# 2019-021 Harassment, Operation HONOUR

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-12-15

The grievor challenged his chain of command (CoC)'s administration of harassment complaints naming him as the respondent, as well as his subsequent relief from the performance of military duty, cancellation of his period of Class “B” reserve service, denial of training opportunities and separation from the rest of his unit. The Initial Authority was unable to render a decision within the statutory time limit.

The Committee found that the grievor's CoC did not provide the grievor with a sufficiently detailed description of the harassment allegations that would have enabled him to provide a meaningful response, nor did it initiate or document a situational assessment, appoint the grievor a harassment advisor, or advise the grievor of the results of a harassment investigation. For all these reasons, the Committee found that the grievor's CoC did not administer the harassment complaints in accordance with the Harassment Prevention and Resolution Guidelines in effect at the time.

The Committee also found that grievor's CoC did not comply with applicable policy in relieving the grievor from the performance of military duty, cancelling his period of Class “B” Reserve Service, denying him required training opportunities and separating him from his unit.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) direct that all references to the relief from the performance of military duty be removed from the grievor's personnel records, that the grievor be allowed to compete for future Class “B” Reserve Service opportunities and that he be loaded on the next available required training course. In addition, the Committee recommended that the FA ensure that no further action be taken on the harassment complaints, and that the grievor be issued a letter of closure in the complaints.

FA decision summary

The Chef of the Defence Staff (CDS) partially agreed with the Committee's findings and agreed with the recommendations. The CDS founds that following the court martial termination, and to comply with procedural fairness, the grievor's Commanding Officer (CO) should have made a decision concerning the harassment complaints by either initiating a formal harassment investigation or closing the harassment complaints with formal letters of closure. This was not done and therefore, the harassment process was not properly followed. The CDS issued orders to ensure that the administration of the harassment complaints against the grievor be properly closed.

The CDS also acknowledged that the grievor's CO had no authority to relieve him from the performance of Military Duty/Removal from the workplace under Defence Administrative Orders and Directives 5019-5 (Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Disorders). However, considering the unit limitations, it was cautious to remove the grievor from the work environment during the investigations since there were reasonable grounds to believe that he could be in direct contact with the complainants. The CDS directed that all references to the letter regarding the Notice of Relief of Military Duty and Termination of Class "B" ordered by the CO be removed from the grievor's personnel records, that the grievor's unit be formally advised that the grievor is entitled to compete for future Class “B” without prejudice, that he be loaded on a primary leadership qualification course in accordance with normal procedure, and a letter be issued clearly indicating that no harassment investigation was concluded and that the matter is now closed.

The CDS directed the Surgeon General to ensure the grievor be provided with an opportunity to request a review of the professional review board (PRB) decision with a waiver of the 60-day time limitation upon receipt of his communication to decide to do so. The CDS added that since a PRB carries important, consequential career implications and, to ensure professional and legal obligations are satisfied, the CDS directed that the Surgeon General ensure a review of the rules under which a PRB may be conducted. The review will determine the circumstances under which the Standard of Practice Review Board will order its own investigations, applicable standards of the documents and evidence accepted and the procedure to advise recipients. Once completed, the applicable instruction will undergo a review to ensure the steps and obligations leading to a PRB are compliant with professional and legal obligations.

The CDS concluded that since he was granting the grievor administrative remedies, he is not authorized to award him an ex gratia payment.