NC-042 - Harassment

On July 8, 2015, the Appellant made two harassment complaints, which were merged, against an Acting Staff Sergeant who, for a period, had supervised him (Alleged Harasser). The Appellant contended that the Alleged Harasser: (1) behaved toward him in an aggressive, abusive, intimidating and hostile manner and (2) treated him in ways which were both racially discriminatory and personally humiliating to him. This harassment complaint became the subject of a joint harassment and Code of Conduct investigation wherein seven witnesses were interviewed. During the investigation, the Appellant informed an official that the Alleged Harasser had interfered with one of the witnesses. The official brought this issue to the attention of the investigators. The Appellant again raised this issue in his rebuttal to the preliminary investigation report as it had not been addressed. In a decision dated December 27, 2016, the Respondent found that the harassment complaint was not established. In her decision, the Respondent did not address the Appellant's contention that the Alleged Harasser interfered with the investigation.

The ERC found that the investigation was deficient as the investigators failed to address crucial evidence in that the Appellant's allegation of interference was not addressed with either the Alleged Harasser or the witness the Alleged Harasser allegedly approached. The ERC further found that, as the investigation was deficient, the Respondent's decision, based on this investigation, was equally deficient. Moreover, the Respondent's decision was clearly unreasonable as the reasons for this said decision were insufficient, the Respondent having not addressed a significant issue raised by the complainant.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner allow the appeal.

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

The Appellant challenged a decision that found the Appellant’s complaint of harassment was not established. The Appellant raised one ground of appeal specifying that the decision was reached in a manner that contravened the applicable principles of procedural fairness. He claims that critical information was ignored that if considered could have altered the findings.

The RCMP External Review Committee found that the investigation was deficient, agreeing with the Appellant that the investigators failed to address crucial evidence related to the Alleged Harasser’s interference with witnesses. The ERC found that given the investigation was deficient, it followed that the Respondent’s decision based on that investigation, was also deficient.

The Appeal Adjudicator accepted the ERC’s recommendation, allowed the appeal and in accordance with paragraph 47(1)(b) of the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Grievances and Appeals) directed that the matter be remitted to a different decision-maker to render a decision based on a fulsome investigation inclusive of the noted deficiency.