Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

NC-124 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint (Complaint) against his detachment commander (Alleged Harasser) pertaining to his management of the Appellant. In finding that the alleged behaviours did not constitute harassment, the Respondent dismissed the Complaint (Decision).

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s Decision arguing that neither the Respondent nor the Investigator were impartial. In addition, the Appellant stated that the Harassment Policy was not followed as he did not receive timely updates about his Complaint. 

ERC Findings

The ERC determined that the Respondent’s impartiality was being challenged by the Appellant for the first time on appeal. The ERC declined to consider the issue on the basis that it could have been raised during the resolution process.

With respect to the Investigator’s impartiality, the ERC concluded that the Respondent’s reasons, while insufficient, did not render the Decision clearly unreasonable.   

The ERC made the following additional findings: (1) the Respondent’s treatment of certain materials contained in the record was reasonable because these materials were not relevant to the issues raised in the Complaint; (2) the Respondent’s findings with respect to Allegation 3 were supported by the record; (3) the Respondent’s decision to not order a supplemental investigation was reasonable because the record before him was sufficient to render the Decision; and (4) the Respondent’s reasons demonstrated that he grappled with key issues and addressed the central arguments raised by the Appellant.

ERC Recommendation

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

Commissioner of the RCMP Decision dated June 30, 2023

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

The Appellant challenged the Respondent’s determination that allegations of harassment he made against his supervisor were not established.

The appeal was referred to the ERC, which found that: (1) the Respondent’s Decision was not clearly unreasonable because it was supported by the record; (2) that the investigator did not demonstrate a closed mind; and (3) that there was no policy breach with respect to the provision of monthly updates to the Appellant. The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed. The Adjudicator agreed with the ERC and dismissed the appeal. 

Between January 2014 and October 2017, several events took place that the Appellant perceived as harassment by the Alleged Harasser.  According to the Appellant, the Alleged Harasser had a negative influence on his career for several years.  In his view, this caused him to be discouraged, depressed and devoid of all ambition within the RCMP.

As the decision-maker on the harassment complaint, the Respondent did not mandate an investigation and dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the alleged behaviour did not amount to harassment of the Appellant.

The Appellant appealed the matter on the grounds that the Respondent’s decision was reached in a manner that contravened the applicable principles of procedural fairness, was based on an error of law and was clearly unreasonable.  He argued that the Respondent was not impartial, failed to conduct an overall assessment by breaking down the series of events and erred by failing to mandate an investigation to gather evidence.

The case was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC).  After reviewing the grounds of appeal, the ERC found that the Respondent should have mandated an investigation to fully understand the situation.  The ERC found that the failure to mandate an investigation resulted in the Respondent failing to obtain relevant information, which meant he was unable to make an informed decision.  The ERC found that the Respondent’s decision was therefore clearly unreasonable.  Consequently, the ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed.

The Adjudicator determined that the Respondent should have indeed pursued an investigation to obtain a minimum level of information and that the failure to do so prevented a fully informed decision from being made on whether or not harassment occurred.  The Adjudicator found that the decision was therefore clearly unreasonable and allowed the appeal.

The Adjudicator remitted the matter to a new decision-maker with directions that an investigation be conducted.

Page details

Date modified: