H.H.’s working conditions significantly changed. She was instructed not to be involved in management activities, removed from all executive committees and meetings, stripped of budgetary and staffing authority, and required to vacate her office. Her access to operational information was curtailed by removing her from email distribution lists and the Government Employee Directory Service.
During daily operations, H.H. was presented with contradictory expectations. She was told to limit consultation with regional offices, then criticized for not consulting enough. She was instructed to submit draft work immediately, then reprimanded for incompleteness.
Performance assessment and redeployment
In October 2023, H.H. was directed to accept redeployment to a regional director general role in Quebec within two weeks. The redeployment required relocation from Edmonton to Montreal and mandatory monthly attendance of at least five consecutive days in the Montreal office.
Between October and December 2023, H.H. made eight cross-country trips, primarily during personal time, causing significant physical and mental strain. On Nov. 3, 2023, she was directed to attend an in-person performance assessment meeting in Ottawa on a statutory holiday. The meeting lasted approximately 11 minutes, during which she received a performance rating of “Did Not Meet.”
Grievance process and decision
H.H. filed three grievances alleging harassment and discrimination following her return from medical leave, challenging her 2022-2023 performance assessment, and contesting her redeployment to Montreal.
On Feb. 19, 2024, the chairperson denied all three grievances, asserting consistently that board management acted in good faith without harassment, discrimination, disguised discipline, or retaliation.
Court’s findings on procedural fairness
The court found the chairperson breached procedural fairness by relying on prejudicial facts without providing H.H. sufficient notice or opportunity to respond. The judge noted H.H. couldn’t know the case to meet because prior evidence reasonably led her to believe performance issues had been resolved in her favour.
The court emphasized that “having general knowledge of facts underlying an administrative proceeding does not equate to knowing the specific case to meet.”
Court’s findings on reasonableness
The judge identified multiple reasoning flaws that rendered the decision unreasonable, including contradictory characterization of the special deployment project’s priority level and illogical attribution of H.H.’s workplace isolation to her own lack of engagement despite institutional exclusions.
The court found the chairperson’s reasoning suffered from “systematic pattern of selectively highlighting evidence supportive of what appears to be predetermined conclusions while ignoring or failing to meaningfully engage with directly contradictory evidence.”
Remedy ordered
The court quashed the chairperson’s decision and remitted all three grievances for reconsideration, directing that H.H. be provided proper notice of prejudicial facts and that the decision-maker meaningfully engage with contrary evidence and her arguments regarding the temporal relationship between her medical leave and subsequent adverse actions.
The judge awarded H.H. costs of $2,500 and noted being “very troubled by the conduct and behaviour” of D.C. following H.H.’s medical leave, calling his characterization of her doctor-recommended leave as “disrespectful” as “shocking.”
For more information, see Hamilton v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1001 (CanLII).
