# 2024-306 Harassment, Harassment, Bias, Situational Assessment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-12-11

The grievor disagreed with the Responsible Officer's (RO) Situational Assessment (SA), which found that her allegations did not meet the definition of harassment under Canadian Armed Forces policy. Specifically, she raised concerns that: her Commanding Officer did not discuss the complaint with her; the SA ignored the intent of her complaint; the assessment was biased, victim-blaming, and used inappropriate language; and the Respondent acted outside her authority by conducting a clandestine investigation. She requested that the harassment complaint be assessed by an independent investigator unconnected to her unit.

The Initial Authority (IA) found that the RO's SA was generally conducted in accordance with policy and that the grievor was treated fairly. However, the IA noted that the SA could have better explained that the Respondent's proper exercise of responsibilities related to performance evaluation and supervisory functions was not harassment, in line with the Harassment Prevention and Resolution Instructions (HPRI) and the RO's Guide to Harassment Prevention and Resolution Policy. The IA acknowledged that the criterion of whether the conduct was directed at the grievor had been improperly assessed. The IA denied redress.

After reviewing the case, the Committee concluded that the SA was measured and there was no evidence that the RO was biased. The Committee determined that that the grievor's allegations did not meet the definition of harassment in Defence Administrative Orders and Directives 5012-0, Harassment Prevention and Resolution, and the HPRI. The Committee found that the Respondent's actions were consistent with reasonable supervisory practices, and the grievor's discomfort with the method of assessment did not rise to the level of harassment. 

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.