Providing a falsified Physical Abilities Requirement Evaluation certificate during an appointment process

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 whether a candidate committed fraud in an external advertised appointment process, by submitting a falsified Physical Abilities Requirement Evaluation certificate.

Conclusions: 

The investigation concluded that the candidate committed fraud by knowingly submitting a falsified Physical Abilities Requirement Evaluation certificate during the appointment process to increase their chances of succeeding.                        

Facts: 

The candidate applied to an appointment process within the federal organization where they were employed as a determinate employee. The process was conducted to staff security-related positions. The job advertisement indicated that the Physical Abilities Requirement Evaluation certificate was a basic requirement, and that meeting a physical abilities standard was essential for the position.  

During the appointment process, the candidate submitted a certificate showing that they successfully completed the evaluation, thus meeting the prescribed time limit of 4 minutes and 45 seconds.

The next day, the centre that administered the evaluation sent the candidate’s results directly to the hiring organization. They showed that the candidate failed the evaluation after voluntarily withdrawing at 4 minutes and 30 seconds. Given the contradictory information, the centre compared the document submitted by the candidate with their own template certificate. The centre identified several discrepancies and noted that the test administrator identified on the certificate submitted by the candidate was not working on the date of the candidate’s evaluation.

During the investigation, the hiring organization provided a copy of a blank certificate named “personal doc,” which they found on the candidate’s work computer. The document contained the same discrepancies as the ones found on the document submitted by the candidate. They also provided an email exchange that confirmed that the centre does not send test results to candidates electronically.

The candidate indicated they were aware that they failed the evaluation, having gone over the time limit. They claimed to have received an email from the centre that showed they had successfully completed the evaluation, and did not contact the centre for clarification, due to their excitement. The candidate submitted this certificate to the hiring organization and later sent a follow-up to know whether they would be moving ahead in the appointment process given that all the requirements were met.

The candidate was unable to explain the discrepancies identified by the centre, or the blank certificate found on their work computer. They indicated that they were unaware that the centre did not email electronic copies of certificates to candidates, and for this reason they did not question the authenticity of the email received. The candidate was unable to provide the investigator with a copy of the original email from the centre containing the certificate. The candidate acknowledged they had made a mistake, indicating that they should have asked for clarification, since they initially thought they had failed the test.

To conclude that fraud occurred in an appointment process, 2 essential elements must be established: dishonesty and deprivation or risk of deprivation.

The investigation demonstrated that, on the balance of probabilities, the candidate acted dishonestly when they knowingly submitted a falsified certificate to increase their chances of succeeding in the appointment process. As for the second element, the process could have been compromised if the candidate’s actions had not been detected and they had been found qualified in the process based on the false information. 

Corrective actions:

Following the conclusion of fraud, the Commission ordered that:

• the candidate be eliminated from the appointment process
• for a period of 3 years, the individual must notify the Public Service Commission of Canada before accepting any position or work within the federal public service
  • failure to do so will result in the revocation of their appointment
• if the individual accepts a position or work in the federal public service within the 3-year period, 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 do so will lead to the revocation of their appointment

In addition, the Commission decided to disclose personal information obtained in the course of this investigation to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, pursuant to section 19 of the Public Service Employment Regulations.

Investigation File Number: 23-24-05