# 2021-123 Harassment, Harassment, Procedural Fairness

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-11-10

The grievor asserted that his two formal harassment complaints that he submitted against a Lieutenant-Colonel (LCol) and a Major (Maj) were not addressed properly and that he was not afforded procedural fairness. The grievor maintained that the Responsible Officer (RO) did not provide reasons as to why the grievor's allegations did not meet the definition of harassment, and he asserted that his complaints should have been treated as a whole because the various incidents alleged were closely connected. The grievor indicated various issues with the Situational Assessment (SA) and also questioned the RO's statement that a workplace conflict between the grievor and the respondents existed, since no reports from the respondents or investigations are on file.

The Initial Authority (IA) found that the decision reached by the RO was made in accordance with the Canadian Armed Forces harassment policy and that the principles of procedural fairness had been respected. The IA explained that the RO conducted the SA applying the proper test and determined that the harassment allegations submitted by the grievor did not meet the definition of harassment. The IA indicated that the policy does not direct the RO to explain their decisions but understands how not including additional details could have been frustrating to the grievor, but that the lack of written reasons does not constitute a lack of procedural fairness. The IA explained that although the RO did not assess the situation described by the grievor as harassment, he felt compelled to have both respondents counselled. Accordingly, the IA believed that this was sufficient in the circumstances and that the RO's decision not to progress beyond the SA was reasonable. The IA partially granted the grievor redress in that he requested the support of the Canadian Armed Forces Transition Units in Ottawa in ensuring that no documents with regard to the harassment complaints, redress of grievance or anything related to the unit be inserted in the grievor's personnel file.

The Committee found that three of the grievor's allegations of harassment made against the LCol and four of the harassment allegations made against the Maj, as stated by the grievor, could constitute harassment and warrant a harassment investigation into the allegations. The Committee also found that the RO decision not to order a harassment investigation for any of the harassment complaints was not reasonable. Furthermore, the Committee indicated that the lack of an explanation for why the RO did not order a harassment investigation was also not compliant with the applicable policy.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff, as Final Authority, agreed with the Committee that the Situation Assessments were inadequate, and he conducted new ones. For the LCol respondent, he agreed with the Committee that the first and third allegations met the criteria for harassment, but disagreed with the Committee on the fourth allegation, finding that the incident constituted the proper exercise of authority. For the Maj respondent, he agreed with the Committee that the second allegation met the criteria for harassment, but disagreed with the Committee on the first, third, and fifth allegations, finding that they did not. However, given the passage of time since the 2019 incidents, the FA rejected the Committee's 2021 recommendation to direct that a harassment investigation be conducted, stating that it would not produce reliable results. He did not grant redress.