Summaries of Investigation – Section 69 – Fraud

The term “fraud” is not defined in the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA). In November 2012, the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Seck v. Canada (Attorney General) [2012] FCA 314, articulates the following definition of fraud in an appointment process under the PSEA. The Commission has since been using this definition in the course of investigations pursuant to section 69 of the PSEA:

• “Fraud thus has two essential elements: (1) dishonesty, which can include non-disclosure of important facts; and (2) deprivation or risk of deprivation. Dishonesty is established where deceit, lies or other fraudulent means are knowingly used in an appointment process. This may include the non-disclosure or concealment of important facts in circumstances that would be viewed by a reasonable person as dishonest. […] the victim of fraud is not required to prove that the fraudulent acts caused actual injury or loss. With regard to section 69 of the PSEA, to prove the second element, it therefore suffices to establish that the appointment process could have been compromised.”