NC-094 – Harassment

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint (Complaint) with the Office for the Coordination of Harassment Complaints (OCHC). In the Complaint, the Appellant alleged that he was harassed by the Alleged Harasser who allegedly, while on operational duty, humiliated the Appellant in front of others through actions which included yelling and criticizing his performance in a belittling manner. The Appellant further felt that the Alleged Harasser had made comments towards him that suggested that he lacked the skills required to become a police officer. The Alleged Harasser provided a detailed response to the Complaint.

The Respondent did not mandate an investigation into the Complaint. Based on the Complaint, the Alleged Harasser’s response and other material that related to the Appellant’s performance, the Respondent concluded that the Alleged Harasser’s actions did not amount to harassment. The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s decision.

On appeal, the Appellant alleged that the Respondent breached his procedural fairness rights by failing to consider all of the information that had been submitted with the Complaint. The Appellant also argued that the Respondent had erred by only considering the allegations individually and failing to consider them as a series of incidents. He also alleged that the decision was clearly unreasonable because the Respondent had improperly assessed the facts and that an investigation ought to have been mandated.

The ERC found that while the Alleged Harasser had the opportunity to respond to the allegations raised in the Complaint by providing their full version of the events, the Appellant had not been given an opportunity to rebut the Alleged Harasser’s response. Nor had the Appellant had an opportunity to comment on the material relating to his performance which was before the Respondent. While there was a lack of certainty as to whether an additional document had been provided to the Respondent by the Appellant when submitting the Complaint, that issue might have been clarified if the Appellant had been given an opportunity to fully explain his perception of the events and address the material before the Respondent. In failing to give the Appellant this opportunity, the Respondent did not follow applicable rules of procedural fairness.

The ERC further found that the Respondent had assessed the allegations as a whole based on the limited information available. However, the Respondent’s decision not to mandate an investigation was clearly unreasonable since the evidence available to her did not provide the full story, and an investigation was necessary to fully understand what happened. Interviews of the Appellant, the Alleged Harasser and a number of potential witnesses that had been identified in the Complaint 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 different decision-maker for a new decision. The ERC also recommended that an investigation into the Appellant’s Complaint be mandated.

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

The Appellant appeals the Respondent’s decision finding that the allegation of harassment made by the Appellant against the Alleged Harasser was not established. The Appellant accused the Alleged Harasser, his training officer, of humiliating him in front of others and criticizing his performance in a belittling manner. The Appellant further alleged that the Alleged Harasser made comments towards him that suggested he lacked the skills necessary to become a police officer.

The Respondent in this matter concluded that the Appellant’s complaint was unfounded and that an investigation into the circumstances would not be necessary, as the offending behaviour was borne out of frustration with the Appellant’s poor performance as a police officer. The Respondent issued a Record of Decision where she determined that harassment was not established.

The Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal, claiming that the decision was reached in a manner that contravened the principles of procedural fairness; was based on an error of law; and, is clearly unreasonable. He argued that an investigation into his allegations was necessary because the Respondent failed to consider all evidence and did not provide adequate justification as to why she accepted the Alleged Harasser’s version of events over his.

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 was reached in a manner that was not procedurally fair since the Respondent did not provide the Appellant the opportunity to submit evidence, and received submissions made by the Alleged Harasser without providing the Appellant an opportunity to reply to those submissions. Furthermore, the ERC found that the decision was also clearly unreasonable because the Respondent lacked evidence or a rational basis for her conclusions and was incorrect to suggest an investigation was unnecessary in the circumstances. The ERC recommended an investigation be mandated and that the matter be remitted to a new decision maker for a new decision.

Having considered the facts of the matter, the applicable statutory and policy provisions, as well as the relevant jurisprudence, the Adjudicator concurred with the findings of the ERC and allowed the appeal. The Adjudicator mandated an investigation and remitted the matter to a new decision maker.