Policy on the Time Limit for Making a Complaint of Reprisal

Application of Subsections 19.1(2) and 19.1(3) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act

1 Effective Date

This policy took effect on October 1, 2015, and was amended on September 2, 2026.

2 Application

This policy applies to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and to all employees of the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada (the Office).

3 Context

The Office is the only body with the authority under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA) to receive complaints of reprisal.

Subsection 19.1(2) of the PSDPA, which pertains to complaints of reprisal, states that: “the complaint must be filed not later than 60 days after the day on which the complainant knew, or in the Commissioner’s opinion ought to have known, that the reprisal was taken.”

The time for filing at subsection 19.1(2) of the PSDPA can be extended “if the Commissioner feels it is appropriate considering the circumstances of the complaint,” as outlined at subsection 19.1(3) of the PSDPA.

The underlying principles governing the application of this discretionary authority are the presumption of good faith, the upholding of public trust and integrity of public servants, the protection of persons who disclose wrongdoing or who cooperate in wrongdoing investigations, and the importance of expeditiousness in the complaint of reprisal regime.

The PSDPA “promotes expeditiousness in the complaints and resolution process […] to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the public service.” In turn, “a timely and effective process to redress complaints of reprisal” benefits both the public and victims of reprisal. The PSDPA “is not meant to promote investigations delving back into historic allegations.” Rather, “complaints are to be reported and addressed within a short timeframe."[1]

4 Policy Statement

4.1 Objectives

The objectives of this policy are to:

• Support the Commissioner’s decision-making by bringing clarity and ensuring consistency in the application of subsections 19.1(2) and 19.1(3) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act; and
• Increase transparency around the Commissioner’s decision-making.

4.2 Expected results

The expected results of this policy are:

• Greater consistency in the application and documentation of decisions under subsections 19.1(2) and 19.1(3) of the PSDPA;
• Greater efficiencies in the processing of complaints of reprisal filed past the legislated 60-day time limit; and
• A fair, clear and transparent decision-making process.

5 Policy Requirements

5.1 Commissioner’s Responsibilities

The Commissioner is responsible for:

• Applying the 60-day limit under subsection 19.1(2) of the PSDPA to the alleged reprisal measures contained in a complaint of reprisal;
• Making decisions to grant extensions for complaints of reprisal in accordance with the PSDPA and the criteria set out in this policy; and
• Ensuring that all decisions to grant an extension under subsection 19.1(3) of the PSDPA are documented on file.

5.2 Application of Time Limit

5.2.1 Computation of time

The calculation of the 60-day time limit for filing a complaint of reprisal begins on the day on which the complainant had “knowledge or imputed knowledge of specific incidents of reprisal.”[2]

Presumption

A complainant is presumed to have known that a reprisal occurred at the time the measure was taken or when they became aware of the measure.

However, the complainant may provide information to rebut this presumption. To do so, they must:

• explain why they did not recognize the measure as a reprisal at the time it occurred or when they became aware of it; and
• identify the date on which they first became aware that the measure was a reprisal.

5.2.2 Chain of reprisals

The “allegation that the most recent act of reprisal is part of an ongoing chain of reprisals does not bring the earlier events into the 60-day time limit.”[3] This means that only the alleged measures that occurred within the 60-day time limit would ordinarily be accepted for filing.

5.2.3 Discretion

If the Commissioner is of the opinion that a complainant knew or ought to have known that a reprisal was taken at an earlier date, such that the time limit under subsection 19.1(2) of the PSDPA is not met, the complainant will be provided with the reasons for this decision.

5.3 Granting of Extensions

5.3.1 Supporting factors

In making a decision on whether to extend the time for filing a complaint of reprisal, the following criteria will be considered including the complainant’s stated reasons for the delay.

The circumstances of each complaint of reprisal are case-specific. As such, each request for an extension will be assessed on its own merits. While the factors listed below serve to guide the exercise of the Commissioner’s discretion, these factors are not intended to be exhaustive, and the Commissioner may consider other factors as appropriate. The weight given to any one factor may vary.

Factors that would support granting an extension

• The personal circumstances of the complainant, such as their physical and mental health, rendered them unable to file their complaint of reprisal within the statutory time limit for reasons beyond their control;
• The complainant was subjected to a threat of continuing reprisal acted as a deterrent for the complainant in coming forward;
• The complainant was provided with erroneous advice or information by a representative or other official in regard to the time limit to file a complaint of reprisal.

Factors that would not support granting an extension

• The complainant was waiting on the outcome of another process or had not yet exhausted other recourse mechanisms, other than in accordance with the exception provided for members or former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under subsection 19.1(5) of the PSDPA;
• The complainant had previously made a complaint of reprisal or had contacted the Office for information about making a complaint; and
• The reasons for the delay were within the complainant’s control, or the complainant did not take steps within their control to mitigate circumstances contributing to the delay.

5.3.2 Additional Considerations

Given the importance of expeditiousness in the complaint of reprisal regime, the Commissioner will consider the length of time since the alleged reprisal occurred. Longer delays require stronger justification

A complainant will generally not receive an extension simply because they were unaware of the PSDPA or the 60-day time limit, as people are expected to make reasonable efforts to understand the law.

Similarly, where a complainant was aware of the PSDPA or the 60-day time limit, they will generally be expected to have filed their complaint of reprisal within the prescribed time limit.

6 Related policy instruments/publications

Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, S.C. 2005, c. 46.

7 Enquiries

8 Definitions

For the purpose of this policy, the following definitions apply:

Commissioner