G-774 - Harassment

The Grievor filed a harassment complaint. The Respondent dismissed the complaint on the grounds that some of the allegations were untimely and others did not meet the definition of harassment. This decision led the Grievor to file four grievances. In the Early Resolution Phase, it was agreed that the Grievor would file a new complaint and that the Respondent would review it regardless of the time limit. The Respondent issued a new decision finding that the Grievor’s allegations in the new complaint did not meet the definition of harassment and that no investigation would be mandated.

The Grievor grieved the Respondent’s new decision. Before the Level I Adjudicator, the Grievor alleged a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and requested access to documents under the control of the RCMP as well as an investigation and the interviewing of witnesses. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the grounds that the Respondent’s decision was reasonable. He did not rule on the Grievor’s request for disclosure.

The Grievor submitted his grievance at Level II, where the issue of the time limit to file the grievance at that level was raised. The Respondent also alleged that the Grievor failed to explain how the Level I Adjudicator’s decision was unreasonable. 

The ERC found that the Grievor had sufficient explanation for his delay in filing his grievance at Level II. The ERC also found that there was no breach of procedural fairness in the Grievor’s alleged failure to receive a copy of certain documents to support the filing of his grievance. Finally, the ERC found that the Grievor, having failed to submit the necessary material, had not discharged his duty to demonstrate the merits of his grievance.  

The ERC recommended that the grievance be denied.

The Commissioner’s decision, as summarized by her office, is as follows:

[Translation]

The Grievor filed a grievance challenging the decision of the Respondent, the Commanding Officer of “X” Division, to dismiss his harassment complaint and not to mandate an investigation. The Level I Adjudicator denied grievance G-774 on the basis that the conduct, even if established, would not constitute harassment. Two other grievances, G‑775 and G-776, were filed by the Grievor prior to this one and are related to the events underlying grievance G-774. The ERC recommended that all three grievances be denied. The ERC recommended that the first grievance, G-774, be denied because the Grievor had not discharged his duty to demonstrate the merits of his grievance. Based on this recommendation, the ERC recommended that the second grievance, G-775, and third grievance, G-776, be dismissed because the Grievor no longer had standing following the decision on grievance G-774. The Commissioner accepted the ERC’s recommendations and dismissed all three grievances.