Spouses collaborated when completing a take-home exam

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 2 candidates committed fraud in an external appointment process by collaborating during a written exam, which was contrary to the instructions.

Conclusion:

The investigation concluded that 2 candidates committed fraud by collaborating, thereby contravening the exam instructions.

Facts:

A public servant and their spouse, who is not a public servant, applied to an external appointment process to staff security-related positions. During the appointment process, they both had to complete a take-home exam. The instructions stated that candidates were not to discuss the exam’s content with anyone. The exam included a confidentiality agreement that candidates had to sign digitally, certifying that they had prepared the information contained therein and that they were the sole author of their answers.

The board members responsible for marking the exam noted that both copies looked almost identical, so they referred the case to the Public Service Commission of Canada for investigation.

During the investigation, the public servant and their spouse testified that neither had read the instructions and admitted to having collaborated during the written exam. Specifically, they admitted that the public servant signed the confidentiality agreement for their spouse and wrote their written exam for them, given that they were more familiar with the subject matter, and their spouse was suffering from COVID-19. Since they were both ill on the evening of the exam, they decided to collaborate because they wanted to get the exam over with and were not invested in the appointment process to begin with.

Although the evidence showed that both candidates were likely ill on the evening they wrote the exam, their testimonies about why they worked together despite the test instructions were not deemed credible by the investigator. Rather, the evidence showed that, on the balance of probabilities, the public servant and their spouse acted dishonestly by collaborating, and that they intended to gain an advantage in the appointment process. The appointment process could have been compromised if the board members had not noticed the similarities between the exams and if the candidates had moved forward in the appointment process.

Corrective actions:

Following the conclusion of fraud, and considering the public safety nature of the position to be staffed, the Commission ordered that:

• both candidates be eliminated from the appointment process
• for a period of 2 years*, both candidates must notify the Commission before accepting any position or work in the federal public service
• failure to do so will result in the revocation of their appointment
• if the spouse who is not a public servant accepts a position or work in the federal public service within 2 years*, 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
• the public servant 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 their appointment, and the public servant will cease to be an employee of the public service

Investigation File Number:23-24-04