NC-046 - Harassment

The Appellant appealed a decision by the Force which found that her complaint of harassment was not established. The Appellant’s harassment complaint involved events surrounding her Graduated Return to Work (GRTW) and the Alleged Harasser’s proposition that the Appellant’s GRTW be continued at her home unit. As part of her appeal, the Appellant presented new evidence which had not been before the Respondent when he made the decision at issue in this appeal. The Appellant alleged on appeal that the Respondent had erred by misapprehending numerous pieces of evidence; and, in applying the law to the facts by not examining her allegations holistically as per RCMP policy, which states that a series of serious and unwelcome acts over time may be indicative of harassment.

The ERC found that the new evidence submitted by the Appellant for the first time on appeal was not admissible as the two emails were readily available to the Appellant prior to the Respondent’s decision. Regarding the other new evidence, the ERC found that the three email chains involved a third party from whom the Appellant was alleging harassment. This third party was not a party to the proceedings, had not been named in the original harassment complaint and had not had an opportunity to address the allegations made against her. The ERC found that it would be a breach of procedural fairness to make findings regarding the Appellant’s allegations against this third party. The ERC found that the three email chains were therefore not admissible.

Regarding the merits, the ERC found that the Respondent’s decision was not clearly unreasonable as the Respondent had not misapprehended or ignored evidence. On appeal, the Appellant reiterated her allegation of harassment, but did not explain how the Respondent had erred in his assessment of the evidence.

The ERC further found that the Respondent’s decision was not clearly unreasonable as he had not erred in applying the law to the facts by failing to consider the allegations holistically. The ERC noted the requirement to consider whether allegations, while not individually constituting harassment, could cumulatively support a finding of harassment. The ERC found that the Respondent first considered each alleged incident on its own, and then considered the combined effect as required.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner deny the appeal and confirm the Respondent's decision.

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

The Appellant was under a Graduated Return to Work (GRTW) program in a unit other than her home unit. While the Appellant's direct supervision was overseen by this unit, the Alleged Harasser, the director of her home unit, was responsible for managing the Appellant's sick leave and GRTW. The Alleged Harasser began enquiring about the Appellant's progress with her GRTW, and these enquiries eventually resulted in discussions about the Appellant's return to her home unit to continue her GRTW.

The Appellant lodged a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser. The complaint included five allegations of harassment concerning the Alleged Harasser's refusal of her leave, the cancellation of her courses, the request that she return to her home unit, the removal of her personal belongings from her unit, and attempts by the Alleged Harasser to contact her directly and indirectly. The Respondent determined that the harassment complaint was not established. The Appellant presented an appeal challenging this decision raising the two following grounds of appeal: the Respondent erred in his consideration of the evidence, and the Respondent erred by failing to consider the incidents holistically. The Final Level Adjudicator accepted the ERC's recommendation and found no manifest or determinative error in the Respondent's decision. The Final Level Adjudicator dismissed the appeal.