False statements about level of education and professional experience

Authority

This investigation was conducted under section 69 of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13).

Subject

The investigation aimed to determine whether the candidate had committed fraud in an advertised internal appointment process by submitting false information about their education and work experience in their job application.

Conclusion

The investigation concluded that the candidate committed fraud by knowingly providing false information about their education and work experience during an appointment process. The candidate’s actions were dishonest and could have compromised the integrity of the process.

Facts

This investigation was initiated to determine whether the candidate had committed fraud during the appointment process that led to their indeterminate appointment.

The candidate indicated in their job application that they held a college diploma, 2 bachelor’s degrees and a master’s degree. However, the educational institutions mentioned in the job application indicated that the candidate had not completed the college program, that one of the bachelor’s degrees had been earned by accumulating certificates rather than by the indicated means, and that the candidate had never been admitted to a master’s program.

During the investigation, the candidate provided contradictory explanations about their educational level and the reasons for including this information in their job application. These explanations were deemed not credible due to inconsistencies and evidence confirming that the candidate did not possess the stated degrees. Given their knowledge of admissions procedures, the candidate was aware that they had not been admitted to a master’s program and did not hold the claimed degrees. Based on the balance of probabilities, the candidate acted dishonestly by knowingly providing false information about their education.

In the sections of the job application related to experience, the candidate claimed to have supervised staff and acted as a trainer. However, evidence showed they had never performed these duties. During the investigation, the candidate acknowledged several of their statements were inaccurate or false but explained it was due to carelessness, negligence or lack of attention.

The candidate also gave contradictory versions about the duration of 2 jobs. After first describing this as an error, they admitted to having deliberately omitted one work experience and extended others to give the impression of continuous public service experience.

The candidate admitted they had altered job titles, combined contracts and added tasks they had not performed to make their résumé more attractive, despite knowing the information had to be as reliable as possible. The nature and scope of the false information rule out the possibility of unintentional errors. On the balance of probabilities, the candidate acted dishonestly by knowingly providing false and misleading information about their work experience.

To conclude that fraud was committed under section 69 of the Public Service Employment Act, 2 essential elements must be present: dishonesty and deprivation or risk of deprivation. The evidence showed that the candidate acted dishonestly by knowingly submitting false and misleading information during the appointment process. As a result, the candidate was deemed to be qualified and to meet the essential education and experience criteria, even though they did not possess the essential qualifications. The investigation found that the candidate acted dishonestly and committed fraud by providing false information about their qualifications, knowing their actions could compromise the integrity of the appointment process.

Corrective actions

Following the finding of fraud, the Commission ordered the following:

• the indeterminate appointment of the person investigated must be revoked retroactively to the date preceding their appointment, and following this revocation, the person will no longer be employed in the federal public service
• for 3 years, the person must notify the PSC before accepting any position or employment in the federal public service
  • failure to do so will result in revocation of the appointment
• if the person joins the federal public service during the 3-year period, they must complete the course Foundations of Values and Ethics for Employees offered by the Canada School of Public Service and have a discussion with their manager (who must be at least at the director level and at least 2 hierarchical levels above the employee’s position)
  • failure to comply will result in revocation of the appointment
• the person must review all job applications submitted through the Public Service Resourcing System to correct the irregularities identified in the above-mentioned investigation
  • if any application contains irregularities, the person must withdraw from any related appointment process
  • the person must provide the PSC with a written list of the appointment processes they did and did not withdraw from

 

File number: 25-26-03