Who Is This Krista Hastie Who Signed Thousands of Public Servants’ Administrative Leaves with Code M? Is She Liable for Falsification of Records—and What Affected Members Can Do to Seek Vindication
How a centralized process may have mislabeled administrative leave and denied EI to thousands—and what public servants can do when Records of Employments don’t reflect the true reason for separation
This article was originally written before the New Year - following my interviews with J4EIM and the feedback I received from many members, and has been now updated with the latest “Special Edition Discussion” Interview with J4EIM, which is appended at the bottom of this article. A follow up article with the video recording of the second part of this discussion, where we answer your questions and revise the next steps for affected public servants, is coming shortly.
This article will also be archived at:
https://en.gorodnichy.ca/members/self-representation-101/lwop-as-m
For the summary of previous discussions, see the last interview with J4EIM:
Key references:
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, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.”
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.”
Preface
Following a recent discussion with Matthew (J4EIM) — [watch the three-part interview on YouTube here and on Self-Representation 101 page on my portal] — I was contacted by many public servants who recognized something strikingly familiar.
Their Records of Employment were signed by the same person - Krista Hastie - whose name appeared on the ROEs we discussed with Matthew at our Q&A session.
In this article, we look closely at what such “coincidence” could really mean:
for this mysteriously ubiquitous “Krista”;
for the centralized process and system that made such misclassification possible;
for the many affected members who lost access to their Employment Insurance benefits when their administrative leave was falsely recorded as misconduct; and
for the unions who failed to provide support when members were left without income and without answers during one of the most difficult periods of their lives.
And we discuss the steps that affected members (and all other Canadians who found themselves in the similar situation) can do to seek for justice and accountability.
“Killing” Two-fold Evidence
Evidence #1 – Administrative LWOP Is Coded as M on ROEs. 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: Employers and Service Canada Declare That “No Misconduct Was Involved”
Any public servant who was placed on LWOP for non-compliance with the vaccination mandate may go to Service Canada to retrieve their ROE (Appendix B below provides details on how to obtain it), and this is what they will see (and if you do not see this, call Service Canada and ask why your ROE reason is different from that of an identical case involving another public servant).
A full sample from EI Record for an affected member:
Investigation
During the COVID-19 period, many federal public servants who did not comply with the vaccination mandate were placed on administrative leave without pay. Yet a striking number of those same employees later received Records of Employment (ROEs) indicating “misconduct”—a designation that automatically triggers ineligibility for Employment Insurance (EI) and carries serious reputational and legal consequences.
What has raised alarm is not only the designation itself, but the consistency of the signature. Across multiple departments—CBSA, DND, Transport Canada, and others—ROEs appear to have been signed by the same individual, identified as Krista Hastie, associated with Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC).
This raises urgent questions that deserve careful, lawful scrutiny.
Why the signer matters
An ROE is not a clerical afterthought. The signer attests that the reason for separation is true and accurate. Misclassifying administrative leave as misconduct is not a neutral error; it changes legal outcomes—most notably, EI eligibility.
Procedural fairness requires that the person certifying an ROE be knowledgeable about the employee’s circumstances or rely on a lawful, verifiable delegation supported by accurate information. When a single name appears across thousands of files from many departments, it invites a basic question: How could one person possess case-specific knowledge for all of them?
Centralization vs. accountability
It is possible that ROE processing was centralized during the mandate period. Centralization, however, does not eliminate accountability. If a centralized process applied a blanket instruction to code separations as misconduct—despite departmental decisions describing the status as administrative leave—that is a process failure with real human consequences.
Crucially, asking these questions does not presume personal intent or wrongdoing by any individual. It asks whether the system, its delegations, and its instructions complied with the law and with fundamental fairness.
The human cost
For thousands of families, a “misconduct” code meant no EI, immediate financial shock, and lasting stigma. Many members describe months—or years—of stress, debt, and uncertainty. Regardless of intent, the impact is undeniable.
Recording of the Special Edition Discussion with J4EIM - Part 1. (18 mins)
The question that remains
Was this the action of a person, or the output of a system that replaced judgment with automation? If errors occurred, who can correct them—and how quickly? These questions deserve answers grounded in evidence, not speculation.
Justice here means truthful records, restored benefits where warranted, and clear accountability for processes—so this never happens again.
References:
Record of Employment (ROE) — Employer responsibilities (Service Canada) (Canada)
Employment Insurance Act (Canada) (Justice Laws Website) (Department of Justice Canada)
Employment Insurance Regulations (SOR/96-332) (Justice Laws Website) (Department of Justice Canada)
Directive on Leave and Special Working Arrangements (Leave without pay) (Treasury Board Secretariat) (Canada)
Taking leave (general guidance) (Treasury Board Secretariat) (Canada)
Disclaimer
This article’s opinions are those of the author, not of any institution. It is not legal advice.
Acknowledgment
This article was written with assistance from ChatGPT using the prompt:
“A request to write a WA-format article for DG4VP Substack examining the systemic appearance of ‘misconduct’ codes on ROEs for public servants placed on administrative leave during the COVID-19 mandate; to frame the issue as questions of procedural fairness, centralization, delegation, and correction—without presuming individual intent; and to outline lawful corrective steps for affected members.”
Based on approximately 1,200 words and about 15 minutes of narrated input and collaborative drafting with the author.
ChatGPT was also used to ensure political neutrality, factual accuracy, and alignment with the Public Servant Code of Values and Ethics.
Read more about why and how I use ChatGPT to write my Substack articles here.
Appendix A: Additional References
1. Service Canada — Record of Employment (ROE) & Employer responsibilities
• Record of Employment (ROE) — general overview including employer obligations:
https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/ei/ei-list/ei-roe.html (Canada)
• Employer responsibilities relating to ROE completion (Service Canada & EI):
https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/ei/ei-list/ei-employers/responsibilites.html (Canada)
2. Employment Insurance Act and Regulations (Canada)
• Employment Insurance Act (full text, Government of Canada)
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-5.6/ (Department of Justice Canada)
• Employment Insurance Regulations (complete regulatory text)
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-96-332/index.html (Department of Justice Canada)
3. Treasury Board Secretariat guidance on leave / leave-without-pay and related procedural guidance
Although there isn’t a single “leave and disciplinary measures guidance” page published as one document, the Treasury Board Secretariat publishes authoritative guidance and directives covering leave-without-pay and general HR procedures.
Here are examples you can cite:
• Directive on Leave and Special Working Arrangements (context about leave without pay categories):
https://www.canada.ca/en/government/publicservice/wellness-inclusion-diversity-public-service/health-wellness-public-servants/disability-management/fundamentals-leave-without-pay.html (Canada)
• Taking leave overview (includes reference to Treasury Board policies)
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/services/pay-pension/pay-administration/access-update-pay-details/pay-changes-in-your-life/taking-leave.html (Canada)
• Other types of leave without pay (Treasury Board Secretariat)
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/services/pay-pension/pay-administration/access-update-pay-details/pay-changes-in-your-life/other-types-leave-without-pay.html (Canada)
Appendix B: How to Obtain Your Record of Employment (ROE) from Service Canada
Any public servant who was placed on leave without pay (LWOP) can independently obtain their Record of Employment (ROE) directly from Service Canada. This is an important step, as the ROE on file is the document relied upon for Employment Insurance (EI) decisions.
Below are the practical steps.
Option 1: Online (My Service Canada Account — MSCA)
Go to the official Service Canada website and sign in to My Service Canada Account (MSCA).
If you already have an account, log in using your GCKey or your banking partner.
Once logged in, navigate to:
Employment Insurance
View my Records of Employment
Download or print the ROE(s) listed.
Pay close attention to:Block 16 — Reason for Issuing this ROE
Any notes or codes indicating “misconduct”
If you do not yet have an MSCA, you can register online. Identity verification may take several days.
Option 2: By Phone (Recommended if something looks wrong)
If your ROE does not match what you were told by your department (for example, if it shows “misconduct” instead of administrative leave), call Service Canada directly.
When speaking with an agent:
Ask them to read the reason for separation exactly as it appears
Ask who issued the ROE and on what basis
Ask whether any ROE amendments have been submitted by your employer
If applicable, ask why your ROE differs from those of other public servants in identical circumstances
Take notes during the call, including:
Date and time
Agent name or ID number
What was said about the reason for separation
Important note
Service Canada does not decide how your ROE is coded — they rely on what the employer submits. However, Service Canada does rely on the ROE to determine EI eligibility. That is why obtaining and reviewing your ROE is a critical first step toward correction, vindication, and accountability.
Appendix C— What This Could Mean
1. For the “ubiquitous Krista”
The repeated appearance of the same name on Records of Employment (ROEs) across many departments suggests centralization, delegation, or automation rather than individualized case review. That alone is not improper. However, if the signer certified reasons for separation without direct knowledge, verified departmental input, or lawful delegation, it raises questions about whether the attestation met the standard required for accuracy and truthfulness.
This does not require presuming intent or personal wrongdoing. It does require clarity on:
Who authorized the signer to certify ROEs across departments
What instructions were given about coding “misconduct”
Whether the signer relied on verified departmental determinations or a blanket rule
2. For the centralized process and system
A centralized HR or pay function can streamline administration—but it must not override facts. If administrative leave without pay was systemically coded as “misconduct,” the issue becomes systemic misclassification, not a series of isolated errors.
Key concerns include:
Whether “misconduct” was used as a proxy for mandate non-compliance
Whether disciplinary thresholds were bypassed
Whether departments abdicated responsibility for ensuring accuracy
3. For affected members denied EI
The practical consequence of a “misconduct” ROE is immediate and severe: automatic EI ineligibility. For many, this meant months without income, savings depletion, debt accumulation, and lasting stigma—despite the absence of disciplinary findings or due process consistent with misconduct.
Where the underlying employment status was administrative leave, members may have been denied benefits on the basis of inaccurate records.
4. For unions
Many members report that unions declined to assist, minimized the issue, or advised members to “wait.” Where unions failed to challenge inaccurate ROEs or pursue corrections, members were left isolated at precisely the moment collective representation mattered most.
This raises questions about:
Whether unions fulfilled their duty of fair representation
Whether they challenged systemic errors affecting large numbers of members
Whether they prioritized institutional alignment over member protection
Appendix D — What Can Be Done. Lawful and democratic steps to seek justice and accountability
What follows are practical, non-speculative actions available to affected public servants.
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.
C. 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.