NC-091 - Harassment

The Appellant and the Alleged Harasser had multiple exchanges over a period of months. Some of the exchanges concerned the Appellant’s deteriorating health and availability to work. The Alleged Harasser allegedly made the Appellant feel bad for needing medical leave, jeopardized his recovery, told him he was unfit for policing, accused him of misleading a doctor and yelled at him in the presence of other members, among other things.

The Appellant presented a harassment complaint (Complaint). It briefly described five alleged incidents of harassment. It also named Inspector (Insp. A) as a witness. The Alleged Harasser filed a response to the Complaint, and attached several supporting documents. He agreed that someone should speak to Insp. A, who was present during one incident and may have already looked into others. Insp. A also handed over documentation relating to an incident. The Respondent did not order an investigation into the Complaint. Moreover, the Appellant was not invited to supply further details about his Complaint, or address the Alleged Harasser’s or Insp. A’s information.

The Respondent concluded that the alleged incidents did not amount to harassment (Decision). The Appellant lodged an appeal. He suggested that a deeper inquiry into his Complaint was necessary, and that he could have provided further helpful information. He also believed that the Decision was based on flawed assumptions, misunderstandings and inaccuracies that an investigation could have rectified. The Appellant ultimately resigned from the RCMP.

ERC Findings

The ERC found that the Decision was reached in a procedurally unfair manner. If a decision-maker decides a harassment complaint without ordering an investigation, because they believe there is sufficient information before them, the process must be fair. A complainant must be given an opportunity to fully explain their side of the story and respond to the alleged harasser’s version of events, before a final decision is made. The Appellant’s inability to supplement his Complaint (e.g., via an interview or statement), to reply to the Alleged Harasser’s version of events, or to address Insp. A’s documentation resulted in a process that was procedurally unfair. The ERC also found the Decision to be clearly unreasonable because it was based on information that was not complete enough to provide a supporting rational or tenable line of analysis. In addition to interviewing the Appellant, speaking to Insp. A would have enabled the Respondent to more meaningfully assess multiple aspects of the Complaint. Two other witnesses could also have helped to clarify what happened during an incident. The ERC found that, although the Appellant is no longer a member, the appropriate remedy is to order an investigation and render a new decision that meaningfully addresses the Complaint. Regardless of the outcome, this will help to ensure the Appellant’s case is, and is seen to be, fairly and thoroughly reviewed.

ERC Recommendations

The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed, and that the matter be remitted for a new decision with a direction to order an investigation into the Complaint.

Commissioner of the RCMP Decision dated August 15, 2022

The Commissioner’s decision, as summarized by her office, is as follows:

The Appellant appeals the Respondent’s decision finding that the allegations of harassment, made by the Appellant against the Alleged Harasser, were not established. The Appellant accused the Alleged Harasser of making remarks about his medical leave; preventing him from leaving his duty area, criticizing and yelling at him; and, contacting his father in order to share sensitive information.

The Appellant filed a Harassment Complaint against the Alleged Harasser. He claimed that the Alleged Harasser’s handling of his request for medical leave made the Appellant feel humiliated, belittled, demeaned, and threatened. The Respondent in this matter concluded that the Appellant’s Complaint was unfounded and that an investigation into the allegations would not be necessary, as the offending behaviour did not constitute harassment. The Respondent issued
a Record of Decision where she determined that harassment was not established.

The Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal, claiming that the decision was reached in a manner that contravened the principles of procedural fairness and is clearly unreasonable. He argued that an investigation into his allegations was necessary because there was not a rational basis to make a finding that harassment did not occur without such an investigation. He also argued that it was procedurally unfair not to afford him an opportunity to respond to the Alleged Harasser’s evidence and submissions in response to the Complaint.

The appeal was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) and in a Report containing Findings and Recommendations, the ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed on the grounds that the decision was reached in a manner that was not procedurally fair since the Respondent did not provide the Appellant the opportunity to submit evidence and to receive submissions made by the Alleged Harasser and other parties, and was not provided an
opportunity to reply to those submissions either. Furthermore, the ERC found that the decision was clearly unreasonable because the Respondent lacked evidence or a rational basis for her conclusions and was incorrect to suggest an investigation was unnecessary in the circumstances. The ERC recommended an investigation be mandated and that the relevant witnesses be contacted.

Having considered the facts of the matter, the applicable statutory provisions, and the relevant jurisprudence, the Adjudicator concurred with the findings of the ERC and allowed the appeal. The Adjudicator mandated an investigation into the complaint of harassment.

Page details

Date modified: