G-776 - 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, including this grievance. In the Early Resolution Phase, it was agreed that the Grievor would file a new complaint and that the Respondent would review each allegation submitted regardless of the time limit. In addition, in the event that the Grievor disagreed with the Respondent’s new decision, the Grievor would have the right to grieve the Respondent’s new decision. 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 filed a grievance challenging the Respondent’s new decision (related grievance).

Contrary to the agreement reached at the Early Resolution Phase, the Grievor did not withdraw this grievance. Before the Level I Adjudicator, the Respondent filed a motion to dismiss this grievance.

The Respondent submitted that the Grievor no longer had standing since he had signed an agreement to withdraw his grievances, including this grievance, and filed the related grievance to challenge the new decision on the new complaint.

The Level I Adjudicator found that the issue in this grievance became moot when the Grievor was granted the remedy he sought: the opportunity to file a new complaint and to receive a new decision on that complaint.

At Level II, the Respondent alleged that the Grievor’s grievances, including this grievance, were moot because the Grievor was awarded what he requested, and that the Grievor did not discharge his burden of proving that the Level I Adjudicator erred in his decision. 

The ERC found that the Grievor did not have standing in this grievance, since the related grievance he filed following the Respondent’s new decision constituted another process under the RCMP Act to address the issues raised in this 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.