NC-079 - Harassment

The Appellant presented a harassment complaint (Complaint) against a Detachment Commander, the Alleged Harasser. The Complaint contained a number of allegations, including the allegation that the Alleged Harasser had called the Appellant a derogatory name and had impacted the choice of whether he should obtain a position at the Detachment. Other allegations involved comments made by the Alleged Harasser about the Appellant being "sneaky" and "unethical".

The Respondent rendered a decision finding that the Complaint was not established. In his view, the allegations that the Alleged Harasser had called the Appellant a derogatory name or had impacted the choice of who would be obtaining the position in his Detachment, were not established and the evidence did not support a finding that the Alleged Harasser engaged in harassment.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent's decision.

The ERC found that the Respondent had cited the correct test for harassment, but had ignored evidence about comments made by the Alleged Harasser. The ERC found that the decision was clearly unreasonable as it did not address all the incidents in the harassment allegation.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner allow the appeal and remit the matter to a new decision-maker to reassess the evidence.

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

The Appellant appeals the Respondent’s decision whereby he found that the allegations of harassment, made by the Appellant against the Detachment Commander (Alleged Harasser), were not established.

In 2016, the Appellant applied for a Corporal position where the Alleged Harasser was the Detachment Commander on a First Nations reserve. An Agreement in existence provided that the Band Council and Chief were to be consulted on staffing decisions. According to the Appellant, the Alleged Harasser, upon consulting the Band Council and Chief, allegedly made unfounded, and harmful comments to dissuade the Council and Chief from approving the Appellant in the selection process, while he was the primary candidate for the position. The Appellant filed a Harassment Complaint on July 4, 2016. Following a Final Investigation Report, completed on September 29, 2016, the Respondent issued a Record of Decision on December 20, 2016, served on the same date. The Respondent determined that harassment was not established.

The Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal on December 28, 2016, claiming the decision was reached in a manner that contravenes the applicable principles of procedural fairness, and is clearly unreasonable. He argued much of the actual complaint was not addressed, including many of the harmful statements made by the Alleged Harasser, including those contained a document from the Alleged Harasser, which was not considered. On July 11, 2018, and subsequently again, on January 16, 2019, new information arose, which the Appellant submits ought to be considered by the adjudicator, consisting of a Letter of Finding by the Office of the Privacy Commission, and emails disclosed as a result of an ATIP request, exchanged in the relevant time frame, between the Career Development Resource Advisor, the District Policing Officer and the Inspector of “X” Division.

The appeal was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) on February 22, 2017, and in a Report containing Findings and Recommendations, issued on September 16, 2021, (NC-2016-023 (NC-079)), the Chair of the ERC, Mr. Charles Randall Smith, recommended that the appeal be allowed on the ground that the decision was clearly unreasonable since the Respondent did not fully assess the Harassment Complaint, nor consider all the evidence against the Alleged Harasser in his reasons. The ERC recommended the matter be remitted to a new decision maker for a new consideration including all the evidence.

Having considered the facts of the matter, the applicable statutory provisions, and the relevant jurisprudence, the adjudicator concurred with the findings of the ERC and allowed the appeal. However, due to the time elapsed, the redress sought by the Appellant against the Alleged Harasser was no longer available. The adjudicator issued an apology to the Appellant without further direction.