# 2024-332 Harassment, Harassment, Discrimination

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-01-05

The grievor contested the Situational Assessment (SA) and the delays in the process for dealing with his harassment complaint regarding comments made about him. The grievor alleged that the principles of procedural fairness had not been complied with. Among other things, he claimed that the Responsible Officer (RO) had deliberately delayed the processing of his complaint. The grievor requested that a thorough investigation be conducted, that appropriate action be taken to prevent similar situations, and that compensatory damages be paid to him.

The Initial Authority (IA) concluded that procedural errors had occurred during a second SA, as the RO had taken the respondent's version into consideration, even though it should have been considered later in the process. In addition, the IA found that the respondent had omitted some elements in his version regarding one of the allegations, which had an impact on the processing of the complaint. However, the IA concluded that there was shared responsibility for the delays in processing the complaint, as the RO had not acted within the prescribed time limits and the complainant was late in responding. The IA recommended that the process be restarted from the beginning with another RO in order to ensure a fair, equitable and transparent process.

The Committee concluded that there had been procedural errors. The first step in the SA is to attempt to establish whether the criteria for harassment have been met, based solely on the information received from the complainant. If so, the RO then determines the next steps to take, including whether an investigation is necessary. In this case, the RO took the respondent's version into account during the SA and did not distinguish between the SA and how he wanted to follow up on the complaint. However, there was no conclusive evidence in the file that showed it was anything other than an unintended error on the part of the RO due to a misunderstanding of the applicable provisions. The Committee also noted that the responsibility for the delay in processing the complaint was shared. 

However, in light of the information in the file, the Committee decided that it was unnecessary to restart the process from the beginning, first because the complainant had stated that he did not want to participate in it, but also because there was sufficient information available to arrive at a resolution encouraged by the policy. The Committee noted that the respondent had admitted to making the comments that were reported. Therefore, the complaint was founded, at least in part. In addition, the Committee noted that the behaviour had not been repeated after the respondent had been told by the complainant, before the filing of the complaint, to stop making such comments, which he deemed inappropriate. The respondent acknowledged his wrongdoing. Since the harassment policy encourages conflict resolution, informal if possible, at the lowest level, the Committee concluded that there was sufficient information to resolve the complaint without an investigation. Lastly, the Committee pointed out that the harassment resolution process and the military grievance process do not deal with claims for damages, whether compensatory, punitive or exemplary.

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