Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Workplace Reintegration Framework 2024

Reintegration using restorative approaches foremost acknowledges and addresses affected persons’ well-being and safety in a practical manner and reduces the risk of further harm and re-traumatization.

This evergreen document is intended as strategic guidance to any level of the Chain of Command for the safe workplace reintegration of a Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) member who is a respondent throughout the end-to-end process (allegation, investigation, and findings) and post-disposition with regard to a conduct deficiency.

On this page

Workplace Reintegration Framework 2024 [PDF - 235 KB]

Purpose and scope

The reintegration framework is a communication tool providing a structured overview to support successful reintegration that enhances transparency, consistency, proportionality, procedural fairness, and safety of engagement across the organization. This framework has considered the lived experiences of CAF/DND members and perspectives voluntarily shared during the framework development process.

A restorative approach and reintegration measures have been found to be the most effective way to enable those affected to move forward following harm. Hearing, acknowledging and addressing needs of all those involved in an inclusive manner fosters accountable and safe workplace reintegration. Alternatively, the CAF seeks to facilitate the safe transition of CAF members respecting all aspects of safety (Psychological, Mental, Emotional, Physical) as they release and reintegrate into society.

The CAF has a zero tolerance position on misconduct, which requires that all events or allegations of conduct deficiencies be taken seriously and acted upon. No incidents of misconduct or conduct deficiencies will ever be ignored, minimized or excused. CAF leadership will support a positive command climate in which it is safe for those who witness or are affected by misconduct to report incidents.

Military service is a privilege and is founded upon trust. Trust is built through a commitment to character and competence. Character requires the ability to consistently live by a set of defining values and principles that shape one’s conduct and judgement. However, trust is fragile and can quickly erode through weakness of character or an inability to deliver results. We must therefore prioritize strength of character and professional excellence in who we are and what we do as a Profession of Arms (Source: Trusted to Serve).

GBA Plus was integrated across the Workplace Reintegration Framework. Both internal and external subject matter advisors with experience in applying intersectional lenses were consulted. Throughout the development and iteration process of this document, GBA Plus was incorporated to emphasize the importance of considering lived experiences and intersectional factors across strategic, operational and tactical levels. Key concepts within the Reintegration Framework are founded in policy as well as legal and evidence-based research.

Intersectionality is a framework for understanding how different aspects of a person’s social and political identities (e.g., gender, race, class, sexuality, ability, physical appearance, etc.) combine to create unique modes of discrimination and privilege. Intersectionality identifies advantages and disadvantages that are felt by people due to this combination of factors. It is important to consider that intersectional identities can play a role in the severity and impact of a conduct deficiency. Intersectionality must be considered in developing a healthy inclusive workforce within CAF and addressing cases of misconduct.

Advisory committee

On an ad-hoc, as needed basis, a select group of internal subject matter experts in CAF operations, programs, policies and/or conduct may be assembled to provide objective, non-binding advice to leadership on contentious or complex respondent reintegration cases, ensuring transparency and objectivity in their handling and a safe workplace outcome (in alignment with Queen’s Regulations and Orders 19.75 and 101.09). This will have to be disclosed to the respondent and the respondent will have to be provided with an opportunity to make comments. This is the minimum required by procedural fairness.

The advisory committees will be managed by the appropriate authority stipulating their mandate, duration, membership, and making provisions for administrative support and access to relevant personnel and information. Depending on the details of the case, the committee may engage with external stakeholders as applicable. Keeping in mind that personal information is protected by the Privacy Act. Conversations with external stakeholders must not breach the Act.

Framework structure

The framework is based on leading practices on psychological safety and outlines interrelated, end-to-end, four steps to guide Defence Team leaders in responsively managing CAF respondent reintegration.

Throughout the four steps, transparency and communication is important in maintaining public confidence, while respecting privacy and the necessary control of information to ensure due process.

This frameworkFootnote1 provides principle-based guidance and recommendations related to making decisions based on values statements, risk analysis, and consideration of relevant factors rather than a step-by-step, time-bound, case-specific, reintegration process.

Principle-based approach

From the time that an alleged conduct deficiency is reported to the time that the incident is closed, there are a series of decision points that an organization will take to appropriately handle the situation, likely starting with a prescriptive rule-based approach.

However, in the context of decisions needed to reintegrate a respondent, a more principle-based approach should be considered. The principle-based approach raises questions that surface context, background and history, ultimately guiding decision makers in the use of their judgment on a case-by-case basis.Footnote2

Description

Sliding scale indicating the spectrum of approaches that might be used when handling an incident, from a rule-based approach, which is prescriptive, to a framework-based approach and ultimately to a principle-based approach, which uses judgment on a case-by-case basis.

Definitions

For the purpose of this framework, 

Affected Person(s) is a person or persons against whom an act of misconduct has been committed, or is alleged to have been committed, or who has suffered, or is alleged to have suffered, physical or emotional harm as a result of the commission or alleged commission of the conduct deficiency.

Conduct Deficiency: occurs if a CAF member fails to meet an established standard of behaviour in a regulation, code of conduct, policy, order, instruction or directive applicable to the CAF member. A conduct deficiency is incompatible with the effective military service of a CAF member and military ethos.

Respondent is a person who is the subject of an alleged, proven or unproven conduct deficiency. An “Individual who has committed a conduct deficiency” refers to a person who has admitted to an allegation, who has found to have committed the conduct in a summary hearing, who has been found guilty by a court, or who has had an administrative review determine that they engaged in misconduct.

A finding by a summary hearing or a court that the member engaged in misconduct is a valid basis of determining that a member committed a conduct deficiency. An Admission by the member is also valid. However, an investigation alone, without procedural fairness being offered to the member, cannot reasonably find that the member committed a conduct deficiency. Please note that the process in DAOD 9005-1 requires DMCA 2, if the member is found not guilty at trial, to determine whether the member engaged in misconduct. If yes, then an AR proceeds. If no, there is no further action. The same principle applies for other misconduct.

Service Infraction: An allegation of a service infraction means the matter concerns a service infraction as set out at QR&O arts 120.02, 120.03 and 120.04. The types of sanctions that may be imposed in respect of a service infraction can be found in NDA section 162.7.

Service Offence: An offence under the National Defence Act, the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament, committed by a person while subject to the Code of Service Discipline.

Due Process: Due process is related to the presumption of innocence. It involves a thorough examination of the facts of each case - and recognition of the importance of protecting the legal rights of those charged with offences. Source: Basic principles of Canadian criminal law - Province of British Columbia (gov.bc.ca)

Procedural Fairness: The legal principle that reflects the duty to act fairly. It requires that, at a minimum, a person subject to a decision having a life-altering impact upon them, be made aware that a decision is being made, have relevant evidence being considered disclosed to them and have a fair opportunity to make representations to the decision maker. The four important steps based on natural justice are: notice, disclosure, representations and decision. Source: DMCA Aide-Memoire.

Back to top

Applying the framework

The framework assists in determining the required supports for all those involved, and assessing and dealing with reprisal, retaliation and retribution issues to ensure privacy, safety and support.

Leadership shall treat respondents fairly and impartially, be accountable and responsible for the respondent’s welfare, and ensure respondents are treated fairly and in accordance with applicable policies.

Interventions will focus on preventing repeated behaviour and reintegrating the respondent back into the workplace, if appropriate. After a conduct deficiency or unfounded allegation, learning and institutional change is encouraged. One way a respondent can take accountability and share learning is through restorative approaches.

CAF members found to have committed a conduct deficiency will be administered and/or disciplined in accordance with regulations and policy. For disciplinary action, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt for offences heard at court martial while the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities for service infractions heard at summary hearing. For administrative action, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

A decision to not lay a charge, or to not proceed with a charge that has been laid pursuant to the Code of Service Discipline may be made for a number of reasons, including that a complaint has been determined to be unfounded, or alternatively that there is insufficient evidence to proceed, or that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction based on the evidence that is likely to be available at trial.

Key references

This framework is not intended to supersede any statutes or regulations, or replace applicable Queen’s Regulations and Orders (QR&O) for the Canadian Forces, Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD), Canadian Forces Military Personnel Instructions (CF Mil Pers Instr), or a requirement to obtain legal advice in a specific circumstance.

The following documents provide guidance with regard to respondent reintegration, which this framework seeks to bring together and amplify.

It is understood that the future of the Department of National Defence (DND) and the CAF will be reshaped by ongoing and upcoming policy developments, stemming from the implementation of the agreed upon external independent review recommendations. As future changes in DND/CAF policies come into force, this framework will be amended accordingly, to ensure its content and relevance continue to serve its purpose.

Back to top

Page details

Date modified: