# 2017-149 Harassment, Claims Against the Crown, Harassment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2018-10-18

The grievor was not satisfied with the outcome of her complaint of harassment and contended that it was flawed by gender bias and a failure to comply with the relevant policies and procedures. As redress she sought administrative and/or disciplinary action against the respondent, a restoration of a harassment free workplace, a written apology, and financial compensation.

There was no Initial Authority (IA) decision as the IA was unable to render a decision within the prescribed time limit, and the grievor requested that the Final Authority consider and determine the grievance.

The Committee first addressed the issue of gender bias, finding that the grievor had failed to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that her protected characteristic was a factor in the Responsible Officer's (RO) handling of her harassment complaint. The Committee concluded that the grievor had not provided persuasive evidence of gender bias and had not established a case of prima facie discrimination.

The Committee then examined the actions and decisions of the RO in how he administered the harassment complaint lodged by the grievor and found that the RO met his responsibilities under the harassment policy. The Committee recommended that both grievances be denied.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), as Final Authority, disagreed with the Committee's recommendation to deny the grievance. The CDS agreed that there was no evidence of discrimination based on the grievor's gender. He explained that the Responsible Officer was not required to share the details of the remedial measures taken against the respondent under the Harassment prevention and resolution guidelines. However, he directed an ex gratia payment on the basis of additional information received after the Committee had issued its findings and recommendations showing that the grievor's file was mishandled. He stated that he could not grant the redress sought because a workplace review was no longer feasible. He also found that ordering another member to apologize would be contrary to the freedom of expression. The CDS also found that ordering any administrative action and/or a rewritten Personnel evaluation report for the commanding officer would be moot because the PERs for 2016/2017 would not be considered for promotion and career boards.