Accessing unauthorized material, including information from previous exams, during a supervised take-home exam

Authority: Given the nature of events, the group and level of the position for the appointment, and that the duties of the position may have an impact on the health and safety of Canadians, this investigation was conducted under section 69 of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13).

Issue: The purpose of the investigation was to determine whether a candidate committed fraud in an advertised appointment process. The allegation received suggested that a candidate may have accessed reference materials during a written exam, contrary to exam instructions.

Conclusion: The investigation concluded that the candidate committed fraud during the appointment process by knowingly accessing their personal notes during a written exam, contrary to the exam instructions. These personal notes contained exam materials they had kept without authorization from previous appointment processes.

Facts: In the context of an appointment process, a candidate, who was not a public servant at the time, was invited to complete a written exam. The invitation indicated that the exam would be supervised through videoconference, and that candidates had to keep their camera on and share their computer’s screen during the exam.

On the day of the exam, the candidate signed a declaration certifying they had read the exam instructions and agreed to follow them. The instructions included examples of actions that were considered cheating. The exam supervisor emphasized the part of the instructions that stated that candidates were not allowed to refer to any personal notes or reference materials during the exam.

When the candidate shared their computer screen, the exam supervisor saw open items on the candidate’s screen, including a document with a title referencing past exams. The exam supervisor asked the candidate to close these items before the exam began. During the exam, the exam supervisor observed that:

• the candidate had a second document open in the toolbar
• the candidate appeared to have a second computer screen
• several times, without seeing the text being typed in the candidate’s exam, large amounts of text suddenly appeared on the candidate’s screen.

When the exam supervisor asked the candidate why the document referencing past exams was open during the exam, the candidate stated that their computer had frozen. However, the exam supervisor had not observed this issue.

Following the exam, the exam supervisor reported their observations to the human resources advisor and the person responsible for the appointment process. Once informed of the situation, the sub-delegated manager decided to eliminate the candidate for failing to follow the instruction that forbid using any personal notes or reference materials during the exam.

During the investigation, the candidate admitted to using a second computer screen that was not shared with the exam supervisor. The candidate mentioned that while their computer was frozen, they must have accidentally opened their exam preparation document. This document included information from previous exams they had completed and information from the Internet. The candidate also stated that they continued typing for several minutes while their computer was frozen, which was why large amounts of text suddenly appeared in their exam. The information gathered during the investigation showed that the candidate had kept materials from previous exams when they knew this was not permitted and used this material during the exam.

The investigator determined that, due to many inconsistencies, the candidate’s explanation lacked credibility, and that the candidate used a second monitor, contrary to the instructions, to access unauthorized material during the exam.

The evidence showed, on the balance of probabilities, that the candidate acted dishonestly by accessing personal notes during the exam which contained, among other things, information from a previous exam from the same department, knowing that this was not permitted. The appointment process could have been compromised if the candidate’s actions had not been detected.

Although the candidate was eliminated from the appointment process, they were appointed to the federal public service as a result of another appointment process.

Corrective actions:
Following the conclusion of fraud, the Commission ordered the following:

• for a period of 1 year, the candidate must notify the Public Service Commission before accepting any position or work within the federal public service
• failure to do so will result in the revocation of their appointment
• as the candidate has recently completed the Values and Ethics Foundations for Employees course offered by the Canada School of Public Service, they must participate in a discussion with their director
• failure to do so will result in the revocation of their appointment

Investigation File No.: 23-24-07