Page: 4
On November 3, 2009, Ms. Lloyd informed the Agency that she was ready to return to
work on a part-time basis by the end of the month. However, the employer suspended her
[9]
indefinitely on November 6, 2009, pending the outcome of the IAFPD investigation. Ms. Lloyd
grieved this suspension, claiming that it was a disciplinary measure and constituted harassment,
that it was imposed in retaliation for her successful accommodation claim, and that it was used to
block her return to work. The IAFPD Investigation Report, released on December 22, 2010,
found that Ms. Lloyd breached the Agency’s policy regarding the security and protection of
confidential taxpayer information, in addition to section 241 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985,
c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the ITA). The Agency imposed a 40-day suspension on March 17, 2011, which
Ms. Lloyd grieved (the discipline grievance).
[10] When the respondent returned to work on June 13, 2011, she was reassigned temporarily
to the Special Enforcement Program, where she would not be required to conduct investigations.
Her employer informed her on January 17, 2012, that she would be transferred to the Small and
Medium Enterprises (SME) Division and she would be precluded from participating in criminal
investigations because of the concerns that resulted from her misconduct.
[11] These concerns stem from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. McNeil, 2009
SCC 3, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 66 [McNeil], which held that Crown prosecutors must disclose to
defence counsel any “serious misconduct” by individuals involved in an investigation that either
relates to the investigation or that could reasonably impact the case against the accused. This
extends to Agency investigators, who conduct investigations for cases of tax evasion and fraud.
Thus, the Agency must report all findings of serious misconduct to the PPSC, which assesses the