Summaries of Investigation - Improper Conduct

The term “Improper conduct” is not defined in the Public Service Employment Act; however, in the context of its investigations, the Commission defines “improper conduct” as “unsuitable behaviour, whether by action or inaction, in relation to an appointment process.”

On May 12, 2014, the Federal Court of Canada validated the Commission's definition of improper conduct in its decision MacAdam v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 443, paragraph 77. The court also indicated that bad faith is not a necessary element to render a finding of improper conduct.

Deputy heads have the authority to investigate errors, omissions or improper conduct in an internal appointment process as per section 15(3) of the Public Service Employment Act. The Public Service Commission of Canada may, at the request of the deputy head, investigate an internal appointment process for errors, omissions or improper conduct under section 67(2) of the Public Service Employment Act. Once the investigation is completed by the Public Service Commission of Canada, the decision to accept the investigation report and proposed corrective action, including revocation, is the responsibility of the deputy head concerned. Accordingly, the Public Service Commission of Canada has chosen not to publish summaries of investigations conducted under section 67(2) of the Public Service Employment Act.

Assessment

• Assessment board’s inappropriate actions led to candidate’s elimination
• Misusing personal knowledge about a candidate in an appointment process

Favoritism

• Favoritism towards a family member and avoiding a priority clearance
• Nepotism – Placing a hold on an appointment process to appoint a family member
• Non-disclosure of the relationship between the sub-delegated manager and the candidate appointed
• Circumventing the Federal Student Work Experience Program to hire favoured students
• Sub-delegated manager’s failure to recuse themselves from an appointment process and hiring manager’s failure to ensure that the rationale used for an appointment is accurate – Founded
• Errors and improper conduct that affected the selection of the 2 persons appointed – Founded
• Hiring manager assessed and proposed the appointee’s candidacy without disclosing the nature of their relationship
• Sub-delegated manager favoured appointee in an external non-advertised appointment process
• Improper conduct that affected the selection of a student