# 2014-040 - Harassment


Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–06–01

The grievor submitted a grievance seeking redress concerning to the handling of his harassment complaint by the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

The Initial Authority (IA) partially upheld the grievance while personally handling the harassment complaint and ordering an investigation. The IA rejected the other requests, notably those relating to the disclosure of the findings of a Regimental staff visit to the grievor's unit and the awarding of legal costs and an ex gratia payment.

Given that the grievor did not submit a grievance relating to the conclusions of the investigation report into his harassment complaint, the Committee had only to consider whether the requests denied by the IA should be upheld.

The Committee first of all concluded that it would be inappropriate to disclose the report drafted by the Regimental staff, since the sole purpose of this report had been to resolve a general situation in the unit and not a particular incident, ie, the grievor's allegations.

The Committee was of the opinion that the administrative deficiencies that came to light during the handling of the grievor's harassment complaint were not evidence of a systemic problem and concluded that there was no need to improve the process for offering assistance to CAF members making a harassment complaint.

On the issue of the grievor's legal costs, the Committee concluded that under Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) 2017-1, Military Grievance Process, the grievor was required to assume the legal costs arising from the grievance process and was therefore not entitled to reimbursement of those costs.

The Committee also concluded that the grievor should not receive an ex gratia payment, since DAOD 2017-1 expressly states that legal fees associated with the preparation of a grievance may not be claimed.

Finally, the Committee concluded that there was no justification for an ex gratia payment to compensate the grievor for inconvenience and damage to his reputation as it is the responsibility of the Director Claims and Civil Litigation to review the merits of such claims.

The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–03–16

The CDS is in agreement with the Committe's conclusion that the Commander acted properly in ordering a harassment investigation, in rendering a detailed decision and in recommending an administrative measure against the person named in the complaint. The CDS also agrees with the Committee's conclusion that the awarding of a payment for damages, ex gratia or other, is not warranted under the circumstances. However, the CDS does not agree with the Committee's conclusion that the disclosure of the report drafted by the Regimental staff would be inappropriate and he has decided to forward it to the complainant in the interests of justice.

Page details

Date modified: