# 2020-028 Harassment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-05-26

In two grievances the Committee consolidated into one, the grievor grieved an initial counselling (IC) issued to her for allegedly kissing a civilian guest of honour at a mess dinner, contrary to sexual misconduct policy. She also grieved the findings of a Situational Assessment (SA) into a harassment complaint she filed against a colleague. As redress, the grievor requested that the IC be removed from her personnel records, that her harassment complaint be acknowledged and that her colleague be subject to remedial and/or disciplinary action for his alleged harassment of her.

The Initial Authority (IA) in the IC grievance acknowledged several errors in its administration and directed the grievor's chain of command to attach a letter to that effect to the IC. In the harassment grievance, the IA found that the colleague's actions did not equal the definition of harassment.

The Committee examined the Military Police investigation into the mess dinner incident and noted that the civilian guest of honour denied that the grievor had kissed him in an inappropriate manner. In addition, the Committee found that contrary to Defence Administration Order and Directive 5019-4, Remedial Measures, the IC was issued six months after the mess dinner incident, its monitoring period was successfully completed before it was issued and the grievor was not provided with a detailed remedial plan or monitoring schedule. The Committee found that these fundamental errors warranted quashing the IC in its entirety.

Regarding the grievor's harassment complaint, the Committee conducted its own SA to determine if the colleague's actions met the harassment definition. The Committee found that the colleague's actions did not equal improper conduct that the colleague knew, or ought to have known, would cause the grievor offence or harm. Accordingly, the Committee found that the colleague's actions did not equal harassment.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) quash the IC and order the removal of all references to it from the grievor's personnel records. It also recommended that the FA not afford the grievor redress in respect to her harassment complaint.

FA decision summary

The FA, the acting Chief of the Defence Staff, accepted the Committee's findings and recommendation regarding the imposition of an IC presented to the grievor more than six months after the incident and recommended that it be removed from her personnel file. The FA added that a remedial measure had been wrongly imposed on the grievor for sexual misconduct when she should have been given one for her excessive alcohol consumption. However, taking into account that the grievor was proactive in addressing her problem with alcohol and that she had since been released from the Canadian Armed Forces, the FA concluded that it was not necessary to impose a new remedial measure. Regarding the harassment complaint, apart from a few minor differences in the assessment of the six criteria set out in the applicable provisions, the FA agreed with the Committee's finding that the definition of “harassment” had not been met, and he accepted the Committee's recommendation not to grant the grievor redress for that aspect.