NC-097 – Harassment

The Appellant presented a harassment complaint (Complaint) against the Alleged Harasser. The Alleged Harasser asked the Appellant if she could contact the Health Services Office (HSO) of the RCMP to speak with the Force Psychologist, because he seemed upset and stressed. The Appellant consented. The Appellant had a number of discussions with the psychologist. The Alleged Harasser and the psychologist had discussions about the Appellant. Further, in a sensitive Briefing Note (BN) that was distributed to others in addition to those on the distribution list, the Alleged Harasser allegedly disclosed confidential medical information about the Appellant. The Appellant felt embarrassed and humiliated. This BN also included negative comments about the Appellant.

During a preliminary enquiry, the Alleged Harasser provided her response to the harassment complaint and a rebuttal was provided by the Appellant. The Respondent rendered a Decision, finding that the complaints did not amount to harassment and therefore, no investigation would be mandated. 

The ERC found that the Decision was not reached in a manner that contravened procedural fairness. The Appellant claimed, at the appeal stage, that the Respondent was biased because the Alleged Harasser was his direct report and that he took the Alleged Harasser’s word over his. The ERC found that the Appellant was precluded from raising this issue on appeal as it was not raised before the Respondent. Further, the Administration Manual XII.8 indicates that a recusal request has to be presented as soon as possible after the party receives the materials to be reviewed by the decision-maker. The ERC further found that the fact that the Alleged Harasser is the direct report of the Respondent is not sufficient to raise to the threshold of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The ERC also found the Decision was clearly unreasonable. By not ordering an investigation into these complaints, it was clear that the Respondent made unsupported assumptions and that he did not have the “full story”. For example, the Respondent never enquired into exactly what was discussed between the Force psychologist and the Alleged Harasser. Further, by not examining the BN, which was the subject of the second allegation, the Respondent’s finding that harassment was not established was clearly unreasonable. 

The ERC recommended that the Commissioner allow the appeal and remit the matter to a new decision-maker so that he or she can mandate an investigation. 

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

The Appellant made a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser, claiming that the latter spoke to his RCMP appointed psychologist without consent and improperly disclosed private information in a sensitive briefing note, which caused him to be belittled and humiliated as a result.

The Respondent found that the allegation of harassment was not established, concluding that the complaint was unfounded and that the preliminary enquiry undertaken was sufficient. The Respondent determined that no personal information was disclosed; the offending behaviour fell within the scope of the Alleged Harasser’s professional responsibilities; and, her behaviour was compliant with policy.

The Appellant appeals the Respondent’s decision, claiming that it was reached in a manner that contravened the principles of procedural fairness and that it is clearly unreasonable. He advances that a more fulsome investigation into his allegation is necessary because the Respondent simply assumed that no personal information was disclosed, while the evidence would have demonstrated otherwise. Moreover, the Appellant argues that the faulty conclusions with respect to policy, disclosure, and the need for an investigation, demonstrated bias on the part of the Respondent

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 basis that the decision was clearly unreasonable. While the ERC concluded that no reasonable apprehension of bias existed, the decision was nevertheless clearly unreasonable because the Respondent lacked sufficient evidence or a rational basis for his conclusions and was incorrect to suggest a more fulsome investigation was unnecessary in the circumstances. The ERC recommended an investigation be mandated and that the matter be remitted to a new decision maker.

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.