Providing false information about education level – Founded

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 the investigation was to determine if a candidate committed fraud by providing false information about their education in an external appointment process.

Conclusions:

The investigation concluded that the candidate committed fraud in the appointment process by submitting false information about their education to be appointed.

Facts:

The education requirement for the appointment process was “successful completion of 2 years of an acceptable post-secondary education program” in a field directly related to the position. The candidate indicated in their résumé that they had a 2-year college diploma related to the position to be filled. During the appointment process, the candidate also verbally confirmed that they had obtained the diploma. The candidate was found qualified and was appointed to the position on an indeterminate basis.

Following the appointment, the human resources (HR) advisor repeatedly asked the candidate, now a public servant, to provide proof of their education to confirm that they met the minimum educational requirements of the position. In response to these requests, the public servant claimed they had lost their diploma, but that they had contacted the college to get a copy. They explained to the HR advisor that they had been trying to get proof of their education for months. They also told the HR advisor that they no longer had access to their student account that would allow them to provide proof of graduation. After several months, they admitted in writing to the HR advisor that they had neither completed their college program nor obtained a diploma.

The investigation concluded that, in order to be appointed, the candidate was dishonest when they indicated on their résumé and later confirmed that they had completed their college program and graduated, while knowing that this was not the case. They continued to provide false explanations after their appointment. The fact that they failed to respond to the HR advisor’s requests and that they provided false explanations showed they were aware of their dishonesty. Their actions compromised the appointment process.

The public servant resigned and no longer works for the public service.

Corrective actions

Following the conclusion of fraud, the Commission ordered that: 

Investigation File No.: 22-23-05

Page details

2023-03-27