NC-078 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint with the Office for the Coordination of Harassment Complaints (OCHC). In the complaint, the Appellant alleged that he was harassed by being excluded from certain emails, which he should have received, and meetings, which he should have attended. The OCHC reviewer recommended that a limited investigation be mandated. However, the Respondent did not mandate an investigation and made its decision finding that the incidents described by the Appellant did not meet the definition of harassment.

On appeal, the Appellant argues that the Respondent should have investigated his allegations. He also alleges that the Respondent broke the chain of incidents rather than taking into account all of the incidents that demonstrated persistent behaviour by the Alleged Harasser. He also argues that the Respondent was not impartial because the Alleged Harasser reported to the Respondent.

The ERC found that the Respondent's decision not to mandate an investigation was clearly unreasonable, as the facts available to the Respondent did not allow him to get a complete picture of what had happened. Interviewing the Appellant, the Alleged Harasser and the potential witnesses could have allowed the Respondent to better assess the allegations of harassment.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed and that the matter be remitted to a new decision-maker for a new decision with the directive to mandate an investigation of the Appellant's complaint, which should include interviewing the Appellant, the Alleged Harasser and the potential witnesses.

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

[Translation]

While assigned to “[X]” Division, the Appellant filed a harassment complaint against the Officer in Charge of the group to which the Appellant’s service unit reported at the time. The Appellant alleged that the Alleged Harasser excluded him deliberately and without reasonable cause from training opportunities and important communications and discussions regarding investigations, thereby dissociating him from the management team.

The Respondent did not mandate an investigation and dismissed the complaint, finding that the alleged behaviour did not amount to harassment of the Appellant.

The Appellant appealed on the grounds that the Respondent’s decision contravened the applicable principles of procedural fairness and was clearly unreasonable. He argued that the Respondent was not impartial, failed to make an overall assessment by dissecting the chain of events and erred in failing to mandate an investigation to gather the evidence.

The file was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC). After reviewing the grounds of appeal, the ERC concluded that the Respondent should have mandated an investigation to fully understand the situation. The ERC determined that the failure to mandate an investigation meant that the Respondent did not have relevant information, and therefore could not make an informed decision. According to the ERC, this rendered the Respondent’s decision clearly unreasonable. The ERC therefore recommended that the appeal be allowed.

The Adjudicator found that the Respondent should indeed have pursued an investigation to obtain a minimum amount of information and that failing to do so meant that the decision as to whether harassment had occurred was not fully informed. The Adjudicator determined that this rendered the decision clearly unreasonable and allowed the appeal.

Given the retirement of the Alleged Harasser, and the time that has elapsed since the complaint was filed, the Adjudicator offers the Appellant an apology on behalf of the RCMP for the failure to properly investigate and resolve his harassment complaint.