# 2024-271 Harassment, Harassment, Medical Condition, Medical Record

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-03-11

After completing his Basic Military Officer Qualification, the grievor filed a harassment complaint against an instructor, alleging behaviour that he perceived as racist, mocking and discriminatory on a language basis. He also stated that some instructors in charge of his training exchanged emails about his mental health and that of his family. In addition, the grievor maintained that his chain of command (CoC) had failed in its duty to assist when he was going through a period of psychological distress. As redress, the grievor requested that disciplinary measures be imposed on the individuals in question, and that leadership training be implemented (2024-272). Following the filing of the grievance, the commanding officer ordered that a harassment investigation be conducted. The investigation concluded that the reported facts did not meet the definition of harassment as set out in Defence Administrative Orders and Directives 5012-0. During this period, the grievor was placed on sick leave. He nevertheless stated that he had been psychologically harassed by a superior, who allegedly communicated with him on several occasions to inquire about his health. In relation to this conduct, the grievor requested, among other remedial measures, written apologies from the individuals in question and compensation in damages and interest for the harm suffered (2024-271). Finally, the grievor maintained that after he filed his harassment grievance, some members of his CoC allegedly conducted an investigation on their own, during which they illegally accessed his medical file. The grievor alleged that his file was consulted without his consent, in violation of privacy regulations, in order to gather his medical and personal information. In this regard, the grievor requested an official apology and the imposition of disciplinary measures on the respondents (2024-051). 

The Initial Authority (IA) rejected the grievor's request because the grievor had not demonstrated that the CoC had acted improperly in the first two files. In addition, the IA pointed out that the third grievance had not been filed within the required time frame, and that the subject of the grievance had already been dealt with in its decisions concerning the other files. 

The Committee found that the grievor had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his CoC had failed to provide him with the required assistance, or that some colleagues had behaved in a derogatory manner toward him. Furthermore, the investigation conducted into these allegations concluded that they were unfounded (2024-272). The Committee also determined that the grievor had not demonstrated that his superior was not entitled to communicate with him while he was on sick leave. Moreover, the Committee found that it had been necessary to communicate with the grievor in order to coordinate his benefits and medical care (2024-271). As regards the allegations about unauthorized access to the grievor's medical file, the Committee also found that the grievor had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. Indeed, the grievor acknowledged having discussed his health problems and other personal issues with some members of the unit, which could explain why some of his peers were aware of various aspects of his medical information. Therefore, the Committee deemed that the grievor had not been aggrieved and recommended that the Final Authority not grant the redress requested. 

After being informed of the Committee's conclusions, the grievor asked to withdraw his grievances.