# 2017-086 Harassment, Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service (COATS), Class A Reserve Service, Harassment, Situational Assessment

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2017–12–22

After being placed on Initial Counselling (IC) for conduct deficiencies, the grievor was also denied Class (Cl) “A” employment opportunities. She successfully grieved the IC, and in his decision, the Final Authority also stated that the denial of Cl “A” employment was also unfair. This decision prompted the grievor to submit two separate grievances concerning denials of employment. She subsequently submitted a third grievance in which she disagreed with the findings of the Responsible Officer (RO) concerning a harassment complaint she had made against her Commanding Officer.

The Initial Authority (IA) determined that the reason the grievor had not been approved for Cl “A” service had been clearly identified in the IC and he found that decision to be reasonable. A different IA reviewed the harassment complaint and found the RO's assessment that the grievor's allegations were unfounded was objective and the decision to close the file was justified.

The Committee found that the grievor had been unfairly denied Cl “A” employment on a number of occasions. The Committee also found that, although many of the actions complained of in the harassment complaint did not meet the definition of harassment, the denial of Cl “A” constituted an abuse of authority and this allegation of harassment was therefore founded.

The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) acknowledge the unfair treatment the grievor had been subjected to and consider granting an ex gratia payment to the grievor for the missed employment opportunities.

FA decision summary

The CDS partially agrees with the Committee's findings and recommendation. The CDS did not find that some actions regarding a letter as “stalling and obfuscation” and “obstruction”. The CDS also disagreed with the Committee's finding that in an email, the DCOS attempted to discourage the grievor from submitting a harassment complaint. The CDS did not find the email from the grievor as being a clear complaint of harassment against the Commanding Officer, but he found it to be a general letter of complaint, as the grievor had titled it, and not a harassment complaint. Although the DCOS' tone may have been inappropriate, there is no suggestion of interference in the process. Otherwise, the CDS acknowledges that the grievor was not treated as a CAF member should have been treated and he agrees with the Committee's findings regarding, amongst others, the non respect of the harassment complaint process. While the Committee recommended that an ex-gratia payment be considered to remedy the grievor's loss of income and the way she was treated, the CDS concludes that an ex-gratia payment is a benevolent payment and cannot be used to make awards for claimed damages. However, as part of settlement for other grievances, the grievor accepted an amount for “non-pecuniary" damages, thus, the grievor has already received payment as remedy for these items. The CDS also accepted the grievor's request that records referring to her employment restriction be expunged because it was procedurally unfair as the grievor did not receive fulsome reasons for it.