NC-136 - Harassment

The Appellant challenged the decision of the Commanding Officer of “X” Division (Respondent) to not investigate his harassment complaint against an investigator of the Professional Responsibility Unit (Alleged Harasser). The Respondent further found that, since they detailed the way in which the Alleged Harasser discharged his duties, the Appellant’s allegations should have been made through the process of a public complaint against the RCMP.

The harassment complaint stemmed from the Alleged Harasser’s actions while he was investigating Code of Conduct allegations involving alleged spousal abuse by the Appellant. The Appellant alleged that, while investigating this complaint, the Alleged Harasser unlawfully arrested him, committed an abuse of authority by searching his residence without a warrant, failed to properly investigate the complaint and failed to attend Court. Ultimately, the Code of Conduct allegations were found not established.

The ERC found that the Appellant’s right to be heard was breached. More precisely, the Appellant had filed a 62-page document detailing his interactions with the Alleged Harasser with his harassment complaint. This document also explained the perceived harassment from the Alleged Harasser. However, this document was never provided to the Respondent before she made her decision.  

The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed

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

On May 19, 2017, the Appellant submitted a harassment complaint against a member of the Professional Responsibility Unit for unlawful arrest and detention; illegal entry, search and seizure; failure to investigate the incidents relating to a Code of Conduct; and failure to attend court.

The Appellant is challenging the Respondent’s decision to not mandate a harassment investigation into his complaint against the Alleged Harasser on the grounds that their decision contravenes procedural fairness, is based on an error of law, and is clearly unreasonable.

The appeal was referred to the ERC for review. The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed on the grounds of procedural fairness.

The Adjudicator finds that the Appellant has failed to establish that the Respondent’s decision contravenes procedural fairness, is based on an error of law or is clearly unreasonable. The appeal is dismissed.