NC-011 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint (Complaint) against a superior. Following a harassment investigation, the Respondent found that the Complaint was not established (Decision). The Appellant was served with the Decision on February 19, 2016. On March 18, 2016, the Appellant forwarded a Grievance Form to the Office for the Coordination of Grievances and Appeals (OCGA) on which he alleged that the Decision was inconsistent with Force policy governing the investigation and resolution of harassment complaints and requested that a new investigation be conducted. The OCGA acknowledged receipt of the Grievance Form and, some months later on June 15, 2016, informed the Appellant that the correct recourse for contesting the Decision was through the presentation of an appeal. On July 4, 2016, the Appellant filed his Statement of Appeal with the OCGA, relying principally on the same grounds that had been set out on his Grievance Form.

The OCGA then informed the Appellant it was raising a "preliminary issue of statutory time limits", and drew the Appellant's attention to section 38 of the CSOs (Grievances and Appeals) which requires that an appeal of a decision in a harassment complaint be filed within 14 days after the date upon which the decision is received by the member in question.The OCGA twice invited the Appellant to provide a submission on whether that time limit had been met. No response was received.

The OCGA invited the Respondent to provide a submission regarding whether the Appellant had met the 14 day time limit to present his appeal. The Respondent took the position that the Appellant had failed to meet the prescribed time limit. The Respondent acknowledged that the CSOs (Grievances and Appeals) contemplate a power to extend the 14 day time limit in exceptional circumstances. However, no request had been received from the Appellant in that regard. The OCGA provided the Appellant with an opportunity to address the Respondent's submission, but no reply was received. The Appellant also failed to provide a submission on the merits of his Appeal.

The ERC noted that, had the Appellant presented his Grievance Form within the required 14 day time limit, the appeal would have been filed within the statutory time limit notwithstanding a defect in form. However, as the Appellant failed to submit the appeal in any form within the 14 day time limit, the appeal had been presented outside the statutory time limit set forth in section 38 of the CSOs (Grievances and Appeals). Although the Appellant had not requested an extension of time, the ERC considered whether there were, pursuant to subsection 43(d) of the CSOs (Grievances and Appeals), exceptional circumstances warranting a recommendation to the Adjudicator that he or she retroactively extend the        14 day time limit. The ERC found that the absence of any explanation regarding the failure to meet the 14 day time limit was a significant factor in this case. The OCGA had provided the Appellant with two opportunities to address the missed time limit and had invited a reply to the Respondent's argument that no extension was warranted. Absent any explanation from the Appellant, there were no exceptional circumstances in this case which would warrant an extension of time pursuant to subsection 43(d) of the CSOs (Grievances and Appeals).

The ERC recommends that the Commissioner deny the appeal.

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

The Appellant challenged the completeness of the investigation leading to the Respondent's decision that the complaint of harassment was not established. The Appellant was served the Record of Decision on February 19, 2016, and presented his appeal March 18, 2016. The Office for the Coordination of Grievances and Appeals (OCGA) raised the issue of time limitation and sought submissions from the Parties.

The Appeal Adjudicator accepted the RCMP External Review Committee's recommendation and dismissed the appeal on the basis that it was presented outside the statutory limitation period prescribed by section 38 of the Commissioner's Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals). In addition, the Appeal Adjudicator supported the ancillary recommendation and directed the OCGA to amend its form letter regarding requests for submissions on the preliminary issue of time limitation.