NC-085 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint against an Inspector (Alleged Harasser), alleging that he provided false information about the Appellant in respect to a grievance process the two were involved in. Further, the Appellant claimed that the Alleged Harasser disclosed personal information about her to others in respect to a query from health management related authorities.

The Respondent found that in both matters, the definition of harassment had not been met. The Respondent found that the Appellant could have raised her concerns about the alleged incorrect information with grievance authorities. The Respondent indicated that with respect to the second allegation, she could not access information in a grievance process.

The ERC’s review at the appellate level is a review of the Respondent’s Decision on one or more prescribed ground(s) of appeal. The ERC found that the Respondent’s Decision was not clearly unreasonable. The ERC agreed with the Respondent that in both matters, the definition of harassment had not been met.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner dismiss the appeal.

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

The Appellant appeals a finding made by the Respondent that the Alleged Harasser’s behaviour did not meet the definition of harassment. The Appellant contends that the decision was reached in a manner is clearly unreasonable.

This appeal was forwarded to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee (ERC) for a Recommendation. The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

I agree with the ERC that the Respondent did not err in her decision. The Respondent did not require access to the contents of the grievance process to determine whether the allegation met the definition of harassment. I find no error made by the Respondent that renders her decision clearly unreasonable. The allegations do not rise to the level of harassment.

The adjudicator found that the facts noted in the allegations did not raise to the level of harassment. As such, the adjudicator dismissed the appeal.