NC-114 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint (Complaint). He asserted that the Alleged Harasser had threatened to cause trouble for him, and harmed his reputation. The last incident of alleged harassment predated the Complaint by more than four years. The Appellant explained that there were extenuating circumstances that justified his late presentation of the Complaint. Specifically, he said that his mental health worsened as a result of the alleged harassment, that he had to go on a stress leave, and that he lost faith in his superiors after they failed to take “concrete action”.

The Appellant did not provide any medical evidence.

The Respondent dismissed the Complaint (Decision). He found that the Appellant presented it outside the time limit prescribed in the RCMP Harassment Policy (Policy), which was within one year of the last allegedly harassing incident. He further found that the Appellant did not have a reasonable explanation for lodging the Complaint beyond that deadline. He noted that an extenuating circumstance was one over which someone had little or no control. In his view, the Appellant had ample time and opportunity to make a timely complaint. He explained that there was no record of the Appellant ever taking a significant period of sick leave, and that the Appellant could have bypassed superiors by submitting the Complaint directly to a neutral office.

The Appellant appealed the Decision. He suggested that it was clearly unreasonable because: (1) the Complaint may have been, and may still be timely; (2) he nevertheless gave “sufficient” reasons for bringing it when he did; and (3) he took appropriate steps to address his concerns. 

The ERC found that the Decision was not clearly unreasonable. The Respondent provided tenable lines of analysis in support of his conclusions that the Complaint was untimely, and that there was no reasonable explanation for its late submission. He did this by applying the Policy to the facts before him, and by making findings that were consistent with the Policy, the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Investigation and Resolution of Harassment Complaints), and an applicable Guidance Document. The ERC could not accept the Appellant’s third position. It was based on new information that the Appellant reasonably would have known of when the Decision was made. Moreover, even if the Appellant had taken that position earlier, the Respondent could not have accepted it without breaking from governing jurisprudence.

The ERC commented on the way in which the Appellant’s superiors appeared to treat him. It was up to the Appellant to know and assert his rights under RCMP harassment authorities. However, if the superiors with whom he allegedly raised concerns of harassment did not direct him on how to address those concerns, then they disregarded a key obligation under the Policy.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed and that the Decision be confirmed.

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

The Appellant challenged the Respondent’s determination that his allegations of harassment were not submitted through the formal process within one year of the latest incident. The Appellant argued that the delay was attributable to exceptional circumstances. The Respondent found that the Appellant’s explanation for the delay did not constitute exceptional circumstances.

The appeal was referred to the ERC which found that the Appellant failed to file his harassment complaint within the one-year limitation period and that his explanation for the delay did not amount to exceptional circumstances. The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed. The adjudicator agreed with the ERC and dismissed the appeal.