Investigation Report Summary

Sections 66 and 69 – Unfounded and Founded –– Fraud – False information regarding first official language

Authority: This investigation was conducted under sections 66 and 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:

• a candidate committed fraud in an appointment process by knowingly providing false information about their first official language
• the sub-delegated manager made an error or omission or engaged in improper conduct that affected the selection of the candidate for appointment, by signing a form containing inaccurate information about the language requirements of the position  

Conclusions: The investigation concluded that:

• the candidate committed fraud in the appointment process by knowingly providing false information about their first official language
• the sub-delegated manager made an error during the appointment process by signing aPersonnel Service Request form that contained inaccurate information regarding the language requirements of the position
  • however, it was determined that this error did not affect the selection of the candidate for appointment 

Facts: The language requirement of the position was bilingual - imperative BBB/BBB, meaning that the candidate needed a B level of reading, writing and oral language proficiency in their second official language and meet the proficiency in both official languages at the time of appointment. As the appointee indicated French as their first official language on their application form, the department requested a second language evaluation in English.

However, information in a Personnel Service Request form and in the public service human resources system suggests that the appointee’s first official language may be English. Also, records obtained from the Public Service Commission of Canada’s Personnel Psychology Centre show various second language evaluation results and discrepancies in the reported first official language of the appointee. In particular, records show both English and French as the appointee’s first official language, and second language evaluation results in both English and French. The appointee also had poor results in French.

During the investigation, the appointee testified that:

• English had always been their first official language
• they could not explain why their application showed French as the first official language and that it may have been a mistake
• they never took second language evaluation tests in English,  even though they did confirm that the partial date of birth and the personnel record identifier in the documents from the Personnel Psychology Centre was accurate 
• they understood that the appointment was to an English essential position (despite the information in the letter of offer)

The investigation found that the testimony of the appointee was not credible since the Personnel Psychology Centre’s records show that the appointee took second language evaluation tests in English and that the date of birth and personnel record identifier related to those records matched those of the appointee. The investigation concluded that:

• the appointee knowingly indicated French as their first official language and took second language evaluation tests in English in order to improve their chances for an appointment
• the appointee’s behaviour was dishonest and the appointment process was compromised since they were appointed to the position without meeting its language requirements

The second part of the investigation sought to determine whether the sub-delegated manager made an error during the appointment process by signing aPersonnel Service Request form that contained inaccurate information regarding the language requirements of the position.

The Personnel Service Request form signed by the sub-delegated manager indicated that the position requirement was English essential and that the appointee’s first official language was English. However, the Second Language Evaluation Scheduling form and the letter of offer show that the language requirements for the position is bilingual imperative BBB/BBB, that the appointee meets these language requirements and is entitled to a bilingual bonus.

The sub-delegated manager was unable to explain the difference in the information between the Personnel Service Request form, the Second Language Evaluation Scheduling form and the letter of offer. However, the manager believed that these differences may have been a mistake by the administrative staff and the HR advisor assigned to the staffing file.

The investigation showed that the sub-delegated manager made an error by signing a Personnel Service Request form containing inaccurate information. However, since the appointee’s letter of offer contained the appropriate information, the investigation concluded that the error by the sub-delegated manager did not affect the selection of the appointee.

Corrective action: Following the conclusion of fraud, the Commission ordered that:

• the appointment be revoked, and that the appointee cease to be employed in the federal public service
• for a period of 3 years, the appointee must obtain written approval from the Commission before accepting any position or work within the federal public service
  • failure to do so will result in revocation of any appointment
• for a period of 3 years, the appointee must notify the Commission of any casual or student employment 
  • failure to do so will result in the Commission notifying the deputy head of the fraud committed by the appointee by providing the deputy head with a copy of the investigation report and Record of Decision

Investigation File No.: 17-18-07