# 2019-253 Harassment, Harassment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-05-25

The grievor challenged the findings of a situational assessment (SA) into a harassment complaint he filed against the Responsible Officer (RO) of a previous harassment complaint. As redress, he requested that his harassment complaint be re-opened and assigned to a different investigator. There was no Initial Authority decision.

The Committee found that RO in the previous harassment complaint carefully considered the grievor's submissions and gave him the opportunity to submit additional information. It also found no evidence of actual or reasonably apprehended bias by the RO. Consequently, it found that the harassment process was procedurally fair.

Regarding the SA's findings, the Committee agreed that the RO's investigation into the grievor's previous harassment complaint did not equal improper conduct. It also agreed there was no evidence that the RO knew, or ought to have known, that his delay in separating the grievor “administratively and hierarchically” from his alleged harassers would cause him offence or harm. Accordingly, it concurred with the SA findings that the RO's actions did not equal harassment as defined in the Department of National Defence Harassment Prevention and Resolution Instructions.

The Committee found that the grievor was not aggrieved and recommended that the Final Authority (FA) not afford the requested redress.

FA decision summary

The Acting Chief of the Defence Staff agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation not to afford the grievor redress.