# 2024-170 Harassment, Harassment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-12-09

The grievor contested the Responsible Officer's (RO) determination of his harassment complaint on the grounds that their review process failed to adhere to the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice. The grievor asserted that his complaint was the culmination of his attempt to deal with the respondent's unethical behaviour, which resulted in threats, intimidation, and retaliation against him. As redress, the grievor requested an impartial reassessment of the Administrative Closure of his complaint by a higher authority and an investigation to verify the occurrence of harassment. 

The Commander Military Personnel Command, acting as the Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance stating that, pursuant to paragraph 6.2 of the Harassment Prevention Resolution Instructions (HPRI), a commander can assess a harassment complaint and determine the best path to address it. The IA asserted that the process followed was acceptable and did not require the same level of procedural fairness. The IA concluded that the RO had exercised his authority appropriately and within the provisions of the HPRI.

The Committee determined that the RO had assessed the grievor's allegations in a fragmented manner, as individual incidents examined in isolation. This approach failed to account for the synergy of behaviours described, as well as the broader context in which they occurred. Consequently, the Committee found that the RO did not adequately consider the totality of circumstances or the potential cumulative effects of the alleged conduct on the grievor and therefore, the Situational Assessment (SA) should be set aside. Furthermore, the Committee also determined that the RO had concluded that harassment had not occurred based on the respondent's representations to the complaint, including witness testimony, despite the absence of disclosure to and representations from the grievor, which did not meet the procedural fairness requirements. As a result, the Committee found that the RO's decision and letter of Administrative Closure were inadequate and therefore, should be set aside. The Committee recommended that the grievance be granted affording the grievor redress by setting aside both the SA and letter of Administrative Closure. The Committee further recommended that the Final Authority find that the definition of harassment had been met for both allegations presented, and a proper harassment investigation be conducted.