NC-012 - Harassment

The Appellant was the subject of a harassment complaint (Original Complaint) by a Public Service Employee in August of 2015. Superintendent A (Supt. A) was a witness in the Original Complaint. In his rebuttal to the preliminary Investigation Report in respect of the Original Complaint, the Appellant questioned the actions and perceptions of Supt. A.

On August 8, 2016, the Appellant wrote a letter to the Respondent (August 2016 Letter) in which he raised general concerns regarding Supt. A. He also detailed a specific concern that the complainant in the Original Complaint may have been misled by Supt. A. The Appellant was vague as to how he wished the Respondent to proceed in light of this information. It appears that he did not want the substance of the August 2016 Letter to be added to a separate harassment complaint the Appellant had lodged against Supt. A. Rather, the Appellant was bringing Supt. A's conduct to the Respondent's attention in the latter's capacity as Commanding Officer of the Division "with the intent and spirit of doing the right thing". On December 28, 2016, the Respondent rendered a decision in relation to the Original Complaint, and in separate proceedings the Appellant appealed that decision.

On January 5, 2017, the Respondent responded to the August 2016 Letter (Respondent's Letter). The Respondent indicated that he had considered the Appellant's concerns regarding Supt. A in his deliberations regarding the Original Complaint. The Respondent further stated that the Appellant's appeal of the Respondent's December 28, 2016 Decision regarding the Original Complaint was the most suitable process to address the Appellant's concerns. On January 12, 2017, the Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal with the Office for the Coordination of Grievances and Appeals (OCGA). He identified the Respondent's Letter as the subject-matter of this appeal. The appeal was referred to the ERC.

At issue was whether the ERC possessed the legal authority to review the appeal. The ERC examined whether subsection 17(a) of the RCMP Regulations, pursuant to which appeals of two types of harassment-related decisions are referable to the ERC, was applicable in this case. The first type of appeal referable pursuant to subsection 17(a) is the appeal of a decision regarding the timeliness of a harassment complaint. No such decision had been made in this case.

The second type of referable appeal identified in subsection 17(a) is the appeal of a written decision referred to in paragraph 6(2)(b) of the CSOs (Harassment) regarding whether the respondent to a harassment complaint has contravened the Code of Conduct. The ERC observed that such a decision relates to a "complaint" as that term is used in the context of the CSOs (Harassment) and that both the complaint and decision referred to in paragraph 6(2)(b) are part of the Force's harassment complaint investigation and resolution process. The ERC found that the Appellant's August 2016 Letter could not be characterized as a harassment complaint which triggered the process leading to a decision identified in paragraph 6(2)(b) of the CSOs (Harassment). The Appellant, who was clearly familiar with the Force's harassment complaint process, had made no request in the August 2016 Letter for a harassment investigation to be commenced and had, in fact, distinguished the issues he was raising from the harassment process. Further, the Appellant's expectation that the Respondent as a Commanding Officer would discuss the matter directly with Supt. A differed markedly from the process which would take place within the Force's harassment complaint investigation and resolution process.

This appeal is not referable to the ERC. As a result, the ERC does not have the legal authority to further review the appeal or make a recommendation.

The Commissioner agreed that the appeal was not referable to the ERC and sent the appeal to the appropriate decision maker.