# 2024-285 Harassment, Harassment, Harassment Prevention and Resolution Instructions – Procedural Fairness Principles, Situational Assessment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-07-07

2024-281 and 2024-283

The grievor grieved the administration of her historical sexual assault (HSA) complaint, the chain of command's (CoC) handling of the workplace conflict that she was experiencing in her unit, the administration of her harassment complaints, and her removal from her unit.

The Initial Authority (IA) rejected the grievances as it was determined that the grievances were not submitted within the appropriate timelines. The IA also indicated they were unable to make a determination as the grievances did not clearly indicate what act, decision or omission was being aggrieved.

2024-282, 2024-284 and 2024-285

The grievor grieved the administration of three separate harassment complaints. The grievor contested the findings of the Situational Assessments  that were completed for these complaints, particularly that it was determined that the harassment criteria were not met because the statements were not made directly to her. The grievor maintained that though the statements were not said to her, they had direct impact on her and, as such, her complaints of harassment should be deemed founded.

The IA denied the grievances as it was determined that the grievor was treated fairly and in accordance with regulations and policies. The IA found that because the statements made by the Respondents were not made specifically to the grievor, they were considered “hearsay”. As such, the IA determined that the Responsible Officer correctly interpreted and analyzed the criteria in accordance with Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) 5012-0, Harassment Prevention and Resolution.

The Committee addressed all five grievances in one response. 

Regarding the administration of the HSA complaint, the Committee reviewed DAOD 9005-1, Sexual Misconduct Response, and found that the CoC took the appropriate action to address the complaint when they were made aware of it. 

With respect to the workplace conflict, the Committee reviewed Cadet Administrative and Training Orders (CATO) 13-24, Harassment Prevention and Resolution, and noted that the Officer Commanding took adequate steps to address the conflict by conducting a fact-finding investigation, attempting Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and actioning the grievor's harassment complaints. However, the Committee found that the decision to remove the grievor from her position and transfer her to another unit after ADR was unsuccessful was not made in accordance with policy and was therefore invalid. The Committee noted that the grievor had no discipline or remedial measures imposed on her and there was no evidence that the grievor was found guilty of harassment, poor performance or poor conduct throughout the conflict or process of conflict resolution. The grievor was not relieved from the performance of her military duty as per the process under the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces 19.75 and she was not subject of an Administrative Review. Further, the Committee pointed out that the relevant policies do not allow the CoC to transfer a Cadet Organization's Administrative and Training Services officer without their consent. 

With respect to the grievor's harassment complaints, the Committee found that as per CATO 13-24, the criteria which stipulate that the behaviour must constitute improper conduct and that the individual must have known or ought reasonably to have known that the alleged behaviour would cause offence or harm, were not met. As such, the Committee stated that the situation depicted was a consequence of the workplace conflict but did not amount to harassment against the grievor.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority afford the grievor redress by restoring her position with close monitoring of conduct and pursuit of appropriate administrative actions should that conduct fall below acceptable standards.