Section 69 – Founded – Fraud – Accessing assessment material prior to the interview

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 the context of an appointment process by accessing assessment material ahead of the interview.

Conclusion: The investigation concluded that the candidate committed fraud by accessing assessment material ahead of the interview in order to improve their chances of being successful in the appointment process.

Facts: An appointment process was launched to staff correctional officers’ positions in various regions throughout Canada. At the time, the candidate was not an employee of the federal public service. They were screened into the appointment process, passed the written exam, and then invited to an interview.

Before the interview, candidates were provided with 1 hour of preparation time in order to review the questions and make notes. During the interview, the board members noticed that some of the candidate’s answers contained key words in the same order as the answers found in the rating guide. At the end of the interview, the candidate handed over their preparation notes to the board members. The board members found that the notes were also very similar to the rating guide. What’s more, the candidate’s notes for some of the answers were organized using the same structure as the answers in the rating guide.

A few days later, the board members invited the candidate to an informal meeting to discuss the similarities between their notes, their answers and the rating guide. The candidate denied having had access to the rating guide. Instead, they accounted for the similarities by claiming that their research on the department’s website allowed them to find examples of interview questions. They also claimed that a chance encounter with a stranger who happened to work in the department allowed them to gather information about a correctional officer’s daily tasks. Finally, they indicated that past experience and general knowledge in the field relating to the position being filled enabled them to answer the interview questions correctly. The board members had doubts about the candidate’s claim to have done research on the department’s website because it does not contain sample interview questions. Overall, the board members felt that the candidate’s explanations lacked credibility, and the candidate’s assessment was put on hold pending the outcome of the investigation.

During their testimony, the candidate reiterated the same 3 explanations provided to the board members. The candidate also admitted to having a friend who worked for the department, and provided their name, but denied that this friend gave them access to the rating guide. The investigator contacted the department to validate this person’s identity, but the department had no record of any employees, past or present, by that name or any variant. The candidate did not provide any more information or documentation to support the existence of this person. This means that either the candidate provided a false name, or this person does not exist.

Based on the scenarios presented by the candidate, the evidence showed that they could not have reproduced the answers found in the rating guide with such accuracy without having accessed the rating guide. As a result, the candidate’s testimony was not deemed credible.

To conclude that fraud occurred in an appointment process pursuant to section 69 of the Public Service Employment Act, 2 essential elements of fraud must be met: dishonesty and deprivation or risk of deprivation. While the investigation could not determine how the candidate accessed the rating guide, the evidence showed that, on the balance of probabilities, the candidate acted dishonestly by accessing the rating guide to prepare for the interview. The appointment process could have been compromised if the candidate’s actions had gone undetected.

Corrective action:

Following the conclusion of fraud, the Commission ordered that:

• the individual’s candidacy be eliminated from the appointment process
• for a period of 1 year, the individual must notify the Public Service Commission before accepting any position or work in the federal public service
  • failure to do so will result in the revocation of the appointment
• if the individual accepts a position or work in the federal public service within 1 year, they must complete the Values and Ethics Foundations for Employees course offered by the Canada School of Public Service, and then have a discussion with their director
  • failure to complete the course or to participate in the discussion will result in the revocation of the appointment

Investigation File No.: 20-21-06