Making Your Voice Heard at PIPSC! - 3: LWOP coded as "M"

Making Your Voice Heard at PIPSC!

Use Case:
Code 'M' Used For Administrative Leave Without Pay (LWOP)
Resulting in Denial of Employment Insurance Benefits
during the Vaccination Mandate.

Interview with J4EIM
www.Justice4eiMisconduct.com

Disclaimer: This article’s opinions are those of the authors, not of any institution. It is not legal advice.

Related discussions on Substack:

Comment un processus centralisé a pu requalifier des congés administratifs et priver des milliers de personnes de leurs prestations…
- Qui est cette Krista Hastie qui a signé des milliers de congés administratifs de fonctionnaires comme code « M » — congédiement ou suspension. Est-elle…
Who Is This Krista Hastie Who Signed Thousands of Public Servants’ Administrative Leaves as Misconduct? Is She Liable for Falsification of…
- How a centralized process may have mislabeled administrative leave and denied EI to thousands—and what public servants can do when Records of…

Evidence:

Evidence #1. Record of Employment (ROE): "please treat as code M" written in Comments Section (18) . The Same Person Certified “That All Statements Are True”

Hundreds of public servants who were placed on approved administrative LWOP during the vaccination mandate received ROEs showing “treat as code M” as the reason for separation.

This is not only a false reason for separation, which is a criminal offence under the Criminal Code (section 398), but for most (possibly all) of those affected, the ROE was signed by the same person — Krista Hastie.

These public servants come from different agencies and departments across Canada (TC, DND, Parks Canada, Health Canada, CBSA, etc.). They began their LWOP on different dates (some in November 2021, some in February 2022), yet the person who certified the reason for separation for all of them — “treat as code M” — is the same. She is not from any of their departments or agencies; she is from PSPC.

Evidence #2" Manager's Response to the Grievance: "... all employers were instructed. .. to use Code M for all employees..."

"I believe that the [NAME OF THE DEPARTMENT] is acting in accordance with the requirements of the Policy on COVID-19 Vaccination for the Core Public Administration Including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which came into effect on October 6, 2021. The policy was issued pursuant to sections 7 and 11.1 of the Financial Administration Act, and applies to all employees of the core public administration, and includes indeterminate employees, determinate employees, members and reservists of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, internationally based public service employees, casual workers, and students, whether they work on-site or telework.

Your were informed of the requirements of the Policy and given that the duty to accommodate did not apply, as per the Policy, you were provided until [ DATE ] to comply with the Policy or be placed on administrative LWOP. Seeing as you did not comply with the Policy by [ DATE ] , you were placed on administrative LWOP. Therefore, I am confident that the employer’s decision to place you on administrative LWOP was completed in accordance with the requirements of the Policy.

In regards to your Record of employment (ROE), all employers were instructed by Employment and Social Development Canada to use the code M on records of employment for all employees suspended for not complying with the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy and to put “Leave due to non compliance with the employer’s vaccination policy, please treat as Code M” in the comment section. There is no mention of misconduct in your ROE and this was the correct code to be used regarding this situation. I am confident this was an administrative measure based on your vaccination status and not a disciplinary one.

Analysis by ChatGPT:

Q: What ROE Code M means and how it is used in Canada’s Record of Employment form. Detailed analysis with quotes.

A; Here are accurate, authoritative references on what ROE Code M means and how it is used in Canada’s Record of Employment form:

📌 Official Government Guidance

According to Service Canada’s ROE Web user guide, the list of codes includes:

M – Dismissal or Suspension (employer-initiated separation),
N – Leave of Absence,
K – Other, etc. (Canada)

This confirms that Code M is for dismissal or suspension — it does not officially mean “misconduct” by itself. (Canada)

🧾 Practical Interpretation

Legal and employment resources explain that:

Code M stands for dismissal — that is, the employer ended the employment relationship. (Samfiru Tumarkin LLP)
Whether the dismissal was for cause (misconduct) or without cause is NOT encoded in the letter “M” alone — that distinction is generally clarified in Block 18 (comments) on the ROE. (Samfiru Tumarkin LLP)

So Code M does not automatically mean misconduct; it simply indicates that the employer initiated the end of employment (dismissal) or a suspension. The reason (for cause vs. not for cause) is usually addressed in the comments field and by Service Canada’s review of the facts. (Samfiru Tumarkin LLP)

🧠 How It’s Used in Practice

Employers use Code M when they terminate employment, regardless of whether it’s for misconduct or without cause. (avanti.ca)
Service Canada then assesses eligibility for EI and may investigate if there is an allegation of misconduct. (Samfiru Tumarkin LLP)

Summary (with direct quotes)

Government guide: “M – Dismissal or Suspension.” (Canada)
Legal summaries: “Code M stands for dismissal… used when an employee is terminated from their job.” (Samfiru Tumarkin LLP)
Practical note: Code M does not itself specify misconduct — that is a separate factual/legal determination. (Samfiru Tumarkin LLP)

If you’d like, I can also find the exact official table and wording from the current ROE Guide PDF to include as a quotation in your grievance or submission.

Q: So if block 18 states as "Treat as M" what does it say about the reason of separation?

Short, precise answer — it effectively asserts misconduct.

Here’s why, grounded in ROE structure and Service Canada practice.

What Block 18 (“Comments”) does

Block 18 is used to clarify, qualify, or direct interpretation of the Reason for Separation code. EI adjudicators explicitly rely on it when the code alone is ambiguous (e.g., K or other non-standard situations).

Meaning of “Treat as M” in Block 18

When Block 18 states “Treat as M”, it means:

The employer is directing EI to treat the separation as if Code M applied, even if the formal code is something else (e.g., K).
Since Code M = Dismissal or Suspension initiated by the employer, this instruction tells EI that:
- the separation was employer-initiated, and
- EI should assess it under the misconduct / just-cause framework.

In practice, this imports the consequences of Code M into the file.

Why this matters legally

Code M is the gateway code for misconduct analysis under the Employment Insurance Act.
EI does not conduct a misconduct inquiry for Code N (Leave of Absence).
By instructing “Treat as M,” the employer is:
- asserting that the situation is equivalent to a disciplinary suspension or dismissal, and
- triggering EI scrutiny and potential disentitlement as if misconduct were alleged.

So even though Code M does not literally spell the word misconduct, “Treat as M” is functionally a misconduct assertion.

Bottom line (plain language)

Writing “Treat as M” in Block 18 communicates that the employer considers the separation equivalent to a dismissal or disciplinary suspension and intends EI to assess it as a misconduct case.

That is not neutral, not informational, and not consistent with administrative LWOP.

If you want, I can help you:

phrase this cleanly for an adjudicator, or
tie it explicitly to why Code N was mandatory, not discretionary.

Q: Phrase this cleanly for an adjudicator (Grievance)

Background and Basis of Grievance (refined for adjudication)

Block 22 of all Records of Employment (ROEs), as well as ESDC’s ROE Guide, state that it is a criminal offence to knowingly provide false or misleading reasons for issuing an ROE.

Each ROE is certified under section 398 of the Criminal Code, confirming that the issuer understands that intentionally falsifying the reason for issuing an ROE may constitute a criminal act. The ROE Guide further clarifies that “knowingly” means acting with full knowledge of the facts. Where the issuer does not have full knowledge, they are required to provide a Further Information Contact capable of responding to EI investigators with certainty.

Both long-standing ROE guidance and pandemic-specific guidance require that any period of unpaid leave be coded “N” (Not Present). This explicitly includes situations where “an employee does not report to work because they refuse to comply with your mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.”

By contrast, Code “M” applies to employer-initiated disciplinary suspensions or dismissals, which engage the Employment Insurance misconduct framework.

[ OPTIONAL - My previous grievance resulted in written confirmation that: ]

I was placed on approved administrative leave for safety reasons (vaccination status);
I was not suspended for disciplinary reasons; and
My employment relationship continued uninterrupted until I returned to work at the end of the approved leave.

Despite these confirmed facts, my ROE was issued with Code “K” (Other), accompanied by the instruction in Block 18 to “treat as Code M.” This instruction directs Employment Insurance to assess the separation as if it were a disciplinary suspension or dismissal, thereby importing the legal consequences of Code M, including a misconduct analysis.

This characterization is inconsistent with the facts, the ROE Guide, and the Employer’s own written confirmation. As such, the ROE does not merely contain an ambiguous or neutral code, but instead affirmatively mischaracterizes an approved administrative leave as equivalent to a disciplinary action, contrary to governing guidance.

Additionally, the ROE was issued by Krista Hastie (PSPC), who was not fully aware of my individual employment circumstances, and therefore did not meet the ROE requirement of full knowledge of the facts. She also failed to provide a proper Further Information Contact, instead listing only her own phone number again and a generic “Government of Canada” contact, contrary to ROE requirements.

Why this wording works for an adjudicator

It does not accuse intent directly, but establishes objective inconsistency.
It explains why “Treat as M” is consequential, not just semantic.
It ties the ROE coding directly to EI legal effects, which adjudicators understand.
It avoids emotive language while preserving evidentiary force.

If you want, I can:

further compress this for tight page limits, or
adjust tone slightly depending on whether this is initial submission vs. reply to employer arguments.

Interview with J4EI

Investigating the Use and Legality of Code M (Misconduct) for Administrative LWOP During the Vaccination Mandate

Part 1. Background -
COVID-19 Mandates, Union's Position, LWOP as Misconduct resulting EI benefits denial for Thousands of Canadians

Part 2: The 'Problem' –
Understanding the E.I. Program, its Legislation & Legal Requirements

Part 3: EI Processes Engineered to Mass-Deny Claims

Part 4: Q&E, Next Steps for the Use Case

Admin Leave signed as Misconduct - Special Investigation with J4EIM. Part 1: Evidence (18 mins)

Admin LWOP signed as Misconduct: Special Investigation with J4EIM. Part 2 - Next Steps (32 mins)

Q & A with J4EIM:

Question: We have many members who received Code M (for Misconduct) when they put on administrative LWOP for non-compliance with Vaccination Mandate, and then denied EI as a result. Can you explain how this situation could have occurred, whether the employer may have violated any legal or procedural requirements, and what steps members can take to seek justice, transparency, and accountability from their employer, their union, and Service Canada (including ESDC and EI)?

Response from J4EIM:

Knowingly putting a False Reason Code on an ROE is potentially a Criminal Offence. The warnings about this are everywhere, on all the relevant government documentation, including the ROE itself in Box 22. (see below) If they knew that I was on an Approved Administrative Leave of Absence ['N'] – and still employed – and instead Certified that I was 'Dismissed or Suspended' ['M'] (without any Disciplinary proceedings) anyways, Why?

I cannot read their minds to determine their Intent – nor am I implying any – but my ROE clearly contains a Code that the Issuer knew was wrong – and they Certified it (legally swore to its accuracy) anyways...

This raises serious issues that need to be considered [or further investigated]. If there was 'intent to deceive' this is a Criminal Offence. If not, then why did they knowingly Certify an incorrect Reason Code, considering all the warnings? Could that be deemed negligence considering the all following?

CC §398: 'Falsifying Employment Record'

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-398.html

"§398: Every one who, with intent to deceive, falsifies an employment record by any means, including the punching of a time clock, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."

And Box 22 on all ROEs says: (ROE Image)

"I am aware that it is an Offence to make False Entries and hereby Certify that All Statements on this Form are True."

And the ROE Guide says: (Box 16 & Box 22)

Reasons [List]: https://canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/ei/ei-list/reports/roe-guide.html#h2.2-3.17

Box 16: "It is a serious Offence to misrepresent the reason for issuing an ROE. [(i.e. in Box 16)] If you knowingly enter a false or misleading reason for issuing an ROE, you may be subject to fines or prosecution. Knowingly means fully aware, 'with full knowledge of the facts'."

Code N – Leave of Absence: "Use Code 'N' when the employee is leaving the workplace temporarily to take a leave of absence. For example, if the employee is taking any period of unpaid leave."

Code M – Dismissal or Suspension: "Use Code 'M' when the employer initiates the separation from employment for any reason other than layoff or mandatory retirement (that is, the employee is leaving the workplace because he or she has been Dismissed by the employer). Also use this code when the employee is Suspended from their employment."

Box 22: "In this block, the person who is completing the ROE knowingly certifies that the information on the ROE is correct."

This is why Box 16 has an option for 'Further Info Contact': If the HR/Payroll staff submitting the ROE are not "fully aware, with full knowledge of the facts" they must specify someone who is, who can answer mandatory questions when SC/EI Investigators call – which is required for all 'M' Codes.

And lastly, because of all the confusion during the pandemic, ESDC issued special guidance called:

ROEs during COVID-19 (Original: 2021-10-15 & Final: 2024-11-08)

https://web.archive.org/web/20241126215225/https:/www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/ei/ei-list/ei-employers.html#h2.02

Block 16: Reason for Issuing this ROE: COVID-19 Vaccination

"When the employee doesn't report to work because they refuse to comply with your mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, use code E (quit) or code N (leave of absence)" (Bold in Original on ESDC Site)

Code 'M' can only be used for 'Dismissal or Suspension', which are not 'Administrative' issues.

Next Steps:

Below are the options for Lawful and democratic steps to seek justice and accountability - as recommended by ChatGPT.
See full discussion on Substack.

1. Demand ROE correction (first priority)

Members should submit a written request to their employer asking for correction of the ROE to reflect administrative leave without pay, not misconduct. Attach:

Departmental letters or notices describing the leave as administrative
Any policy guidance stating the leave was non-disciplinary
A clear statement that the ROE does not reflect the true reason for separation

Employers can issue amended ROEs. This is the most direct corrective mechanism.

2. EI reconsideration and appeal

With corrected documentation—or evidence that the ROE is inaccurate—members should request EI reconsideration, and if necessary, file an appeal. The EI system relies heavily on the ROE; correcting the record materially changes eligibility analysis.

3. Access to Information requests

Members (individually or collectively) can file Access to Information requests seeking:

Delegation instruments authorizing centralized ROE signing
Instructions or directives on coding mandate-related leave
Communications between departments and central HR/pay authorities

This establishes who knew what, when, and on what authority.

4. Grievances and labour relations remedies

Where inaccurate ROEs caused material harm, members can grieve:

Inaccurate employment records
Failure to apply procedural fairness
Consequential financial harm

The focus should remain on accuracy and process, not allegations.

5. Collective or coordinated action

Patterns affecting thousands of members are rarely resolved one case at a time. Coordinated action—through groups of affected members—can:

Share evidence
Reduce duplication
Demonstrate systemic failure rather than isolated error

6. Parliamentary and oversight engagement

Members may bring documented concerns to:

Members of Parliament
Parliamentary committees
The Auditor General or other oversight bodies

This is a democratic accountability mechanism, not a legal accusation.

7. Union accountability

Members can formally require unions to:

Explain what steps were taken (or not taken)
Disclose legal advice relied upon
Account for decisions not to pursue ROE corrections or EI impacts

Where necessary, members may pursue internal union remedies or external review.

What justice looks like here

Justice does not require scapegoats. It requires:

Truthful employment records
Corrected ROEs
Restored EI benefits where wrongly denied
Transparency about who authorized what
Assurance this cannot happen again

If errors were made by a system, the system must correct them. If individuals certified records without sufficient basis, that too must be addressed—lawfully, proportionately, and without speculation.

This is not about punishment.
It is about accuracy, fairness, and accountability in a democratic public service.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse

Use Case:Code 'M' Used For Administrative Leave Without Pay (LWOP) Resulting in Denial of Employment Insurance Benefits during the Vaccination Mandate.

Interview with J4EIMwww.Justice4eiMisconduct.com