# 2023-034 Harassment, Harassment, Ex gratia, Procedural Fairness

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-12-12

The grievor contested the handling of a harassment complaint she had made against her superior. She alleged that the Administrative Closure letter did not adequately address the severity of her harassment complaint. She claimed that the process lacked transparency and failed to follow applicable regulations. The grievor argued that procedural fairness was not upheld, citing instances of bias by the Responsible Officer (RO). Specifically, she contended that she was not allowed to verify or rebut witness statements before the decision was made, nor did she receive written statements from the Respondent. Additionally, she asserted that the RO relied too heavily on the Respondent's account without conducting a thorough investigation, leading to a misinterpretation of her complaint. The grievor believed that the mishandling of her complaint violated her rights and caused her significant mental and emotional distress. As redress, she requested the removal of the RO from his position pending further investigation to prevent a culture of silence and lack of accountability. She also sought both an official apology from the Respondent and an ex gratia payment for the personal consequences encountered. 

Following the recommendation of the Director of the Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, it was determined that, given the member's request for an ex gratia payment as redress for her grievance — and noting that only the Chief of Defence Staff can approve such a payment—this grievance would be forwarded directly to the Final Authority (FA) in accordance with subsection 7.13(c) of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. 

The Committee found that the Situational Assessment conducted by the RO adhered to the procedural requirements set out by the Harassment Prevention and Resolution Instructions (HPRI). However, the Committee identified deficiencies in the Administrative Closure letter. Specifically, the RO failed to provide the grievor with a clear and comprehensive summary of the Respondent's response to the allegations, and the grievor was not given the opportunity to contest the findings as required by the HPRI. Consequently, the Committee concluded that the harassment complaint had not been handled properly and procedural fairness was not fully respected. Despite this, the Committee noted that the grievor and the Respondent were both released from the Canadian Armed Forces, and no further interactions or conflict remained between them. As a result, the Committee found that there was no current dispute to resolve, and reopening the case would not lead to a tangible impact. Regarding the grievor's request for an ex gratia payment, the Committee acknowledged the difficulties faced by the grievor but determined that the request was not substantiated by the facts provided. The Committee recommended that the FA deny the grievor's request for redress.