NC-089 - Harassment

This case stems, in part, from a complaint to a municipal police force, concerning the Appellant’s alleged behaviour, by another RCMP member (the Alleged Harasser). The allegations were sexual assault and criminal harassment. The Provincial Crown did not proceed with charges against the Appellant.

After the criminal investigation concluded, a Code of Conduct investigation was initiated to examine the Appellant’s alleged behaviour. The RCMP Conduct Authority, also the decision-maker for this harassment complaint, found that the allegations against the Appellant were not established.

The Appellant subsequently filed a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser. He alleged, among other things, that the Alleged Harasser made false allegations, repeated the allegations to co-workers, and previously made false allegations against other RCMP members. According to the Appellant, the Alleged Harasser made these allegations as punishment for assigning her a work task she did not wish to complete.

The ERC found that the Respondent’s decision was clearly unreasonable. This is because there was insufficient information in the record to not mandate an investigation, and to then determine that the Appellant’s complaint of harassment was not established, and that the Alleged Harasser had not contravened the RCMP Code of Conduct. The ERC also recommended that it would be prudent to remit the matter back to a new decision-maker.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed.

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

The Alleged Harasser, an RCMP member, accused the Appellant of sexual assault. A criminal investigation and, subsequently, a Code of Conduct investigation, were conducted on this allegation. Both investigations determined that the allegations raised by the Alleged Harasser against the Appellant were unsubstantiated.

The Appellant then filed a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser. He claimed that she concocted false allegations against him as reprisal for a work task he had assigned her, and to derive financial gain. The Respondent in this matter, who was incidentally also the decision maker in the Code of Conduct investigation, issued a Record of Decision where she determined that harassment was not established, concluding that the Appellant’s complaint was unfounded and that an investigation into his complaint was not necessary.

The Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal, claiming that the decision is clearly unreasonable. He argued that an investigation into his allegation was necessary and that the Code of Conduct investigation was not related because it only considered whether sexual assault occurred, not whether the accusations were deliberately misleading.

The appeal was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) and in a Report containing Findings and Recommendations, the ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed on the grounds that the decision is clearly unreasonable, since the Respondent lacked evidence or a rational basis for her conclusions and was incorrect to suggest that the previous Code of Conduct investigation was dispositive of this matter. The ERC recommended an investigation be mandated and that the matter be remitted to a new decision maker for a new consideration.

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. The Adjudicator mandated a new investigation and remitted the matter to a new decision maker outside of “X” Division.