Investigation Report Summary

Section 69 – Founded – Fraud – Candidate submitted false information regarding work experience

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

Issue: The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether a candidate committed fraud in an appointment process by knowingly submitting false information in their application about their experience in a particular field. Specifically, the candidate indicated that they had experience conducting scientific experiments using a particular scientific instrument. However, according to the assessment board members, the candidate admitted during the interview phase of the process that they did not have experience using this instrument.

Conclusion: The investigation concluded that the candidate committed fraud in the appointment process by knowingly submitting an application containing false information about their experience, which could have compromised the appointment process.

Facts: As part of the application process, the candidate had to respond to a series of screening questions. When asked about their experience in a specific field, the candidate wrote that they had many years of experience conducting scientific experiments using a specific instrument, and provided detailed examples. The candidate was screened into the process and was invited to an interview.

During the interview phase of the process, the candidate was asked how they would conduct a specific scientific experiment using that particular instrument. The board noted that the candidate’s description of the experiment was poor. The board asked the candidate twice whether they had ever conducted an experiment using that instrument; both times, the candidate did not respond to the question. One board member read aloud from the candidate’s application, quoting the candidate’s statement regarding their experience using that instrument. When the board asked whether the candidate had ever conducted an experiment using the instrument, the candidate answered that the statement they had made in their application might be incorrect. The candidate then admitted that they knew that if they did not indicate they had experience with the instrument, they would not be screened into the process.

During the investigation, the candidate testified that they had made a mistake in their application by misinterpreting the question. They said that they only noticed their mistake during the interview when asked to elaborate on their experience using the instrument. One board member testified that the candidate was trying to mislead, as the candidate had told the board that they knew they would not have been invited to the interview if they had not responded to the question about the instrument in the application. The candidate denied having said that to the board during the interview. The candidate clarified that they had said they knew that if they had not responded to the question about the instrument in the application, they would not have had time to explain their experience.

The investigation found that, despite the candidate’s indication that they were not trying to mislead, the evidence clearly shows that they provided false information concerning their experience. The investigation concluded that the candidate deliberately decided to write in their application that they had experience conducting scientific experiments using a specific instrument in order to have the opportunity to explain their experience or to obtain an interview.

By doing so, the candidate was dishonest, and the appointment process could have been compromised if the candidate had not been questioned during the interview on their experience using this instrument. The assessment board could have relied on false information when determining whether the candidate met the essential qualifications of the position.

Corrective action: Following the conclusion of fraud, the Commission ordered that:

• for a period of 3 years, the candidate must obtain written approval from the Commission before accepting any position or work within the federal public service
  • failure to do so will result in revocation of the new appointment
• for a period of 3 years, the candidate must notify the Commission of any casual or student employment
  • failure to do so will result in the Commission notifying the deputy head of the fraud committed by the candidate by providing the deputy head with a copy of the investigation report and Record of Decision

Investigation File No.: 17-18-09