# 2024-080 Harassment, Deployment selection, Discrimination, Harassment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-02-12

The grievor filed a harassment complaint against her superior for uttering words suggesting to her that she had lost a deployment opportunity because she had a baby. The responsible officer (RO) examined the situation, in accordance with the Harassment Prevention and Resolution Instructions, and concluded that the grievor's allegation did not meet two of the six criteria of the harassment definition provided in paragraph 3.6 of Defence Administrative Order and Directive (DAOD) 5012-0. The grievor filed a grievance to contest the RO's findings, saying that the respondent's words were unacceptable given her rank and the serious repercussions on the grievor's mental health. As redress, the grievor requested that her harassment complaint be re-examined by an external entity.

The Initial Authority was unable to make a decision before the deadline. So, the grievance was referred to the Final Authority (FA).

The Committee explained that, given the context and the facts in the file, the respondent's words were not inappropriate, although they were negatively perceived by the grievor. The Committee found that, in the circumstances, the respondent reasonably could not have foreseen that her comments would be perceived as offensive or could cause harm. The Committee agreed with the RO's findings and concluded that two of the six criteria of the harassment definition had not been met and, as a result, the grievor's allegation did not fall within the harassment definition as per DAOD 5012-0. The Committee recommended that the FA not grant redress to the grievor.