NC-068 - Harassment

In October 2015, the Alleged Harasser joined the detachment where the Appellant worked. They began exchanging text messages and seeing each other outside work. Their professional relationship reportedly began to deteriorate in February 2016. According to the Appellant, the Alleged Harasser was disrespectful to her. Many incidents occurred during which the Appellant felt that she was demeaned and ridiculed in front of her co-workers.

On June 7, 2017, the Appellant filed a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser that included eight allegations. The allegations related to facts that had occurred from November 2015 to May 2017. The Respondent mandated two investigators to investigate these allegations. The investigators met with several witnesses, including the Appellant and the Alleged Harasser. In his decision, the Respondent considered the allegations by addressing them one by one. For each of the eight allegations, he concluded that it had not been proven that the Alleged Harasser demonstrated harassing behaviour.

The Appellant appealed this decision, arguing that the Respondent had not considered all of the evidence, particularly the photos and text messages sent by the Alleged Harasser, and that he had failed to assess the credibility of some witnesses who allegedly lied in their statements. She also submitted that the investigation was subjective, since the investigators had failed to question some key witnesses, whereas they met with others who were not present during the incidents about which they were questioned.

The ERC found that the Respondent had not breached his duty to make a reasonable decision. He took all of the evidence into account and indicated this several times in his decision. With respect to the photos and text messages sent by the Alleged Harasser, the ERC noted that these elements should have been included in the file, as they were the basis of Allegation 1. It was determined, however, that their absence had not influenced the Respondent in his decision-making process and that he had not, therefore, made any determinative errors by not acquiring them. The ERC also found that the Respondent was not required to assess the credibility of witnesses before assigning weight to their evidence. It was also determined that the Appellant had not succeeded in demonstrating that some witnesses had lied in their statements. Lastly, the ERC concluded that the Appellant had not provided any compelling evidence to demonstrate that the investigation had not been objective and rigorous.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

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

[Translation]

While assigned to "X" Division, the Appellant filed a harassment complaint involving the actions of a Corporal in the unit where she was working at the time. An investigation was mandated to review the complaint. The Appellant and the Alleged Harasser were given the opportunity to make submissions with respect to the preliminary investigation report and the Appellant made submissions.

The Final Investigation Report was submitted to the Respondent, who assessed the evidence and dismissed the complaint. He was of the opinion that, individually and as a whole, the alleged behaviours did not amount to harassment against the Appellant.

The Appellant considered the Respondent's decision to be clearly unreasonable and appealed on the grounds that the Respondent had failed to consider certain evidence and to assess the credibility of certain witnesses. She added that the investigation was subjective and not rigorous since some witnesses were not questioned.

The file was referred to the ERC. After reviewing the grounds of appeal, the ERC found that the Appellant had failed to prove that the Respondent made a clearly unreasonable error in weighing the evidence and that the investigation was not objective and rigorous. The ERC therefore recommends that the appeal be dismissed.

The Adjudicator found that the Appellant had not shown that the Respondent's decision was clearly unreasonable. He therefore upheld the Respondent's decision and dismissed the appeal.