# 2012-040 Harassment, Harassment, Release - Compulsory, Repatriation, Reserve Force

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–10–10

The grievor, a member of the Reserve Force, was deployed to Afghanistan on a period of Class C Reserve service. He was subsequently repatriated on performance and conduct grounds, was denied the General Campaign Star medal and was ultimately released from the Canadian Forces (CF). Prior to his release, the grievor submitted a harassment complaint against his Commanding Officer (CO) that included eight allegations, including abuse of authority, verbal abuse and accusations, demeaning remarks and comments and the submission of inaccurate information to higher command leading to his repatriation and release.

The Responsible Officer (RO) conducted a Situational Assessment (SA) of the harassment complaint and determined that none of the allegations met the definition of harassment. Consequently, the RO decided not to investigate the complaint. The grievor then submitted a grievance contesting the RO’s decision and disputing the rationale used by the RO to determine that there were no grounds to conduct a harassment investigation.

The Board had to determine whether the SA was conducted in accordance with the applicable policy, the Harassment Prevention and Resolution Guidelines (the Guidelines), whether an investigation should have been ordered as a result, and whether one was still required.

The initial authority (IA) in this case, the Chief of the Land Staff (CLS), determined that two of the allegations met the definition of harassment and should have prompted an investigation. However, the IA concluded that it was not be in the best interests of the CF to order an investigation into these two allegations because the grievor no longer worked with the CO.

In examining the RO’s SA the Board determined that it was not conducted in accordance with the Guidelines. The Board pointed out, for example, that the RO erred by considering the CO’s explanation for his actions rather than simply testing the allegations, as stated by the grievor, against the definition of harassment as required by section 4.3 of the Guidelines. The Board concluded that the RO’s SA, and his decision not to investigate the complaint, were both flawed. The Board observed the same shortcomings in the SA conducted by the IA and determined it to be flawed as well.

Conducting its own SA in accordance with the requirements of section 4.3 of the Guidelines, the Board found that seven of the eight allegations, as stated, met the definition of harassment.

In considering whether a harassment investigation was still required, the Board concluded that the grievor was ultimately released from the CF because the CO initiated the grievor’s repatriation and recommended his release. Therefore, the Board was of the view that the grievor’s allegations of abuse of authority against the CO, if founded, could invalidate the grievor’s compulsory release.

Accordingly, the Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff partially uphold the grievance by directing that a harassment investigation be undertaken to determine whether the grievor’s allegations have merit. Should the investigation results support the grievor’s allegations, the Board further recommended that the CF take appropriate action to correct the grievor’s service records and facilitate his return to Reserve service should he wish.

Finally, the Board recommended that the IA, the CLS, be advised regarding the proper way to conduct a SA in accordance with the harassment Guidelines.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–07–03

The CDS partially agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations. The CDS agreed with the Committee that most of the allegations met the definition of harassment; he reviewed these allegations and found that harassment occurred. Consequently, the CDS was of the view that considering his conclusions, an investigation was no longer required; any actions that he considered with regards to the CO's behaviour will be taken up directly with his chain of command. Based on the fact that the grievor refused to respond to a lawful order combined with the probability that the grievor participated in appropriate activities while in operations, the CDS found that the decisions to repatriate and to release him were reasonable. The CDS agreed with the Committee's recommendation that the IA be informed of the proper way to conduct an SA. Finally, since the CDS found that the unit CO failed to fulfill his responsibilities towards the grievor, he shared this letter with the Provost Marshall to ensure that he communicates his expectations on the treatment of the combat veterans to his units.