# 2021-282 Harassment, Harassment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-04-26

The grievor disputed the decision of the Responsible Officer (RO) that her harassment complaint was unfounded. The grievor also argued that her Commanding Officer (CO) should not have acted as the RO because the respondent reported directly to him and because the CO had already responded to her Notice of Dissatisfaction (NoD) prior to the submission of her harassment complaint. As redress, the grievor requested that her complaint be reopened and examined by an unbiased RO.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied redress, finding that the harassment policy did not require that the respondent's representation be disclosed to the complainant, and that there had been no need for further investigation. The IA also found that bias on the part of the RO was not a concern as dealing with harassment complaints falls under the CO's leadership responsibilities.

The Committee first found that the reporting relationship between the respondent and the CO was not, in itself, evidence of bias. However, the CO's adjudication of both the NoD and the subsequent harassment complaint in this case introduced a reasonable apprehension of bias to this process.

The Committee also found that paragraph 3.7, Note 2, of the Defence Administrative Order and Directive 5012-0, which governs Canadian Armed Forces policy for harassment prevention and resolution, requires that all information informing the RO's decision be disclosed to the parties, and that an opportunity be provided to make representation. As such, the Committee found that the grievor was unfairly denied disclosure of the respondent's representation to her harassment complaint.

Regarding the decision of the RO to forego an investigation, the Committee found that there were conflicting statements made by the respondent regarding the grievor's allegations, and that the grievor had provided witnesses who might have attested to her version of events. Notwithstanding, the RO elected to accept the respondent's version of events by deciding not to investigate the grievor's claims. As such, the Committee found that the RO's decision to close the complaint without an investigation was not justified nor in accordance with the applicable provisions.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority afford the grievor redress by quashing the RO's determination [i.e. the letter of closure] and directing that the grievor's harassment complaint be reopened and assigned to an impartial RO with direction to engage a third party Harassment Investigator.