False Information about Second Language Evaluation results, education and professional experience - Founded
Section 69 ─ Founded ─ Fraud ─ False statements about education and work experience, and falsification of university degrees and second language evaluation results
Authority: This investigation was conducted under section 69 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, ss. 12 and 13.
Issue: The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether a candidate had committed fraud in an external appointment process by submitting, as part of their job application, falsified diplomas and second language evaluation results, as well as misleading information about their education and professional experience.
Conclusions: The investigation concluded that the candidate had committed fraud in an appointment process by submitting, in support of their application, falsified documents and misleading information about their education, second language evaluation results and professional experience.
Facts: In 2016, a manager sought to appoint a candidate to a professional position using a non-advertised appointment process. Among other things, a BBB linguistic profile was required for second language proficiency. Before the appointment, the candidate confirmed by email that they had obtained BBB level second language evaluation results. The candidate then submitted a second language evaluation results form as proof. At the request of the hiring organization, the Public Service Commission (the Commission) checked the results in its system and could not find any evidence of these tests. The Commission examined the results form submitted by the candidate and determined that it contained several irregularities including a false form number, and errors related to the date of the oral exam and the test versions. Despite this finding, the candidate was appointed to the professional position that was the subject of the process due to urgent operational needs.
The organization then forwarded the file to the Commission for investigation, which investigated all the documents provided by the candidate for the appointment. During the investigation, the Commission noted other irregularities relating to university education and work experience in the candidate’s application.
With respect to the second language evaluation results, during the investigation, the candidate claimed to have undergone second language evaluation tests at the Commission’s offices in Ottawa. However, the investigation found that the Commission had moved its testing activities to Gatineau 2 years earlier, well before the exam dates on the submitted form. In addition, the organization that the candidate claimed had submitted the second language evaluation request had no record of such a request for the date written on the results form. The candidate’s testimony denying having falsified the second language evaluation results form was deemed not credible.
The position being filled also required a particular professional degree. In their job application, the candidate claimed to hold several university degrees, including the required degree in the job advertisement.
During the investigation, the candidate eventually admitted they did not hold 2 of the degrees listed in their job application, including the degree required for the position being filled. The investigation found that the information in the candidate’s job application differed from what the candidate had submitted about their university education in applications for previous appointment processes. The same is true of the information the candidate presented for security clearance reasons. In view of these inconsistencies and the evidence that the candidate’s degrees were invalid, the investigation determined that most of the submitted documents had been falsified.
Even though the candidate’s job application indicated several years of professional experience in 3 different organizations, a fact the candidate reiterated during the investigation, the investigation found — after comparing the job application in question with previous applications — that the candidate had worked in 8 different organizations during the same period. The information submitted as part of the appointment process was also not consistent with the information the candidate provided for their security clearance. All of these irregularities served to call into question the credibility of the candidate’s testimony, and the investigation determined that the information was false.
Because the candidate was appointed to a professional position on the basis of misleading information and falsified documents, the investigation concluded that the candidate’s dishonesty had compromised the appointment.
Corrective action: Following the finding of fraud, the Commission ordered that:
- the public servant’s appointment be revoked and that, following revocation, the individual no longer be employed with the federal public service
- for a period of 5 years, the individual must obtain the Commission’s written permission before accepting a position in the federal public service; failure to do will result in the appointment being revoked
- for a period of 5 years, the individual must inform the Commission of any casual work or student employment in the federal public service; failure to do so will result in the investigation report being sent to the deputy head of the hiring organization to inform them of the fraud committed
Disclosure of personal information: The Commission ordered the disclosure of the investigation summary, including the name of the individual and other documents, to several professional bodies governing the profession concerned, as well as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Commission also ordered the disclosure of information related to the investigation to various federal agencies that have hired public servants in that specific professional field in previous years, to prevent any repetition of the fraud.
File: 18-19-04