PSC Staffing Manual

Legislative and policy requirements

Public Service Employment Act

Subsection 30(1) of the PSEA and the Appointment Policy both state that appointments to or from within the public service shall be made on the basis of merit.

• a) the Commission is satisfied that the person appointed meets the essential qualifications for the work to be performed, as established by the deputy head, including official language proficiency; and
• b) the Commission has regard to:
  • i) any additional qualifications that the deputy head may consider to be an asset for the work to be performed, or for the organization, currently or in the future
  • ii) any current or future operational requirements of the organization that may be identified by the deputy head
  • iii) any current or future needs of the organization that may be identified by the deputy head

Organizational needs can refer to current or future needs of the public service, as identified by the employer, that the deputy head determines relevant to the organization.

Subsection 31(1) of the PSEA states that the employer may establish qualification standards in relation to education, knowledge, experience, occupational certification, language or other qualifications, that the employer considers necessary or desirable having regard to the nature of the work to be performed and the present and future needs of the public service.

Subsection 31(2) of the PSEA states that the qualifications referred to in paragraph 30(2)(a) and subparagraph 30(2)(b)(i) of the PSEA must meet or exceed any applicable qualification standards established by the employer under subsection 31(1).

Considerations

Merit criteria

As specified in the PSEA, there is more than one component to merit. The person to be appointed must meet all the essential qualifications, including official language proficiency for the work to be performed.

Essential qualifications are the qualifications a person must have to perform the work. To be considered qualified for an appointment, a person must meet each of the essential qualifications. When a manager identifies a qualification as essential, they're saying that if a person doesn't meet that qualification, they could not function in the position.

The manager may also consider qualifications that would be an asset for the work to be performed, currently or in the future, as well as any current or future operational requirements and organizational needs. Here are some examples:

• A master's degree may not be essential for a junior economist position, but it could be an asset
• An organizational need to hire a person from an employment equity group may support an organization's equity, diversity and inclusion strategy
• An operational requirement to work overtime may be needed for a position with seasonal workload fluctuations

Together, essential qualifications, asset qualifications, operational requirements and organizational needs form the basis for assessing candidates and making merit-based appointments.

Flexibility

Managers have a great deal of latitude in identifying qualifications that reflect the needs of the position, whether now or in the future. Some examples include:

• Establishing which qualifications are essential for an appointment and which could be considered an asset
• Establishing an appropriate number of qualifications
• Defining the qualifications and identifying the assessment criteria
• Determining whether a qualification is assessed as experience, knowledge or ability (for example, project management)

It's also important to consider the following:

• The qualifications established must be assessable
• Using too many qualifications that are not clearly distinct from each other may lengthen the assessment process without improving its quality
• The hiring manager may choose the qualifications that make sense given the job requirements and organizational context; there is no requirement to establish any set number of experience, knowledge, ability or personal suitability criteria

For example, a hiring manager is about to launch a process. The position was last advertised 7 years ago, and the merit criteria included 16 essential and 10 asset qualifications. The context has since changed, as the manager now has a very experienced team, having had no turnover until a recent departure. As a result, the hiring manager decides to remove most of the technical experience requirements and replaces them with competencies. They settle on a total of 5 essential and 3 asset criteria that will allow them to determine whether candidates can successfully perform the job now and in the future.

Potential barriers: effective merit criteria

Use of terms such as recent, significant or extensive to quantify the level of experience could discourage quality candidates from applying and could be viewed as discriminatory (for example, period away from work due to medical reasons, family responsibilities).

• Consider explaining the reason for the qualifier (for example, a new technological environment, new act, change in policy) rather than using a number of months or year, or other temporal expression

When dealing with advertised appointment processes, it's important to consider whether qualifications could create potential barriers for candidates, such as:

• Qualifications that can only be acquired through previous government employment, particularly in external advertised appointment processes
  • Using government-specific terms limits the candidate pool to only those with previous government experience
• Knowledge that can easily be learned on the job
  • Impedes opportunities to recruit quality candidates who could easily acquire the knowledge on the job
  • Makes the assessment process more cumbersome than it has to be, potentially affecting time to staff
• Emphasis on experience vs ability
  • Experience and ability provide different and complementary information
  • May provide false assurance of a candidate's ability to perform a certain task (having experience in a field does not necessarily imply possessing the required level of competence.)
  • Find a balance between experience and ability by taking the requirements of the position into consideration as well as the feeder pool

Hiring for potential

Potential refers to a person's future capacity for growth or development. To be used as a qualification in an appointment process, it must be clearly expressed in terms of the job being staffed by that process.

• To be appointed on the basis of merit, a person must meet each qualification at the time of the appointment. "Potential to…" may not be interpreted as "potential to meet an essential or asset qualification at a later date."
• The manager must be able to answer the question "Potential for what?"; to explain what a qualification means; what is required; the underlying constructs; and how it is defined for assessment purposes. For example, "potential to manage" can be defined for assessment purposes as the ability to learn, solve problems collaboratively, or juggle competing demands. The assessment will then focus on these skills and abilities as they are found in the job being staffed.
• Whether or not the term "potential" is used, the appointment framework sets an expectation that the manager will establish reasonable merit criteria related to the job to be staffed.

Official languages: an essential qualification

Official language proficiency is an essential qualification that must be met for an appointment to be based on merit. It cannot be regarded as an asset, an operational requirement or an organizational need.

Hiring managers are responsible for establishing the language requirements of the position to be filled. They must first objectively determine if the position requires the use of one or both official languages.

When a position is designated bilingual, the manager determines the language proficiency and skills needed for the work to be performed in the first official language and then, in accordance with the Qualification Standards in Relation to Official Languages, establish the level (A, B, C levels) of language skills required for reading comprehension, written expression and oral proficiency in the second official language.

For a unilingual position, hiring managers determine the language proficiency required (French essential, English essential, or English or French essential). They don't need to include reflect the A, B and C levels for all three language skills (reading comprehension, written expression and oral interaction skills) as established for second official language proficiency in the Qualification Standards. Language proficiency for a unilingual position can be established in the same way as any other merit criteria, such as knowledge, ability or competency.

The Tool for the linguistic identification of positions and the Tool on determining the Linguistic Profile of Bilingual Positions can help managers establish the linguistic requirements for the position to be staffed.

Imperative and non-imperative staffing

Non-imperative staffing is a staffing method for a bilingual position which allows for the consideration of candidates who meet all essential qualifications except for the linguistic proficiency requirements. The Directive on Official Languages for People Management sets out the obligations of deputy heads regarding imperative and non-imperative staffing. As a general rule, the Directive states that bilingual positions should be staffed on an imperative basis.

It is possible to indicate both options "Bilingual Imperative CBC/CBC" and "Bilingual Non-Imperative CBC/CBC" in the same advertised appointment process. This way, the choice between imperative and non-imperative appointments can be determined later, at the time of appointment. This gives the manager the flexibility to address exceptional situations and choose the right approach based on operational needs and capacity.

The Public Service Official Languages Exclusion Approval Order (PSOLEAO) sets out situations in which, in the case of a non-imperative appointment, a person who is proficient in only one official language is excluded from the application of merit with respect to proficiency in both official languages.

The Public Service Official Languages Appointment Regulations (PSOLAR) set out the provisions applying to persons who are excluded from merit with respect to proficiency in both official languages and specify the deputy head's responsibilities and obligations when appointing a person who enters into an agreement to become bilingual. For more information, consult the Public Service Official Languages Exclusion Approval Order.

Organizations applying an exclusion from merit for official languages in certain staffing measures, such as non-imperative appointments, must still meet their official language obligations regarding communications with the public, service delivery, and language of work. Measures must be implemented to ensure the position's bilingual tasks or duties are performed in both official languages in equal quality until the incumbent has attained the position's language requirements.

Exclusions from merit for official languages for acting appointments

Certain exclusions from merit for official languages also apply to acting appointments under the Public Service Employment Regulations (PSER) sections 14 to 17, as follows:

Depending on the type of appointment process, certain individuals may have one or more entitlements that affect the order of appointments.

When these entitlements apply, they may be used to select subsets of candidates for further assessment to speed up the process or help manage a large pool of candidates. The PSEA gives managers broad discretion for this, however the order of precedence must always be respected at the time of each appointment.

Modern Treaties

Some modern treaties include employment-related provisions such as a preference in hiring. For positions located in Nunavut and Yukon, a preference in hiring applies to internal and external advertised appointment processes.

• For positions in Nunavut, Inuit candidates enrolled under the Nunavut Agreement, who meet the essential qualifications of the position, must be appointed first.
• For positions in Yukon, candidates who meet the essential qualifications of the position and are Yukon First Nations must be appointed first, followed by a second tier for other Indigenous candidates who meet the essential qualifications.

For more information, please refer to the Guidance on Staffing and Modern Treaties.

Priority Entitlements

The PSEA and the PSER include provisions that provide certain people with an entitlement, under specific conditions, to be appointed all others. Persons with a priority entitlement must meet all essential qualifications and conditions of employment of the position. Their rights must be respected, and they must be considered in a timely manner.

The PSC may refer persons with a priority entitlement to organizations through the clearance request process for consideration, or they may self-refer directly to organizations for consideration. In both cases, persons with a priority entitlement:

• cannot be screened out based on area of selection
• must be considered up to the point at which an appointment is officially made
• and, if found qualified, be appointed before any other candidates

For more information, please refer to the Guide on Priority Entitlements.

Preference in external advertised processes

Specifically in external advertised appointment processes, the PSEA requires that preference for appointment be applied in the following order:

1. Veterans
2. Canadian citizens and permanent residents
3. Other candidates

This is applied after the preference in hiring for positions located in Nunavut and Yukon, and after persons with priority entitlements have been considered.

For more information, please refer to the Spotlight on Preference for Appointment.

Legislative and policy requirements

Public Service Employment Act

Section 33 of the PSEA states that the Commission may use an advertised or non-advertised appointment process when making an appointment. This authority is delegated to deputy heads. They, and anyone they sub-delegate to, have the discretion to choose between the two types of appointment processes.

Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument

As stated in the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument (ADAI), deputy heads must establish direction, through policy, planning or other means, on the use of advertised and non-advertised appointment processes.

Considerations

Deputy head direction on the use of advertised and non-advertised

Hiring managers have the authority to decide whether to use an advertised or non-advertised appointment process. However, this choice is one of the grounds for making a complaint to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB), so managers must be able to explain why they chose a particular appointment process and to demonstrate that their decision complies with their deputy head's direction.

Recording the reasons behind the choice of process helps ensure transparency in the appointment process and reinforces the accountability of managers for the decisions they make.

This may also prove useful in various contexts, such as during informal discussions, in the event of complaints filed with the FPSLREB, or during oversight activities conducted by departments and agencies as well as the PSC.

The choice of appointment process is distinct from decisions related to the selection decision and assessment of merit; there should be a clear and distinct explanation for each of these elements.

Advertised appointment processes

The PSEA and the Appointment Policy do not provide a definition of an advertised process. Generally, an advertisement can be described as a communication that reflects a hiring manager's intent to staff a specific job or jobs and that provides information about this job (for example: merit criteria, occupational group and level) and how to apply.

Specific requirements apply when advertising an appointment process (refer to the chapter on Advertising an appointment process). These advertising requirements are not intended as a substitute for a definition of an advertised process. A non-advertised appointment is not a remedy for an advertisement that does not comply with the policy requirements.

Beyond policy requirements, hiring managers should consider the intent of the process and how it will be perceived:

• Is the intent of the process clear to a candidate?
• Does the information provided highlight a specific job or group of opportunities (job title, merit criteria, location), or does it serve as general promotion of an organization as an employer?
• Who has access to the information, and are candidates being asked to apply?
• Will candidates intuitively know how to respond?

The response to these questions can guide a hiring manager in determining if a process is advertised.

Appointing from a pool

As a general principle, when a candidate is appointed from an advertised process, the appointment is considered advertised only if it reasonably aligns with the information in the original job advertisement. If the appointment doesn't reasonably align with what was advertised, making a non-advertised appointment may be more appropriate.

When determining whether an appointment from a pool should be made via an advertised or non-advertised appointment, consider the following:

• Did the area of selection on the original job advertisement include the organization where the appointment will take place?
• Who will be affected by the appointment, and will they have recourse rights?
  • In an internal advertised process, recourse rights are given to candidates in the appointment process only.
  • In an internal non-advertised process, recourse rights are given to those in the area of selection, which is determined by the hiring manager, and which would include the organization or unit where the appointment will take place.
• Are the merit criteria for the job being staffed consistent with the merit criteria on the original job advertisement?
  • As per the PSC's Appointment Policy, the established merit criteria must be included in the job advertisement.
  • The merit criteria specify the requirements for the job and describe what the job entails. This may have an impact on whether a person decides to apply.
  • For the appointment to be considered advertised, the merit criteria for the job being staffed need to be sufficiently aligned to those on the original job advertisement, so as not to have reasonably affected a person's decision to apply.
• Does the information related to the appointment reasonably align with the information outlined in the original job advertisement?
  • As with merit criteria, other information included in a job advertisement may affect a person's decision to apply (for example, job location, tenure, group and level, stated intent of how the appointment process may be used).
  • Opening pools to hiring managers in other organizations is an effective way to reduce time to staff across the whole of government. When organizations are willing to share their pools with other organizations, clearly outlining this intention on the job advertisement can help persons make an informed decision about whether to apply.

For more information, including scenarios illustrating the key considerations discussed above, please refer to Hiring from pools – Advertised or non-advertised appointment.

Legislative and policy requirements

Public Service Employment Act

Section 33 of the PSEA states that the Commission may use an advertised or non-advertised appointment process when making an appointment.

When a manager decides to advertise an appointment process, there are certain requirements that must be met. These include:

Appointment Policy

The Appointment Policy states that when advertising, Deputy Heads must:

• Apply a national area of selection for external advertised appointment processes, except as set out in Annex A.
• Ensure advertisements are posted on the Government of Canada public service resourcing website and are accessible to persons in the area of selection for a minimum of one complete business day (at least 24 hours).
• Provide the following information on the advertisement:
  • The established merit criteria; and
  • A point of contact to whom accommodation requests may be directed.

Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument

As part of the terms and conditions, the ADAI states that deputy heads must establish a policy on area of selection (refer to the chapter on area of selection) for internal appointment processes that, at a minimum, provides reasonable access when advertising.

Considerations

The PSEA and the Appointment Policy do not provide a definition of an advertised process and advertising requirements presented below are not intended to substitute for a definition of an advertised process.

Generally, an advertisement can be described as a communication that:

• reflects a hiring manager's intent to staff a specific job or jobs,
• provides information about this job (for example: merit criteria, occupational group and level) and;
• provides required information on how to apply.

Duration of the advertisement

For the purpose of the minimum advertising period, a business day is defined as Monday to Friday and excludes federal, provincial and territorial statutory and/or recognized holidays.

Giving persons in an area of selection a reasonable amount of time to respond to an advertisement allows them to demonstrate their eligibility to be considered and helps to ensure that there are enough candidates in the pool.

A reasonable period of time has not been defined in order to allow organizations the flexibility to establish time periods that are appropriate for their specific circumstances. Considerations may include the number of positions to be filled, the area of selection established, the number of applications desired to provide a sufficient pool of candidates, whether it is an external or internal process, etc.

Additional advertising channels

Posting an advertisement on the Government of Canada public service resourcing website (GC Jobs) is the minimum requirement. To meet diversity goals, reach qualified individuals and increase visibility, deputy heads or their sub-delegates can also advertise the job through other channels, such as:

• Social media (for example, LinkedIn)
• Online publications
• Special-interest magazines
• Other recognized media

Advertisements may also be shared in public venues like job fairs or recruitment forums to reach a broader pool of potential candidates.

For example, when hiring a research scientist, in addition to posting on GC Jobs, links to the GC Jobs advertisement could also be shared in scientific journals. When recruiting students, it could also help to run targeted social media campaigns or participate in career fairs.

For more information, including scenarios illustrating the key considerations discussed above, please refer to Advertising an appointment process.

Supporting informed application decisions

A job advertisement informs potential applicants of an opportunity and invites them to express their interest. The information provided can significantly influence a person's decision to apply. Potential applicants should reasonably expect that the position could be staffed based on information in the original job advertisement.

So, advertisements must include enough detailed information to help people determine whether the job is a good fit for them and whether they're interested in applying. This information may include:

• A description of duties
• An overview of the organizational culture
• A realistic preview of the role.

People outside the public service may need different information than current public servants, and Managers are in the best position to determine what information will be most useful to include in the advertisement based on the work to be performed.

Beyond policy requirements, the advertisement should clearly describe the intent of the appointment process by including key information, such as:

• Job title
• Geographic work location(s) where the position may be staffed
• Number of to be filled
• Tenure type(s) (for example, temporary, indeterminate) and/or duration of the appointment
• Whether a candidate pool will be established
• Whether other organizations may use the pool to fill other jobs

As a general principle, any appointment made from a pool must align with the information provided in the original job advertisement for it to be considered an appointment resulting from an advertised process. You'll find more information in the chapter on the choice of appointment process.

Information on screening process

A job advertisement should clearly explain how the screening process works. This helps to ensure that the process transparent and fair. Candidates need to understand the criteria and methods that will be used to assess their applications and determine if they meet the essential qualifications.

The advertisement should clearly state what information and documents that candidates must provide, such as:

• Responses to screening questions
• Proof of certifications
• Detailed resumés

This helps candidates tailor the information they provide and submit high-quality, relevant applications.

Clear advertisements also help manage candidates' expectations, which reduces confusion and unnecessary follow-ups during the assessment phase. Clear advertisements may also help candidates determine whether to request accommodation. In addition, describing the screening steps helps ensure that all applications are assessed in a consistent and objective manner. Ultimately, providing this information from the start makes the recruitment process more efficient, fair and candidate-friendly.

Candidate experience

When advertising jobs, it's also important to think about the overall candidate experience. A positive experience makes it much easier for an organization to attract and retain strong candidates.

A thoughtful candidate experience begins with clear, simple and accessible job advertisements that are easy to understand and follow. Making advertisements visually appealing, concise and focused helps capture candidates' attention and encourages them to engage further. Also, describing the job requirements in an appealing and relatable way by highlighting meaningful aspects of the role, growth opportunities and organizational culture can motivate candidates to apply and allow them to imagine themselves doing the job.

Beyond the advertisement itself, providing clear information about the selection process, timelines and expectations helps support respectful and professional interactions with candidates. Ultimately, investing in the candidate experience not only improves the quality of the applicant pool but also strengthens the organization's reputation as an employer of choice.

Legislative and policy requirements

Public Service Employment Act

Under subsection 34(1) of the PSEA, an area of selection establishes who is eligible for an appointment process. It sets 4 criteria that can be used to establish the area of selection: geographic, organizational or occupational criteria, as well as belonging to any of the designated groups within the meaning of section 3 of the Employment Equity Act.

Subsection 34(2) of the PSEA enables departments and agencies to restrict or expand the area of selection to designated groups to address underrepresentation.

In the PSEA, area of selection is also linked to a right to recourse. Subsection 77(2) of the PSEA provides that, in an internal appointment process, a person is in the area of recourse when the person:

• is an unsuccessful candidate in the area of selection in an advertised process; and
• is in the area of selection in a non-advertised appointment process.

Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument

As stated in the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument, deputy heads must establish a policy on area of selection for internal appointments that, at a minimum, provides reasonable access when advertising and reasonable access to recourse.

Appointment Policy

As stated in the Appointment Policy, a national area of selection is required for external advertised processes, with some exceptions set out in Annex A.

Considerations

Area of selection refers to the criteria that individuals must meet to be eligible in a federal public service appointment process. For internal appointment processes, it also establishes who is eligible to make a complaint.

Choosing the area of selection is an important decision in the appointment process. The area of selection will vary depending on:

• The merit criteria required
• The potential pool of qualified candidates (within an organization, within the public service or including external candidates)
• The number of positions to be filled now or in the future

Other eligibility entitlements

Section 35 of the PSEA sets out that persons not employed in the public service but employed in other designated portions of the federal public administration may be eligible for different types of processes. Other instruments, such as the enabling legislation of certain organizations or regulations, may also expand or restrict the eligibility of certain individuals.

The PSC publishes a Reference List to help managers determine:

• whether a person is eligible for an internal appointment process
• whether a person can be deployed
• whether a person has mobility or other rights in accordance with the PSEA or with a regulatory instrument

The Reference List includes:

• Definitions of terms such as "employees" and "persons employed," which are used in the organizational criteria of the area of selection
• An alphabetical list of organizations that provides information about whether the employees of these organizations are eligible for deployments and internal appointment processes and about any conditions or limitations that apply
• Explanation of the mobility rights of
  • Canadian Forces members
  • veterans
  • students
  • casual workers
  • locally engaged staff
  • part-time workers
  • Parliamentary employees
  • former Minister's staff
• The Lifeline provisions noted in the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument.

Sliding area of selection

A sliding area of selection is an approach that can be used when the pool of potential candidates is uncertain. A job posting may indicate that a larger area of selection may be used if there is an insufficient number of candidates from the smaller area.

If, after the applications have been received, and before any qualifications are assessed, there is an insufficient number of candidates in the smaller area of selection, then the larger area of selection may be used.

Once the area of selection is determined, the eligible candidates from within the area of selection can be assessed. The area of selection must remain the same throughout the appointment process.

This decision must take place before assessing any qualification, including screening of education and experience. This ensures that the proper area of recourse is identified in internal processes, so candidates are eligible to make a complaint to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board.

An example of a sliding area of selection:

• Persons employed in Department A in the National Capital Region. If there is an insufficient number of candidates, employees of the public service occupying a position in the National Capital Region may also be considered.

The concept of eligibility for an appointment process and the notion of assessment cannot be mixed when discussing area of selection.

If the decision is to use the smaller area of selection (which was made before assessment), only those candidates within the smaller area of selection would be assessed. Candidates in the broader area of selection would not be eligible for assessment, consideration for appointment nor have recourse rights when appointments are made or proposed from the smaller area of selection.

If no candidates from the smaller area of selection are found qualified, or if all qualified candidates have been appointed (or will be appointed), a decision could then be made to consider candidates from the broader area of selection. This would be treated as a distinct assessment process. Candidates in the broader area of selection would have recourse rights when appointments are made or proposed from the larger area of selection, which would also include those candidates from the smaller area of selection. Assessment results for the candidates in the smaller area of selection could be re-used.

Transparency is key when using a sliding area of selection. Clear communications on the intent of the sliding area of selection on the job opportunity and further communications at key decision points during the appointment process will ensure that candidates understand their eligibility and rights within the appointment process.

Provincial or territorial boundaries

The Canadian Free Trade Agreement is an interprovincial trade agreement to facilitate the movement of people, goods, investments and services within Canada. This agreement is important for staffing in the public service because article 704(1)(a) prohibits provincial or territorial residency requirements for eligibility in external appointment processes.

The mobility provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) provide citizens and permanent residents with a right to gain a livelihood in any province or territory. As such, an area of selection must not be established along provincial or territorial boundaries, as it could have the effect of discriminating against persons primarily on the basis of past or present province or territory of residence and would not conform to the spirit and intent of the Charter.

Regional organizational structures

When a regional office is referenced in the area of selection, it may be unclear whether this refers to a geographic or organizational criterion. For example, "Atlantic Region" may refer to geographic criteria or to a component of the organization's structure. In this case, it is useful to clarify that the criteria are organizational, for example, by referring to employees reporting to the organization's Atlantic Regional Office.

Work locations

Organizations will have employees working in a variety of locations, including a mixture of telework, on-site work at designated worksites, work in GC Coworking sites and in shared collaboration spaces.

When determining an area of selection, there are many factors related to work locations that should be considered, including:

• where work may be performed
• designated worksite locations of positions to be staffed
• where potential candidates reside or work
• organizational direction with respect to flexible work arrangements

The Policy on People Management and other instruments governing the employer-employee relationship are based on each position having a designated worksite, as determined by the employer, that is a physical location under the organization's control. It is not a virtual or a residential address.

With flexible work arrangements, there may be situations where employees do not reside in the same location as their designated worksite. If the area of selection is established using a geographic criterion, then determining candidate eligibility will depend on the wording used in the area of selection.

For example, an employee's designated worksite is Ottawa. The employee has an approved telework agreement to work from their residence in Toronto. Below are several scenarios using different areas of selection for consideration:

• Scenario 1: "Persons employed in Department A occupying a position in the National Capital Region":
  • The employee is eligible for the appointment process as the designated worksite of their position is Ottawa.
• Scenario 2: "Persons employed in Department A occupying a position in the Greater Toronto Area":
  • The employee is not eligible for the appointment process as the designated worksite of their position is Ottawa.
• Scenario 3: "Persons employed in Department A occupying a position or residing in the Greater Toronto Area":
  • The employee is eligible for the appointment process as they reside in the Greater Toronto Area.

To be eligible for an appointment process, a candidate must be in the area of selection. If no geographic criteria are specified, then individuals who meet all the other criteria are eligible, no matter where they live or work.

National area of selection

The phrase "Persons residing in Canada, and Canadian citizens and permanent residents abroad" expresses the national area of selection required for advertised external appointment processes. This wording ensures that advertised external appointment processes are open to a broad population that reflects the intent of the requirement for a national area of selection.

Exceptions to the national area of selection are set out in Annex A of the Appointment Policy.

Legislative and policy requirements

Public Service Employment Act

Subsection 36(1) of the PSEA states that the Commission may use any assessment method that it considers appropriate to determine whether a person meets the qualifications referred to in paragraph 30(2)(a) and subparagraph 30(2)(b)(i).

Subsection 36(2) states that before using an assessment method, the Commission shall conduct an evaluation to identify whether the assessment method and the manner in which it will be applied includes or creates biases or barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to any equity-seeking group and, if one is identified, make reasonable efforts to remove it or to mitigate its impact on those persons.

Subsection 37(1) states that an examination or interview, when conducted for the purpose of assessing qualifications referred to in paragraph 30(2)(a) and subparagraph 30(2)(b)(i), other than language proficiency, shall be conducted in English or French or both at the option of the candidate.

Subsection 37(2) states that an examination or interview, when conducted for the purpose of assessing the qualifications of the candidate in the knowledge and use of English or French or both, or of a third language, shall be conducted in that language or those languages.

Appointment Policy

The objective of the Appointment Policy is that appointments to and within the public service shall be based on merit and be free from political influence. Some of the Policy's expected results are:

• Appointment processes that are inclusive, free from discrimination, and where reasonable efforts have been made to remove biases or barriers, or mitigate their impact;
• Appointment processes that are conducted in a fair and transparent manner and in good faith and;
• Appointments of highly competent persons who meet the needs of the organization.

The Policy also requires that Deputy Heads assess persons with a priority entitlement prior to considering other candidates.

Specifically for assessment, deputy heads must:

• Obtain the PSC's approval prior to using psychological tests of intelligence, personality, integrity and aptitude tests and tests of mental health.
• In advance of the assessment(s), advise candidates of the methods and/or tools to be used and the opportunity and process to request accommodation measures.
• Ensure that those conducting the assessment have the necessary competencies, including official language(s), to assess the qualifications.
• Use Second Language Evaluation tests approved by the PSC for the assessment of proficiency in the second official language.

Pursuant to Annex B, Deputy Heads must ensure that certain information remains accessible, electronically or by other means, for at least five years after the final administrative action for each appointment. This includes the assessment and results of persons with a priority entitlement and candidates as well as the evaluation of the assessment methods for bias and barriers. This applies to assessments completed in-house, as well as any that are completed with the assistance of an external service provider.

Considerations

The objective of an assessment process is to ensure that the person selected is qualified to perform the functions of the job. So, the quality of the assessment process and the tools used are essential for identifying qualified candidates.

Hiring managers have been delegated broad discretion under the PSEA to determine which assessment tools to use and how to apply them. For example, they may choose to follow a more traditional model (screening, exam, interview then references) or to administer the assessment tools in different sequence. They may also decide to leverage some flexibilities when managing the process such as using volume management strategies (i.e. top-down approach, cut-off scores, giving more weight to a particular qualification).

Under the PSEA, each essential qualification must be assessed separately. They cannot be assessed as a whole (a global assessment), as strengths in one qualification cannot be used to compensate for a qualification in which the candidate did not qualify.

An assessment plan can establish a link between each merit criterion and the assessment tools. It could also outline how the merit criteria are defined, the scoring criteria and rating scale, how the assessment results will be used in the overall appointment process and what merit criteria beyond the essential qualifications will be applied.

Assessment tools and methods

The assessment focuses on the qualifications required for the position, and the tools and methods are selected or developed based on the quality of information they can provide.

The assessment must give all candidates an equal opportunity to demonstrate their qualifications. Managers must then make sure that the methods and sources of information they use for each candidate allow for a fair assessment and allows them to gather comparable information.

Together, the assessment methods must provide results that are relevant to all qualifications being assessed. Using more than one tool to assess a qualification is generally fairer, more valid and more reliable. It also gives candidates more opportunities to demonstrate their competencies and helps reduce barriers.

Standardizing assessments is a good practice, but assessment methods may have to be adapted to ensure equity, for example, by providing accommodation or considering the needs of persons from equity-seeking groups. The PSEA and Appointment Policy don't require managers to use the same tools or sources of information for all candidates. Rather, managers must apply the same definitions, indicators and standard for each qualification to everyone.

The hiring manager is responsible for gathering sufficient information on each qualification to make an informed decision for each candidate. The type and amount of information required will depend on the nature and importance of the qualification for the position being filled.

The manager must consider all available, valid and reliable information, regardless of its source. There are specific factors to consider when deciding whether to use performance reviews, personal knowledge or results from previous appointment processes.

When using performance reviews:

• Strong performance does not automatically mean someone is qualified or ready for promotion.
• A clear link must be made between the elements assessed in the performance review and the qualifications required for the position. This ensures that performance review data is processed consistently for all candidates
• If performance information is unavailable for a candidate, other reliable sources must be used to assess qualifications.

When using personal knowledge:

• Personal knowledge must focus on the qualifications required for the position.
• It must be fair, in good faith and, ideally, used with other sources to increase reliability and validity

When using results from a previous appointment process:

• Quality of the assessment tools and results of the previous appointment process.
• Whether tests were standardized or not, and the expiry date of results, if applicable.
• Continued relevance of the assessment tools over time (they should reflect current knowledge and skills).
• Any changes in qualifications, organizational needs, or operational requirements.
• Whether the duration of the results was communicated.
• Whether candidates have had opportunities to improve their qualifications.

Use of artificial intelligence

Hiring managers may use AI to develop assessment materials (for example, interview questions or scenarios) or to assist in assessing candidates during the appointment process. However, they remain fully accountable for ensuring that the tools used provide for a fair assessment and accurately measure the qualifications required for the position. They're also accountable for all decisions made throughout the process, including the final decision about each candidate.

AI may be used to assess candidates (e.g., for automated ranking or sorting during screening, or for automated scoring of tests or interviews) only if the hiring manager can clearly explain the following:

• The role the AI tool played in their decision process
• The criteria, data or mechanisms that the AI tool used to assess the candidates' answers
• The assessment performed or individual feedback provided by the AI tool for each candidate
• The way the hiring manager interpreted and used AI-generated information when making decisions about candidates

It is important to note that whenever you use AI to recommend or support any staffing decisions, including when assessing candidates, you must comply with the requirements of the Directive on Automated Decision-Making.

This means you'll need to:

• conduct an Algorithmic Impact Assessment before using any automated decision system
• provide notice to candidates that the decision will be made or assisted by an automated decision system
• provide candidates with a meaningful explanation of how and why the decision was made
• tell candidates how to proceed if they want to raise concerns about the decision or challenge it; recourse options must be timely, effective and easy to access

For more information on how hiring managers and candidates can use AI during the recruitment process, see the guide entitled Artificial intelligence in the hiring process.

Identification of biases and barriers

The objective of subsection 36(2) of the PSEA is to ensure hiring managers reflect on potential biases and barriers during the conceptualization and development of assessments and, if any are identified, take action to address or mitigate them in advance of their use. It ultimately aims to create a more inclusive hiring process for all members of equity seeking groups.

Deputy heads must document the identification of biases and barriers. In doing so, they must demonstrate that before an evaluation method is used, they have examined and reflected on how biases or barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to any equity-seeking group may be present in the assessment method and the manner in which it is applied. The documentation must also demonstrate the strategies that have been considered and/or implemented to remove these biases or barriers, or to mitigate their impact.

Specifically, hiring managers must document:

• the guide, tool or reference that was used to identify biases and barriers in each assessment method and its application;
• the biases and barriers identified in each assessment method and its application; and, in cases where no biases or barriers were identified, the documentation should clearly reflect the rationale in reaching that conclusion;
• the efforts made or actions taken to remove the biases or barriers identified, or to mitigate their impact; including an explanation if no mitigation strategies were adopted.

This also applies when using commercial tests. Sub-delegated managers remain responsible for ensuring compliance with subsection 36(2) of the PSEA, including approving the evaluation and mitigation strategies, and ensuring that the information is accessible electronically or by other means, for a minimum period of five years.

For more information and resources on the identification and mitigation of biases and barriers, please consult:

• Definitions: biases and barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to any equity-seeking group
• Guide to Mitigating Biases and Barriers in Assessment
• Tool for Mitigating Biases and Barriers in Assessment

Other resources are available on the GC Intranet site (on the GC Network only).

Assessors

The sub-delegated manager sets the merit criteria, selects the person(s) to be appointed and remains accountable for final decisions about the appointment process. However, they may involve others, such as an assessment board, a supervisor, or an assessment specialist, to assist in evaluating candidates. The other's role is to assess candidates against the merit criteria and provide the manager with the necessary information for a fair selection decision that is based on merit.

Assessors can include persons from outside the organization and may involve different people at various stages. The key is ensuring that they have the necessary competencies, including official language(s), and are equipped to assess qualifications fairly.

Forming diverse assessment boards to evaluate candidates in the hiring process can help promote fairness and reduce bias. For more information, refer to Spotlight on diverse assessment boards.

Requests for accommodation

Telling candidates in advance which assessment methods and tools will be used and explaining how to ask for accommodation measures enhances transparency and allows candidates to prepare accordingly. A candidate doesn't need to have a disability or have completed the self-identification form to ask for accommodation during the appointment process.

When the person(s) responsible for assessment gather information about the candidate's accommodation needs when they first contact the person, it gives the organization enough time to determine the most appropriate accommodation before the assessment takes place. This helps prevent potential delays in the process.

This aspect of the process should not be rushed, as it aims to ensure that the assessment is free from biases and barriers and that all candidates are treated fairly and equitably.

Accommodation or modifications must:

• Not change the level or nature of the qualification being assessed
• Not give the candidate an unfair advantage

You can find more information about the duty to accommodate and the fair assessment of persons from diverse backgrounds in the following documents:

• Duty to Accommodate: A General Process For Managers
• Frequently asked questions - Accommodation Requests
• Enhance fairness and reduce bias in the content of assessment tools

Assessment of official language proficiency

Appointment to a unilingual position

For a unilingual position, proficiency in English or French must be assessed, depending on the language requirement of the position (French essential, English essential, or English or French essential).

Managers are responsible for assessing the candidate's proficiency in the language required for the position and for determining the assessment method to do so. They may conduct the assessment with:

• the same method(s) as those used to assess the other qualifications (such as an interview or written exam); or
• a separate assessment method to assess only the language of the position.

Appointment to a bilingual position

For a bilingual position, proficiency in both first and second official languages must be assessed.

Individuals determine their first official language based on the language in which they currently feel most proficient. If they aren't sure, the person may choose one or the other. The language to which a person was first exposed (mother tongue), even if it is English or French, can differ from a person's first official language, and a person's first official language may change over time.

Managers are responsible for choosing the assessment method to assess the first official language of candidates and determining whether the official language proficiency is met. To do so, they may conduct the assessment with:

• the same method(s) as those used to assess the other qualifications (such as interviews or written exams) or,
• a separate method to assess only the first official language.

The Appointment Policy requires that only the second language evaluation (SLE) tests approved by the PSC can be used to assess second official language proficiency. They should not be administered in both official languages to determine the first and second official language of candidates unless the candidates themselves aren't sure of their first official language and ask for help with the decision.

• Managers and authorized human resources personnel must verify these results with the PSC prior to any appointment. Verification is generally done early in the appointment process.
• SLE results are valid for 5 years. After that, the results remain valid indefinitely, but only for the position held by the employee, unless the linguistic profile of the position is raised above the employee's skill level.
• SLE results older than 5 years may be considered valid:
  • if the candidate is stationed abroad and is unable to take SLE tests during the regular working hours of the PSC's offices in the National Capital Region and,
  • when an incumbent of a bilingual position is appointed to their own reclassified position, as long as the linguistic profile of the position has not been raised above their results. If the language profile of the reclassified position is raised above the employee's test results, the person must meet the raised profile of the position, or be appointed on a non-imperative basis.
    • Reclassification should not be confused with a new linguistic profile for a position. For information on modifications of language requirements or linguistic profiles, consult the Treasury Board Secretariat's Directive on Official Languages for People Management (Appendix 2).
• Candidates who have received an exemption (result E) do not need to be re-assessed.
• For internal appointment processes, SLE results must be valid at the time the notification of appointment or proposed appointment (second notification) is posted. For external processes, SLE results must be valid at the start date agreed to in writing by the parties).
• The PSC's Personnel Psychology Centre provides information on assessment accommodation and second language evaluation for Managers and Human Resources Specialists.

Alternative methods for second language evaluation

Alternative methods for second language evaluation are no longer allowed since October 1, 2025. However, existing results from alternative assessment methods for oral proficiency (levels A, B, and C) that are less than 5 years old may be used for appointments within the department or agency, at the discretion of the hiring manager. For more information, please consult the Questions and answers for human resources specialists.

Retesting for official language proficiency during the same appointment process

Depending on the circumstances, hiring managers have the discretion to make decisions about whether or not to assess official language proficiency (or any other qualifications) more than once in the same process. Here are some considerations when making this decision:

• Does the appointment process allow for continuous intake of candidates, or is there a fixed closing date?
• Is there a potential that the candidate has gained new experiences or improved their proficiency since the initial assessment?
• Are there any new SLE results available from another process that could be considered?
• How might reassessing language proficiency impact perceptions of fairness:
  • Could it affect other candidates who were previously eliminated for not meeting this qualification?
  • Does it ensure equal opportunity for all candidates?
  • Could it influence potential applicants who didn't apply initially because they didn't meet the qualification but would meet it at the time of reassessment?
• Candidates must wait a minimum of 30 calendar days before retaking the PSC's SLE tests.

Assessing the specialized or expert proficiency in the official language (Code P in a linguistic profile)

Code P is for bilingual positions with technical or specialized official language skills. Candidates generally gain these skills through specialized training or experience.

• The PSC's SLE tests can't be used to assess specialized or expert proficiency.
• Before the assessment, hiring managers determine the specialized or expert proficiency level in the language required for the position (based on the Treasury Board Secretariat's Qualification Standards in relations to official languages).
• Hiring managers are responsible for developing the assessment method for the P code and for conducting the assessment.
• Those conducting the assessment must have the technical or specialized official language skills to assess the P code.
• If the candidate is assessed for their specialized or expert proficiency level as part of another process, the result of the previous assessment isn't transferable from one position to another.

Assessing a language other than French or English

It is the hiring manager who determines that the knowledge of a language, other than French or English, is required to perform the duties of the position.

• The proficiency in this language can be an essential qualification (that the candidate must meet in order to be appointed to the position) or an asset qualification.
• Before the assessment, hiring managers establish the required level of language proficiency. They are responsible for developing the assessment method, conducting the assessment and determining whether the level of proficiency required for the position is met.
• Those conducting the assessment on the language other than French or English must have the skills to assess that language.
• As per paragraph 37(2) of the PSEA, an examination or interview to assess the knowledge and use of a third language shall be conducted in that language.

Assessing qualifications other than language proficiency

All qualifications, except for language proficiency, must be assessed in the candidate's official language of choice (English or French), regardless of the position's location or language requirements.

Tools must be adapted to meet official language requirements. For example, if a computer test is administered in French, the keyboard and spell check should be available in French. Tools must be equivalent in English and in French, meaning they are able to measure or assess the same requirements.

Legislative and policy requirements

Public Service Employment Act

The preamble of the PSEA sets out a vision of a public service characterized by fair, transparent employment practices, respect for employees, effective dialogue and recourse mechanisms to resolve appointment issues. This vision is supported through an informal discussion mechanism for internal appointment processes.

Section 47 of the PSEA states that where a person is informed by the Commission, at any stage of an internal appointment process, that the person has been eliminated from consideration for appointment, the Commission may, at that person's request, informally discuss its decision with that person.

In internal advertised processes, persons may request an informal discussion when they are informed that they were eliminated from consideration. In the case of non-advertised appointment processes, any person in the area of selection (as set out in the notification requirements) may request an informal discussion.

Appointment Policy

Some of the Appointment Policy's expected results are:

• Appointment processes conducted in a fair and transparent manner and in good faith; and
• Timely correction of errors and omissions.

The Policy also specifically states that prior to appointing, deputy heads must inform persons eliminated from consideration for internal appointment processes of the decision to eliminate them, following which they may request an informal discussion.

Considerations

An informal discussion is a sharing of information between a person eliminated from consideration in an internal appointment process and the decision-maker. An informal discussion aims to help the person who has been eliminated from consideration understand the reasons for that decision. It promotes transparency and is intended to improve communication before a final decision about an appointment is made, potentially reducing the need for formal recourse.

An informal discussion also gives managers an opportunity to:

• resolve concerns
• correct errors or oversights
• complete the appointment process efficiently

An informal discussion is not required for external advertised and non-advertised appointment processes. However, in the interests of fairness and transparency, where possible, managers are encouraged to discuss their decisions with candidates who have been eliminated from consideration.

Timing

• Candidates who have been eliminated from consideration should be informed as soon as possible so that they can ask for an informal discussion without delaying the process
• Any person eliminated from consideration at any stage of an internal appointment process can ask for an informal discussion; for example:
  • After initial screening:
    • When candidates don't meet essential or asset qualifications like education, occupational certification or experience
    • When candidates are screened out based on operational requirements or organizational needs
  • After getting assessment results such as the results of tests, exams or reference checks
  • After receiving a notification of consideration: when a candidate meets all the merit criteria but isn't being considered for the appointment at that time

Process

An informal discussion begins when a person who was eliminated from consideration asks for it. It's intended to be flexible, with no set format. It can be done in person or by phone, email or video conference, whichever method is most efficient.

• The discussion should promote open and transparent dialogue about the appointment decision but still respect all confidentiality requirements. In particular, the Privacy Act must be upheld. This means personal information about other people and protected assessment material must not be disclosed, unless is it explicitly allowed.
• The conversation should not focus on other candidates' results. It should focus only on information related to the person who asked for the informal discussion. This information may include:
  • Documents the person submitted
  • Relevant parts of rating guides, assessment notes or explanations of how merit criteria were applied to the person's assessment
  • Their assessment outcomes and how the merit criteria were interpreted

• The eliminated person and the manager may both bring another person to help during the discussion.
• Managers should not make any decisions on the spot. They may consult the assessment board, human resources or subject-matter experts before deciding on next steps.
• Overall, the purpose of an informal discussion is to support a process that is fair, transparent, and consistent for all participants.

Handling new or different information

Informal discussions may provide an opportunity to consider new or clarifying information related to a candidate. There are no set rules for handling such information. Each situation must be assessed individually, considering the organization's policies, practices and specific circumstances.

For example, a candidate may provide information that wasn't included in their original application or clarify information they had previously submitted. The discussion may also reveal flaws in the assessment process, such as:

• incorrect or inconsistent scoring
• certain merit criteria that were unclear, misapplied or not assessed
• other evaluation errors

Managers have the flexibility to address these issues, ensuring fair and accurate outcomes. However, they should always evaluate each case carefully, considering:

• Why the information was not provided initially
• Whether there are mitigating circumstances explaining the omission
• Whether other candidates may be in similar situations
• Whether the error is significant enough to reverse or adjust the decision
• The level of confidence in the original decision and whether the new information would change the outcome

Identifying and correcting errors promptly helps the appointment process proceed efficiently while ensuring that decisions are revisited when necessary. However, taking corrective action for one person may affect others, so the situation must be carefully assessed. For example, if an assessment tool is found to be flawed, more candidates may need to be reassessed to maintain fairness.

Legislative and policy requirements

Public Service Employment Act

The PSEA does not specify how the selection should be made, but section 30 requires that, at a minimum, a candidate being appointed meets the essential qualifications and any other merit criteria applied for the position to be staffed.

Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument

In accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument (ADAI), deputy heads must establish requirements for sub-delegated persons to articulate, in writing, their selection decision. Hiring managers must then ensure then that their selection decision complies with their organization's established requirements and that it is articulated in writing.

Considerations

Selection options

Once the assessment process is complete, the order of precedence set out in the chapter on preferences and priorities must always be respected in selecting qualified persons for appointment. Further, the deputy head may have established requirements related to selection. Subject to these requirements, a manager has several options for selecting the most suitable person from among the qualified candidates to fill the position. For example, they could:

• choose the person who demonstrated the highest level of proficiency in a specific merit criterion,
• base their decision on the relevance or breadth of the person's experience in relation to the position to be staffed,
• apply an asset qualification, or
• take into account an organizational need, such as employment equity objectives.

A selection decision cannot be made based on the candidate's official language. For example, to increase the number of employees in a team whose first official language is French or English, the hiring manager cannot choose a candidate based on their first official language. Doing so would mean the decision is not made objectively according to the duties of the position, in accordance with the Official Languages Act, but rather according to the person's first official language.

There may be situations where it is reasonable to consider elements other than the established merit criteria when selecting a person from among qualified candidates. For example, a hiring manager may take into account talent management, employee retention, or team composition.

Different selection strategies may be applied to different appointments within the same advertised appointment process. For example, one appointment may help the organization achieve its employment equity goals, and this would serve as the basis for selecting a candidate for the position. For another appointment in the same process, the manager may opt to apply an asset qualification, such as experience in negotiating contracts, to determine who should be selected.

Articulating the selection decision

In addition to having to comply with the organization's established requirements and being articulated in writing, the selection decision must also:

• Clearly demonstrate the reasons why a candidate was selected, and in doing so, allow for an understanding of why other qualified candidates, if any, were not selected;
• Be a distinct decision from those related to the assessment of merit and the choice of appointment process;
• Be reasonable, made in good faith, and compliant with applicable legislation and instruments, namely the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Also, recording the reasons behind the selection decision helps ensure transparency in the appointment process and reinforces the accountability of managers for the decisions they make. This documentation may also prove useful in various contexts, such as during informal discussions, in the event of complaints filed with the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB), or during oversight activities conducted by departments and agencies as well as the PSC, including investigations into allegations of error, omission, or improper conduct resulting from biases or barriers disadvantaging persons who belong to any equity-seeking groups).

Legislative and policy requirements

Public Service Employment Act

Section 48 of the PSEA requires that, in an internal appointment process, the name of the person being considered for each appointment be provided to:

• all persons in the area of selection who participated in an internal advertised process; and
• all persons in the area of selection in an internal non-advertised appointment.

Section 48 also:

• requires that assessment of candidates be completed before any notification of consideration for each appointment is given;
• stipulates that no appointments can be made or proposed during the waiting period; and
• stipulates that, after the waiting period, all persons notified must be informed of the name of any person appointed or proposed for appointment, whether or not they were the ones previously identified as being considered.

The waiting period begins on the date the persons to be notified are informed of the names of the persons being considered for appointment. During this period, no appointments can be made or proposed.

Appointment Policy

The Appointment Policy establishes that:

• The waiting period must be for a minimum of 5 calendar days;
• The end date of the waiting period must be included in the notification; and
• Notifications of appointment or proposed appointment must be in writing and must include information regarding the rights and the grounds to make a complaint to the FPSLREB and the manner and time period within which it may be made.

Public Service Employment Regulations

Section 13 of the PSER requires, at the time certain acting appointments are made or proposed as a result of an internal appointment process, that persons in the area of recourse are informed in writing of the name of the person who is proposed to be, or has been appointed. This applies to:

• acting appointments of four months or more; or
• acting appointments that extend the person's cumulative period in the acting appointment to four months or more.

Considerations

Notification is a two-step process that is applied for each internal appointment, whether advertised or non-advertised. It does not apply to external appointments.

The first notification identifies the person(s) being considered for appointment (NOC) and gives people an opportunity to raise concerns through informal discussion. This provides the manager with a last chance to reconsider and correct any errors that are identified, because the decision is not yet final. The first notification, therefore, allows the opportunity to discuss and resolve issues before resorting to formal recourse.

An offer cannot be made before the end of the waiting period set out in the NOC. This also applies to conditional offers. Persons with a priority entitlement must be considered for the position if they refer themselves at any point before the NAPA is published.

The second notification which identifies the person(s) appointed or proposed for appointment (NAPA) is a final decision and describes the manner and the timeframe in which to make a complaint, along with the grounds for complaint.

This two-step notification process does not apply to acting appointments. Instead, section 13 of the PSER sets out a one-step process that requires notice to be provided in writing for an acting appointment of four months or more; and an acting appointment that extends the person's cumulative period in the acting appointment to four months or more. This Notice of Acting Appointment (NAA) informs persons in the area of recourse of the name of the person who is proposed for an acting appointment or who is appointed on an acting basis. It also includes the duration of the acting appointment and describes the manner and the timeframe in which to make a complaint, along with the grounds for complaint.

Proposing a person for appointment or appointing a person is a final decision and the notification of this decision triggers the formal recourse process.

Waiting period

The waiting period begins on the day the first notification is issued. That day counts as "day one" of the minimum waiting period of at least five calendar days. For example, if a notification of consideration is issued on January 16, the waiting period would also start on that day. So, the minimum waiting period would end on January 20.

While the waiting period must be a minimum of 5 calendar days, a longer period may be used depending on factors such as:

• the size of the organization,
• the geographic distribution of employees,
• types of work schedules, and
• the degree of employee access to computers and e-mail.

The waiting period should provide persons to be notified with an opportunity to indicate that they wish to discuss the appointment(s) being considered with the responsible manager.

Legislative and policy requirements

Public Service Employment Act

Subsection 15(1) of the PSEA states that the Commission may authorize a deputy head to exercise or perform many of the powers and functions of the Commission under the PSEA (refer to Annex A of the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument).

Subsection 15(3) of the PSEA establishes that deputy heads can investigate errors, omissions or improper conduct in an internal appointment process and have the power to revoke and take corrective action. This allows organizations to manage their own appointment processes, and if needed, correct any mistakes that are made.

Subsection 15(6) of the PSEA deals with cases where a person's appointment has been revoked by a Deputy Head as a result of an investigation. This subsection enables the PSC to appoint that person even if they don't meet all the requirements for merit, as long as the PSC is satisfied that the person meets the essential qualifications.

Subsection 29(1) of the PSEA states that the Commission has the exclusive authority to make appointments to or from within the public service, of persons for whose appointment there is no authority in or under any other Act of Parliament.

Subsection 39(1) of the PSEA, in an external advertised appointment process, gives preference for appointment to eligible veterans first, and then to Canadian citizens and permanent residents, provided they meet the essential qualifications.

Section 54 of the PSEA requires that a person appointed or deployed from outside that part of the public service to which the Commission has exclusive authority to make appointments shall take and subscribe an oath or solemn affirmation.

Section 55 of the PSEA states that appointments of such persons referred to in section 54 take effect on the later of the date that is agreed to in writing by the deputy head and that person and the date on which the person takes and subscribes the oath or solemn affirmation.

Subsection 56(1) of the PSEA states that the appointment of a person from within that part of the public service to which the Commission has exclusive authority to make appointments takes effect on the date agreed to in writing by that person and the deputy head, regardless of the date of their agreement.

Section 73 of the PSEA states that a person whose appointment is revoked following a PSC investigation may be appointed to another position if the Commission is satisfied that the person meets the essential qualifications for the new appointment.

Appointment Policy

The Appointment Policy establishes, when appointing, that:

• persons to be appointed meet:
  • each essential qualification, including official language proficiency;
  • any asset qualifications applied in the appointment decision; and
  • any operational requirements and/or organizational needs applied in the appointment decision.
• persons to be appointed complete the Affirmation of Indigenous Identity Form, where self-declaration as an Indigenous person is used in an appointment process, and where one of the following conditions apply:
  • the area of selection is limited to Indigenous Peoples
  • an organizational need is used to increase the representation of Indigenous Peoples
  • an inventory of Indigenous candidates or a student employment program approved by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is used to increase the representation of Indigenous Peoples
• offers of appointment:
  • are made, in writing, by a sub-delegated person, and
  • set out all the conditions related to the appointment
• information related to the appointed is documented, as set out in Annex B of the Appointment Policy

Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument

The terms and conditions of the ADAI establish that deputy heads must ensure that their personnel refer to the PSC:

• any matter where there is reason to believe an appointment or proposed appointment was not free from political influence or where fraud may have occurred in an appointment process; and
• any matter where there is reason to believe improper conduct affected the selection of the person appointed or proposed for appointment in an external appointment process.

Annex A of the ADAI establishes that the authority to revoke an appointment after an investigation by the deputy head may not be sub-delegated and may be exercised only by the deputy head.

It also says that the authority to investigate and take corrective action may be sub-delegated within an organization.

Considerations

In making a decision on appointment, deputy heads may want to consider that:

• Before making an appointment from an internal non-advertised appointment process, managers should ensure that the selected person is within the area of selection.
• An appointment from an external appointment process should not normally be effective before the assessment of merit of all persons considered in that process is complete. Exceptions to this might be appropriate in advertised processes where the organization knows it can appoint all persons in the area of selection who meet the merit criteria and in processes where applications are accepted on a continuous basis.
• Since appointments or deployments of persons not already employed under the PSEA cannot be effective before the administration of the oath or solemn affirmation, deputy heads may want to establish an organizational process to ensure the timely administration and documentation of the oath or solemn affirmation.
• Clearly setting out all the terms and conditions in the written offer enables persons to make an informed decision as to whether to accept or reject the offer.
• If any other merit criteria, such as asset qualifications, have been identified and are being used to make the appointment, they must be met before an appointment is made. However, persons with priority entitlement are only required to meet the essential qualifications.

Information requirement

Annex B of the Appointment Policy sets out the requirement for deputy heads to ensure that certain information is accessible, electronically or through other means, for a minimum period of five years after the last administrative action (as applicable) for each appointment.

Before issuing an offer of appointment, it's important to ensure that the staffing file is complete and in order.

Offer of appointment

An offer of appointment sets out the conditions of the appointment and, when signed by a person with sub-delegated authority, becomes a legally binding document. The offer of appointment includes key information regarding:

• the position (e.g., position title and number, group and level, language requirements, work location, tenure)
• compensation and benefits (e.g., union dues, salary and compensation)
• staffing (e.g., bilingualism bonus, employment equity, operational requirements)
• values and ethics
• conditions of employment

Oath or solemn affirmation

The oath or solemn affirmation is a condition of appointment for appointments that are made from outside that part of the public service to which the PSC has exclusive authority to make appointments. As such, where the oath or solemn affirmation is required, the effective date of the appointment is the later of the date that is agreed to in writing by the deputy head and that person, and the date on which that person takes and subscribes the oath or solemn affirmation.

For example, if a person starts to work on Monday and does not take and subscribe the oath or solemn affirmation until Wednesday, the effective date of the appointment is Wednesday. A person must be paid for any work they've done even if the oath hasn't been administered and the appointment hasn't taken effect. This situation highlights how important it is for organizations to have an effective process in place to ensure that the oath or solemn affirmation is administered promptly.

The oath or solemn affirmation must be administered in person or by video conference in the presence of someone authorized or delegated to administer or receive it. The person can sign the oath or solemn affirmation electronically as long as the oath itself is administered in person or by video conference. These requirements allow the person administering the oath or solemn affirmation to confirm the identity of the person taking and subscribing to it. These requirements also reinforce the seriousness of taking the oath or solemn affirmation.

Affirmation of Indigenous Identity Form

As per the PSC's Appointment Policy, all departments and agencies under the PSEA are required to use the Affirmation of Indigenous Identity Form when appointing a candidate who has self-declared as an Indigenous person, and where one of the following conditions applies:

• the area of selection is limited to Indigenous Peoples
• an organizational need is used to increase the representation of Indigenous Peoples
• an inventory of Indigenous candidates or a student employment program approved by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is used to increase the representation of Indigenous Peoples

If one of these circumstances applies, the Affirmation of Indigenous Identity Form is a condition for the appointment. It affirms the Indigenous identity of the person being appointed and must be signed on or before the signing of the letter of offer. An appointment cannot take effect unless the person proposed for appointment has completed and signed this form.

The form was originally developed following concerns raised by Indigenous groups and in consultation with them. It was introduced as a pilot project on January 1, 2010, and reviewed in 2011, 2014 and 2020–21. Assessments of this policy requirement involved consultations with various Indigenous groups within and outside the public service, the human resources community as well as the bargaining agents.

These consultations have shown support for the continued use of the form, which serves to recognize the uniqueness of Indigenous identity, and deters people who are not Indigenous from falsely self-declaring to benefit from employment opportunities intended for Indigenous candidates.

Conditional job offers

A conditional job offer is an offer to appoint someone to a position, contingent on meeting certain requirements within a specified timeframe. These offers can be made on the spot; for example, at career fairs or other hiring initiatives.

Conditional job offers are like other appointment offers:

• they're subject to the same legal and policy requirements — the PSEA, the PSER and the PSC's Appointment Framework
• they're merit-based and free from political influence
• candidates need to meet the qualifications of the position before they're appointed and start work

In an internal appointment process, conditional offers are best made after the NAPA has been published to ensure that:

• candidates have been assessed on all merit criteria being applied to the appointment,
• the notification of consideration (NOC) has been posted,
• the waiting period referenced in the NOC has ended, and
• the notification of persons being appointed or being proposed for appointment (NAPA) has been published.

Hiring managers can decide how and when to use conditional job offers, in line with the direction set by their deputy head. You can find more information on conditional job offers here: Conditional job offers.

Investigations

The PSEA establishes that deputy heads can investigate errors, omissions or improper conduct in an internal appointment process. The PSEA also gives them the power to revoke an appointment and take corrective action. This allows organizations to manage their own appointment processes, and if needed, correct any mistakes that are made. The PSC has an overarching authority to investigate:

• external processes
• any internal processes that the deputy head is not delegated for
• any appointment process in which fraud or political influence is suspected

Pursuant to the ADAI, deputy heads must ensure that investigations and the process for taking corrective action and/or revoking an appointment respect the principles of procedural fairness, including:

• the right to be heard
• the right to an impartial investigation
• the right to be represented
• the right to have a decision, with reasons

Corrective action is intended to correct an irregularity in the appointment process and restore the system to what it would have been if the irregularity had not occurred. The deputy head has the discretion to address each irregularity on a case-by-case basis. For example, an appointment may be revoked due to an irregularity on the part of the hiring team, even though the person appointed did nothing wrong. In this situation, the deputy head may consider re-appointing the person to the same position if they're qualified. However, re-appointment may not be appropriate in all cases. For example, if a deputy head revokes an appointment to correct personal favouritism, a re-appointment may not align with the reason for revocation. There's no one-sized-fits all approach.

As part of its mandate to oversee the integrity of the staffing system, the PSC investigates concerns about specific appointment processes. For more information, refer to Appointment process investigations.

Staffing complaints

The FPSLREB is an independent administrative tribunal that is responsible for resolving staffing complaints about internal appointments in the federal public service.

Deputy heads are informed when complaints are made to the FPSLREB. Human Resources will advise sub-delegated managers that made the appointment in question of the complaint. The human resources specialist will work in close collaboration with the sub-delegated manager to ensure that they have all relevant information and that procedural timelines are met.

For additional information and support, please refer to the following:

• Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board
• Procedural Guide for Staffing Complaints