NC-003 - Harassment

Starting in September 2011, the Appellant was off work three times further to a medical condition. Between January 25 and February 27, 2012, the Appellant spoke and met with the Alleged Harasser, who was his return to work coordinator, and allegedly reported that he had been the victim of harassment at his detachment and this allegedly caused his medical condition. According to the Appellant, the Alleged Harasser did not conduct any verifications with the Appellant's Staff Relations Representative. Moreover, the Alleged Harasser allegedly added notes to the Appellant's file regarding the combined return to work efforts of the Appellant and the Alleged Harasser, and conversations the Alleged Harasser had with the Appellant and the two supervisors at the Appellant's detachment. The Appellant allegedly became aware of these notes in November 2012.

On or around November 21, 2012, the Appellant filed an [TRANSLATION] “internal investigation request” reporting the alleged harassment by several members of the RCMP that he suffered. In February 2014, the Respondent informed the Appellant he could not conduct such an investigation and invited him to file harassment complaints. The Appellant filed four harassment complaints against certain other alleged harassers in February and March 2014.

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint on or around February 3, 2015, against the Alleged Harasser with regard to the Alleged Harasser's notes, more than two years after becoming aware of these notes. On April 27, 2015, the Respondent dismissed the complaint because more than one year had passed since the last event of harassment alleged in the complaint. The Appellant appealed this decision.

The ERC found that the Respondent, by dismissing the Appellant's harassment complaint, did not commit any palpable or overriding error that would allow for an appellate intervention. The Respondent did consider the impact of the Appellant's medical condition on his ability to file a harassment complaint within the time limit.

The ERC concluded that the Appellant did not meet his burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that exceptional circumstances prevented him from filing his harassment complaint within the time limit.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that the appeal be denied.

The Commissioner, or a delegate, has rendered his decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

[TRANSLATION]

The Commissioner agrees with the External Review Committee's recommendation. The appeal is denied on the ground that the harassment complaint was filed after the time limit. The Commissioner is also of the view that there are no exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of time to file the harassment complaint. Finally, the Commissioner asks the National Policy Centre for harassment complaints to take the necessary measures to ensure that the terminology used in the policy and National Guidebook is consistent with that used in the Commissioner's Standing Orders (Investigation and Resolution of Harassment Complaints) by referring to “exceptional circumstances” rather than “mitigating circumstances”.