Complaint summaries

We have a Code of Conduct for Tribunal members along with a process for how to file a complaint. We publish a summary of each complaint that we deal with under this process.

2025

Case No. 2025-04

The Chairperson initiated an investigation into whether a member breached sections 6.7 and 4.5 of the Code of Conduct.

Section 6.7 states that members may only communicate directly with a party, witness or representative during a conference or hearing, and only registry staff may contact parties before and after the conference or hearing. Section 4.5 states, among other things, that members must avoid activities that could hurt the Tribunal’s reputation.

Following an investigation, the Chairperson concluded that the member breached section 6.7 of the Code of Conduct by sending a direct email and having a private phone conversation with a party about their submissions. The Chairperson also concluded that the member breached section 4.5 of the Code of Conduct. Contacting a party directly and asking about their organization’s internal practices could hurt the Tribunal’s reputation.

The Chairperson considered the Code violations to be serious. All parties must have confidence that the Tribunal operates in a transparent and neutral manner. The member was required to meet with the Chairperson to review the Code of Conduct. The Chairperson included a summary of the Code violations in the member’s performance evaluation.

Outcome: the member breached the Code of Conduct.

Case No. 2025-03

The complainant was a party in an appeal before the Tribunal.

The complainant said that the member:

asked questions in a discouraging and dismissive manner;
interacted in ways that were disrespectful;
misrepresented the complainant’s words;
failed to deal with post-hearing submissions in a timely manner;
issued the decision beyond the service standard.

The Chairperson informed the complainant that the Tribunal would investigate whether the member breached sections 4.1 and 7.4 of the Code of Conduct. Section 4.1 requires members to act honestly, in good faith and with integrity, respect and courtesy. Section 7.4 says that members must make decisions in a timely manner and in line with Tribunal standards.

The Chairperson concluded that the member did not breach the Code of Conduct. The member acted honestly and in good faith in asking questions and seeking the complainant’s position during the hearing. The member’s interruptions and tone were not disrespectful. She did not misrepresent what the complainant had said. The member addressed the post-hearing submissions in a timely manner. The member issued the final decision in a reasonable timeline given the circumstances in the file, particularly the lengthy post-hearing process.

Outcome: the member did not breach the Code of Conduct.

Case No. 2025-02

The Chairperson initiated an investigation into whether a member breached sections 6.7 and 4.5 of the Code of Conduct.

Outcome: the member breached the Code of Conduct.

Case No. 2025-01

The complainant was a party in an appeal before the Tribunal.

The complainant said that the member took too long to make their decision. At the hearing, the complainant had requested to receive the decision before they left the country, in case he wanted to dispute it.

The Chairperson informed the complainant that the Tribunal would investigate the part of his complaint that fell under section 7.4 of the Code of Conduct. Section 7.4 states that “Members must make decisions in a timely manner and in line with Tribunal standards.”

The Chairperson concluded that the member did not breach the Code of Conduct. The member issued the decision two weeks after the hearing, which was well within the Tribunal’s service standard. Although this was not required, the member also accommodated the complainant’s request to receive the decision before they left the country.

Outcome: the member did not breach the Code of Conduct.

2024

Case No. 2024-02

The complainant was a party in an appeal.

The complainant said there was an unacceptable delay between the hearing and when he received the decision. He received the decision almost seven months after the hearing and six months after all the evidence and arguments were sent in.

The Chairperson asked a Vice-chairperson to investigate the part of the complaint that fell under section 7.4 of the Code of Conduct. Section 7.4 states that “Members must make decisions in a timely manner and in line with Tribunal standards.”

Based on the findings of fact in the investigation report, the Chairperson determined that the member did not breach the Code of Conduct.

While members are expected to make timely decisions in line with Tribunal standards, a failure to do so in a particular case must be considered in light of all the surrounding circumstances. The Chairperson was satisfied that the member did not breach the obligation to make decisions in a timely manner, despite the delay. Factors outside the member’s control affected their ability to meet the service standards in this case. As for factors within their control, the member balanced their appeals workload to the best of their ability.

Outcome: the member did not breach the Code of Conduct.

Case No. 2024-01

The complainant was an employee of Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC).

The complainant said the member breached the Code of Conduct when attending a hearing at a Service Canada Centre. In particular, the member

was very impatient with a new employee and made the employee extremely nervous and uncomfortable,
made comments to the Service Canada Centre team leader about the new employee’s ability to do their job, and
wasn’t happy with the arrangements in the hearing room and insisted that a sign-in sheet be redone.

The Chairperson initiated an investigation into whether the member had breached sections 4.1 and 4.4 of the Code of Conduct. Only one of three ESDC employees participated in an interview with the Vice-chairperson and this person did not witness the interactions between the member and the new employee or the team leader.

The Chairperson concluded that the member did not breach the Code of Conduct. Although the member acknowledged they were impatient with the new employee because of confusion about the hearing location, the member’s impatience did not rise to the point of disrespect or discourtesy. The available information also did not establish that the member had made disrespectful or discourteous comments about the new employee to the team leader. While the member should not have expected the team leader to provide any supplies, the member was not discourteous or disrespectful about the hearing room arrangements, supplies or the sign-in sheet.

Although there was no Code of Conduct violation, the Chairperson reminded all Tribunal members about their obligations under the Code of Conduct when attending hearings at Service Canada Centres.

Outcome: the member did not breach the Code of Conduct.

2023

Case No. 2023-03

The complainant was the representative of the respondent in an appeal before the Appeal Division.

The complainant said the member breached the Code of Conduct during a case conference because the member

kept interrupting,
did not sound impartial and neutral,
did not address a power imbalance at the case conference, and
did not provide information or allow the appellant to respond about the respondent’s chances of winning or losing.

The Chairperson investigated whether the member had breached sections 4.1, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.6 of the Code of Conduct.

The Chairperson concluded that the member did not breach the Code of Conduct. The member interrupted in a polite and respectful way to correct misunderstandings and keep the discussion on track. The Chairperson did not hear anything that sounded like the member favoured the Minister or didn’t have an open mind about the respondent’s case. The member met the obligation to help the complainant understand the appeal process by explaining the Minister’s statements during the case conference. The Code of Conduct does not require the member to give information on a party’s chances of winning or losing, as this could create concerns about the member’s impartiality. Allowing another party to comment on this could also compromise the fairness of the process.

Outcome: the member did not breach the Code of Conduct.

Case No. 2023-02

The complainant was a party in an appeal before the Appeal Division.

The complainant said the member was biased. The Chairperson concluded that the issue of bias is not one that could be dealt with through the complaint process. The member had rendered an interlocutory decision on bias. The Chairperson has an obligation to make sure individual decisions are made independently, which means the Chairperson cannot intervene in the decision-making process. When a party disagrees with an Appeal Division decision, the only proper way to challenge that is to bring an application for judicial review to the Federal Court.

Outcome: the complaint was dismissed.

Case No. 2023-01

The complainant was a party in an appeal before the General Division and Appeal Division.

The complainant said that the General Division and Appeal Division members breached the Code of Conduct because they did not apply the law correctly in their decisions. The complainant disagreed with the members’ decisions.

The Chairperson concluded that the issue fell outside the scope of the Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct deals with how members behave. The Code of Conduct does not deal with the substance of what a member decides. The Chairperson informed the complainant that where a person disagrees with a General Division decision, they can request leave to appeal to the Appeal Division. If the person disagrees with an Appeal Division decision refusing leave to appeal, the only proper way to challenge that is to bring an application for judicial review to the Federal Court.

Outcome: the complaint was dismissed.

2022

Case No. 2022-05

The complainant was a party in an appeal before the General Division.

The complainant said the member breached sections 4.1 and 4.6 of the Code of Conduct by being rude and confrontational during a case conference. The member also refused to recuse herself from the appeal.

The Chairperson decided not to investigate the complaint because the Appeal Division had already dealt with the issues raised by the complainant in deciding whether to give permission to appeal. Where a person disagrees with an Appeal Division decision refusing leave to appeal, the proper way to challenge the decision is to make an application for judicial review to the Federal Court.

Outcome: the complaint was dismissed.

Case No. 2022-04

The complainant was a party in an appeal before the General Division.

The complainant said the member breached sections 7.1 to 7.4 of the Code of Conduct. The complainant made allegations related to how the member decided the appeal. The complainant alleged that the member failed to consider and apply the law; mischaracterized evidence; failed to correct an interlocutory order; and did not make an independent and impartial decision.

The Chairperson stated that the purpose of the complaint process is to deal with how members behave, not with what they decide. The Chairperson cannot not interfere with a member’s decision-making process. If a person disagrees with the General Division decision, they should make an appeal to the Appeal Division. In this case, if the complainant disagrees with the Appeal Division’s decision refusing leave to appeal, the only proper way to challenge that is to make an application for judicial review to the Federal Court.

Outcome: the complaint was dismissed.

Case No. 2022-03

The complainant was a party in an appeal before the General Division.

The complainant said the member failed to make the hearing accessible. The Chairperson informed the complainant that the Tribunal would investigate the part of her complaint that fell under the Social Security Tribunal Members’ Code of Conduct (Code of Conduct). The Tribunal investigated whether the member breached section 6.5 of the Code of Conduct, which says: “If a party needs accommodation in order to participate fully in the proceeding, members must make reasonable accommodations.”

The Chairperson concluded that the member did not breach the Code of Conduct when the member chose to forgo an informal case conference and decide the appeal based on the documents in the file. While members should make reasonable accommodations in all aspects of a proceeding, including case conferences, this was a challenge in the complainant’s case because of her geographic location outside Canada and her inability to connect by phone or computer.

The Chairperson found it was appropriate for the member to decide the appeal based on the documents in the file because of the complainant’s request to the member to make a decision, the member’s determination that no additional information was required for a fair decision, and the member’s obligation to make the appeal process simple, quick and fair.

Outcome: the member did not breach the Code of Conduct.

Case No. 2022-02

The complainant was a party in an appeal before the General Division.

The complainant said the member breached sections 4.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.6 and 7.2 of the Code of Conduct by

calling individuals whose letters the complainant relied on “liars”,
advocating for the other party,
improperly considering evidence and court decisions,
making up their mind from the start, and
delaying in sending a copy of the hearing recording to the complainant.

The Chairperson asked the Vice-Chairperson of the Appeal Division to investigate the complaint and make findings of fact. Based on the investigation report, the Chairperson determined whether the member breached the Code of Conduct.

The Chairperson concluded that the member did not breach the Code of Conduct. In particular, the member did not call the individuals the complainant relied upon “liars” nor imply that they would lie. The member did not act as the other party’s advocate in asking the complainant questions about some of the evidence and the other party’s arguments. The Chairperson concluded that the member acted appropriately in taking an active role and asking questions during the hearing.

The Chairperson decided that aspects of the complaint fell outside the scope of the Code of Conduct. This included the allegations that the member disregarded evidence, improperly considered court decisions, and did not make the decision impartially. These were issues to be appealed to the Appeal Division rather than addressed through the Code of Conduct.

The Chairperson also decided that the complainant’s request for the hearing recording was not about the member’s conduct as it was processed by Registry Operations, and the member was not aware of the request.

Outcome: the member did not breach the Code of Conduct.

Case No. 2022-01

The complainant represented the estate of his mother in an appeal before the General Division.

The complainant sent an e-mail to the Tribunal Registry raising concerns about the General Division member’s conduct at a pre-hearing conference, including that the member was late and unprepared, and had unexpectedly raised the issue that the case may be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The Chairperson replied to the complainant stating that he would look into whether the member had breached the Code of Conduct for Members of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada (Code of Conduct), but that the investigation would not take place until after the adjudicative process was complete.

The complainant said the Chairperson breached the Code of Conduct by improperly intervening in the General Division appeal, by failing to promptly address a complaint against a Tribunal member, and by preventing the complainant from adding the e-mail communications between him and the Chairperson to the appeal record.

The Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada, which provides support services to the Tribunal, appointed an external law firm to investigate and determine whether the Chairperson had breached the Code of Conduct.

The investigator found that the Chairperson had not intervened in the General Division appeal. The investigator noted that, having implemented a Code of Conduct, the Tribunal had an obligation to take steps to respond to complaints against members when they arose. The Chairperson’s response to the complainant was not an “intervention”; rather it was an entirely appropriate response to a Code of Conduct complaint. The Chairperson indicated that he would not conduct an investigation until the case before the Tribunal had concluded in order to avoid influencing the member’s decision.

The investigator also found that the complainant’s allegations against the member were not serious enough to require immediate action.

Finally, the investigator found that there was no basis for the claim that the Chairperson was responsible for not including the emails communications respecting the complaint in the appeal record. While there was uncertainty among staff on how to handle complaints, the Tribunal’s practice is to keep a complaint about a member separate from the substantive legal or factual issues before an adjudicator. This was the appropriate approach to ensure that the Chairperson was not seen as inappropriately interfering with a case.

Outcome: the Chairperson did not breach the Code of Conduct.

2021

Case No. 2021-01

The complainant was a party in an appeal before the General Division and Appeal Division.

The complainant set out his concerns as:

not all the facts and exceptions in law were considered in the Appeal Division and General Division decisions
the facts were never investigated by the members, and there was no oral hearing at the Appeal Division
the case law presented by the respondent did not support their arguments
the complainant’s rights and the process were not clearly communicated to him
the principles of natural justice were not followed in his case

The Chairperson asked the Vice-Chair of the Appeal Division to investigate and produce a report of the facts.

The Chairperson concluded that parts of the complaint fell outside the complaints process and could only be dealt with through judicial review by the courts, such as the substance of a member’s decision. The Tribunal does not have the power to investigate when it conducts an appeal, and the law intends for the Appeal Division’s leave to appeal process to be in writing. If the complainant wishes to challenge how a member made findings of fact or applied the law, or how the Tribunal interprets its legal authority, he would have to make an application for judicial review.

The Chairperson also decided that parts of the complaint were unfounded. The complainant stated the process was not clearly explained to him. Letters sent to the complainant from the Tribunal clearly informed him of the process and how a decision would be made. Additionally, the complainant did not explain how the principles of natural justice were not followed, and so it was not possible to conclude that there was any breach of the Code of Conduct.

Outcome: the complaint was dismissed.

2019

Case No. 2019-03

The complainants were the Representative and the office of the Member of Parliament of a party in an appeal before the General Division.

The complainants said the member breached section 6 of the Tribunal’s Code of Conduct because the member took 14 months after the hearing to make her decision. The Tribunal investigated whether the member breached section 6 of the Code of Conduct: “Members must make decisions in a timely manner and in line with member performance and service standards set by the Tribunal.”

The Chairperson concluded that the member failed to meet her obligations under the Code of Conduct. How quickly decisions are made was not the only factor to consider. Decisions must also be fair. Although the appeal was complex—challenging the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—and a decision would not have been expected to meet the usual service standard, the time to make the decision was unusually long.

The Chairperson found that the breach of the Code of Conduct was an isolated incident, and the member acknowledged the legitimacy of the concerns raised. The member’s apology was enough to consider the matter resolved.

Outcome: the member breached the Code of Conduct.

Case No. 2019-02

The complainant was a counsel for a party in a hearing before the General Division.

The complaint was about the conduct of the member during the hearing. The complainant said that the member acted in a way that was discriminatory, and was not neutral.

The Chairperson decided to have an external investigator examine the complaint. The investigator’s job was to review the documents in the file, listen to the recording of the hearing and interview any witnesses, including the parties and the counsel.

The investigator would make findings of fact, and the Chairperson would then decide if the member had breached sections 4.1, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.6 of the Code of Conduct.

The investigator contacted the complainant in early April, 2021 in order to meet virtually to discuss the process. The complainant did not respond to multiple requests by the investigator. The Chairperson wrote to the complainant, and said that if the meeting did not take place, the complaint would be dismissed.

The complainant agreed to a meeting, but then twice failed to attend it. The meeting eventually took place in mid-June, 2021. The complainant undertook to provide the investigator with names of witnesses and more documents. The investigator followed up repeatedly to obtain this information, but the complainant did not provide it. At the end of July, 2021, the Chairperson wrote to the complainant, and said that if the information was not provided within a week, the complaint would be dismissed.

The complainant did not provide the information. The Chairperson decided to dismiss the complaint because the complainant failed to participate in the investigation process.

Outcome: the complaint was dismissed.

Case No. 2019-01

The complainants were the Representative and the office of the Member of Parliament of a party in an appeal before the General Division.

The complainants said the member breached section 7.4 of the Tribunal’s Code of Conduct because the member took 14 months after the hearing to make her decision. The Tribunal investigated whether the member breached section 7.4 of the Code of Conduct: “Members must make decisions in a timely manner and in line with member performance and service standards set by the Tribunal.”

The Chairperson concluded that the member failed to meet her obligations under the Code of Conduct. How quickly decisions are made was not the only factor to consider. Decisions must also be fair. Although the appeal was complex—challenging the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—and a decision would not have been expected to meet the usual service standard, the time to make the decision was unusually long.

Outcome: the member breached the Code of Conduct.