NC-092 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint against a Staff Sergeant (Alleged Harasser), alleging that he made offensive remarks regarding the Appellant within a grievance process in which he had supplied information on the decision-making process for a promotion. The Respondent found that the definition of harassment had not been met. The Respondent explained that the grievance process was a separate administrative process from the harassment process. The confidentiality of the grievance process prevented her from accessing any information related to or comments allegedly made by the Alleged Harasser during the grievance process.

The ERC’s review at the appellate level of harassment decisions is a review of the Respondent’s Decision (Decision) on one or more prescribed ground(s) of appeal, not a review de novo of whether harassment occurred. The ERC found that the Decision was clearly unreasonable because the Respondent did not have to access the grievance process to determine whether she had sufficient information to render a decision on the harassment complaint or to mandate an investigation.

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner allow the appeal. The ERC also recommended that the Commissioner set the decision aside and appoint a different decision-maker to review the harassment complaint in order to determine if an investigation of some nature is required.

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 is clearly unreasonable.

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

The adjudicator found that the Respondent was incorrect to conclude that the grievances process is sheltered from allegations of harassment. Based on that faulty premise, the Respondent failed to apply the test for harassment to the Appellant’s allegation.

Accordingly, the adjudicator determined that the decision was clearly unreasonable and allowed the appeal. The adjudicator mandated that a new decision maker be appointed to review this harassment complaint in order to determine whether an investigation of some nature is required, and to render a new decision with reasons.