Investigation Report Summary – Section 69 – Founded – Human Resources and Skills Development Canada – Fraud – False claim about possessing a university degree

Section 69 — Founded — Fraud — False claim about possessing a university degree

Authority: This investigation was conducted pursuant to section 69 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (the “Act”).

Issue: The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether an employee committed fraud by making false claims about their academic achievements in the résumé they submitted in an internal non-advertised appointment process.

Facts: The department conducted an internal non-advertised appointment process to extend the employee’s acting appointment to the position in question. The education requirements were graduation from a recognized university with acceptable specialization in certain disciplines related to the duties of the position. The employee was deemed to have met the education requirements of the position, as their résumé indicated an undergraduate degree, as well as the name of the university. The department identified concerns about the employee’s academic achievements much later during the renewal of their security clearance.

The employee did not testify, despite repeated attempts to schedule an interview or provide opportunities to receive comments. The department testified that, at the time of the appointment process, they accepted the employee’s claims of holding a degree. Given the employee’s occupational group, the department assumed that the employee would have previously provided proof of a degree on entry to the occupational group, to meet the group’s education requirements. The department could not locate the staffing files of the employee’s previous appointments to determine whether they had previously claimed to have a university degree and whether action was taken to verify its authenticity.

During the renewal of the employee’s security clearance, the department received confirmation from the respective university that the employee did not graduate from the programs and did not have a degree. The employee was asked to provide proof of the degree to the department on several occasions, but never did. Without a degree, the employee would not have met the education requirements of the occupational group and, therefore, would be precluded from being considered for the position.

Conclusions: The evidence shows, on the balance of probabilities, that the employee committed fraud within the meaning of section 69 of the Act, by submitting a résumé containing a false claim about holding a university degree.

Corrective actions: The Commission ordered that:

• For a period of three years from the signing of the Record of Decision, the employee obtain the Commission’s written approval before accepting any new position or work within the federal public service. Should the employee accept a term, acting or indeterminate appointment within the federal public service without having first obtained such an approval, the appointment will be revoked; and
• For a period of three years from the signing of the Record of Decision, should the employee obtain work through casual employment, a temporary help agency or student programs within the federal public service without first notifying the Commission, a letter be sent to the deputy head advising of the fraud committed by the employee, with a copy of the Investigation Report and Record of Decision.

File number: 12-13-03