# 2024-055 Careers, Counselling and Probation, Remedial Measures, Sexual Misconduct

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-02-12

The grievor, an instructor, challenged the counselling and probation (C&P) imposed on them after they made a remark about a female candidate during a field exercise. According to the Canadian Armed Forces, this remark contravened Defence Administrative Order and Directive (DAOD) 9005 1, Sexual Misconduct Response. In the grievance, the grievor maintained that they had never intended their remark to have a sexual connotation or be taken out of context. The grievor also said that the candidate had not wanted to file a complaint. They alleged that the person in charge of the disciplinary investigation had sought to insinuate, in their questions, that the grievor's remark was sexual in nature. As redress, the grievor asked to have the C&P removed from their file. 

The Initial Authority denied the grievance on the grounds that the grievor had admitted to making the remark in question and that it met the definition of sexual misconduct as per DAOD 9005 1. 

After reviewing the information in the file and the applicable policies, the Committee found that the definition of sexual misconduct set out in paragraph 2 of DAOD 9005 1 is unequivocal: Sexual misconduct is conduct that causes or could cause harm, including actions or words that devalue others on the basis of their sex, regardless of the sex or gender of the person behind the conduct. The intent of the person who committed the misconduct does not need to be demonstrated: They should have known that the remark made in this context was inappropriate. 

Consequently, the Committee found that the remark made by the grievor and the context in which it was made were sufficiently serious to justify the choice of remedial measure. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not grant the grievor the redress requested.