# 2024-044 Harassment, Cease-Training

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-12-19

During his Basic Public Affairs Officer Course, the grievor did not pass certain performance checks, and the failures were subsequently reviewed by the Independent Review Board. During his course, the grievor received a medical note setting out certain limitations. After several failures, the head of the Defence Public Affairs Learning Centre (DPALC) terminated the grievor's training, referring him to Personnel Selection Services for career-related action. The grievor maintained that he had been treated unfairly and harshly during training because of his medical condition, which led to his removal a few days before the end of the course. He felt that he had been discriminated against because of his medical condition and that comments made to him by an instructor amounted to harassment. In addition, the grievor mentioned that his privacy had been violated when the chain of command had exchanged medical and training information with his doctor, without his consent.

The initial authority (IA) concluded that the grievor had not been aggrieved as he had been withdrawn from the course in accordance with the provisions in force, having failed at several stages of the training, despite authorized retakes and duly followed notification procedures. According to the IA, the DPALC personnel's request for information from the attending physician was intended solely to ensure that the grievor was medically fit to take the course, and had no bearing on him failing the training. Regarding the grievor's allegation that a DPALC instructor had made inappropriate comments about his health, the IA found that a review of the testimony gathered did not establish that the criteria for determining harassment had all been met.

The Committee found that the decision to withdraw the grievor from the training was made in accordance with the applicable provisions and reflected the grievor's performance during the training. In addition, the Committee found that returning the grievor to the unit was within the authority of the head of the DPALC and was reasonable in the circumstances. With regard to the allegations of harassment, the Committee found that there is no link in the evidence provided to establish a correlation between the alleged incident of harassment and the results of the grievor's course and consequently his withdrawal. Finally, the Committee found that it could not determine whether the grievor's privacy had in fact been violated, but concluded that the intention was to determine whether the below-expectation performance was attributable to his limitations, ability, efforts or other factors attributable to the grievor.

The Committee recommended that the final authority not grant the redress requested.