# 2023-052 Harassment, Harassment, Ex gratia, Procedural Fairness

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-11-29

The grievor contested four administrative closure letters issued on 6 July 2022, related to his harassment complaints against four senior officers. He argued that the process lacked procedural fairness, as he was not given an opportunity to review the Respondents' statements or the Responsible Officer's (RO) drafts before final decisions were made. The grievor claimed that the Administrative Closure letters failed to address the seriousness of his allegations, to provide reasoning for the findings, or to investigate the public removal of his security pass. Additionally, the grievor alleged that the handling of his complaints damaged his reputation within the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), caused medical issues, and further impeded his transition to civilian employment. As redress, he requested an official apology and an ex gratia payment. 

The Director of the Canadian Forces Grievance Authority determined that, given the member's request for an ex gratia payment as redress for his grievance, and considering that only the Chief of Defence Staff can approve such payment, this grievance will 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 reviewed the grievances, consolidating them due to significant overlap, and evaluated the handling of each complaint. For the complaints against two of the Respondents, the Committee agreed with the RO that the alleged actions, while unpleasant to the grievor, did not constitute harassment under CAF policies. However, the Committee found significant procedural issues in the handling of complaints against two other Respondents. Situational assessments by the RO determined that several allegations met the CAF's definition of harassment, but these findings were reversed in the Administrative Closure letters without explanation, and the grievor was denied procedural fairness, such as access to draft findings or evidence supporting the decisions. Furthermore, the Committee noted that the promised investigation into the revocation of the grievor's security pass had not been conducted, compounding the procedural flaws.

The Committee recommended that the FA sets aside the Administrative Closure letter concerning the harassment complaint against one of the Respondent and that the grievor be provided with full disclosure of all investigations related to another Respondent's actions, including the security pass revocation. Should insufficient information be available, the Committee recommended that a thorough investigation be conducted to determine whether harassment occurred and to assess the validity of the grievor's claims regarding career impacts. While the grievor requested an ex gratia payment, the Committee found the current evidence insufficient to support such a recommendation. However, the Committee recommended that this request be reassessed following the completion of a comprehensive investigation.