NC-119 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint (Complaint) against an Administration and Personnel Officer (Alleged Harasser) who engaged with the Appellant during the grievance process. The Alleged Harasser had been named as an Assistant for a number of respondents in grievances lodged by the Appellant.

The Appellant was of the view that the Alleged Harasser could not participate in the grievance process as the Assistant for the grievance respondents because RCMP policy does not allow a respondent to name both a Representative and an Assistant. The grievance respondents had already named a Representative, a member named in another harassment complaint filed by the Appellant. The Appellant was of the view that the Alleged Harasser breached her privacy because he had access to her grievance information and he did not have the authority to access her information. When the Appellant emailed the Alleged Harasser indicating that he could not participate in the grievance process and that he should not have access to her grievance information, he did not reply to her. The Appellant also alleged that the Alleged Harasser sent her an inappropriate email.

The Appellant submitted a written request that the Respondent recuse himself. The Respondent did not recuse himself nor did he provide the Appellant with written reasons for not recusing himself.

A “limited investigation” had been initially mandated. Shortly afterwards, the Respondent issued a Decision concluding that the Alleged Harasser’s actions did not amount to harassment and that he did not need to mandate an investigation into her Complaint. The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s Decision.

On appeal, the Appellant alleged that the Respondent breached her procedural fairness rights when he ignored her request that he recuse himself. The Appellant also alleged that the Respondent’s Decision was procedurally unfair because she was not provided a fair opportunity to be heard. The Appellant alleged that the Decision was clearly unreasonable because the Respondent’s reasons were insufficient.

The ERC found that the Respondent’s failure to provide written reasons in response to a request for recusal and failure to allow the Appellant the opportunity to clarify her Complaint resulted in procedural unfairness to the Appellant. 

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 the new decision-maker ensure that the Appellant be given an opportunity to provide supplemental submissions regarding her Complaint, through a process that ensures procedural fairness towards the Alleged Harasser. Finally, the ERC recommended, further to this, that the new decision-maker assess whether an investigation is necessary or if there is sufficient information to address the Complaint. 

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

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser. The Respondent issued a Record of Decision wherein he determined that harassment was not established, concluding that the Appellant’s complaint was unfounded and that an investigation into her complaint was not necessary.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s decision, claiming that the decision is clearly unreasonable, is based on an error of law, and was reached in a manner that contravened the applicable principles of procedural fairness.

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 reached in breach of procedural fairness. The ERC recommended that the Respondent’s decision be set aside 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 finding of the ERC that the Respondent’s decision was reached in contravention of the applicable principles of procedural fairness and allowed the appeal. The Adjudicator remitted the matter to a new decision maker.