# 2024-053 Harassment, Harassment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-12-19

The grievor grieved the handling of a harassment complaint she submitted to her chain of command (CoC) several days before her compulsory release from the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). In her complaint, she had alleged that she had received reprisals and threats from some of her superiors while she was experiencing health issues. Following her release, the grievor had received a letter of administrative closure in which it was determined that the allegations did not meet the definition of harassment under Defence Administrative Order and Directive (DAOD) 5012 0. The grievor contested the fact that she had not received any updates on her complaint before her release, as such updates would have enabled her to seek recourse through a grievance. She also grieved the role of the Commandant of the Canadian Forces Logistics Training Centre, who she claimed acted both as the delegated authority for her release and as the Responsible Officer (RO) for her harassment complaint. As redress, the grievor requested that an independent authority review her complaint. The Initial Authority (IA) denied her grievance, stating that it was a harassment complaint and not a grievance. 

The Committee reviewed the handling times and found that although the grievor had submitted her complaint shortly before her release, the Commandant could have accelerated the analysis, as the results of the summary evaluation were available before she was released. However, the RO's response time was not unreasonable in itself considering the time normally required to analyze a complaint. With regard to the Commandant's dual role, the Committee determined that there was no inherent conflict of interest because the policies allow the Commandant to act as both the RO and as the decision maker in releases. 

After analyzing the harassment complaint, the Committee found that it had not been handled in accordance with the applicable policies. First, the IA's decision to deny the grievance was erroneous since the grievor was grieving the handling time of her harassment complaint, which constitutes a decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the CAF as provided for in subsection 29(1) of the National Defence Act. The reported behaviours, including bullying, degrading remarks and threats, fall under the definition of harassment in DAOD 5012 0. The Committee also criticized the lack of empathy shown by the CoC toward the grievor, who was going through a difficult time during this period. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority recognize the harm suffered by the grievor and consider granting an ex gratia payment as compensation for the inappropriate handling of her harassment complaint.