NC-143 - Harassment

The Alleged Harasser transferred into a new unit and became the Appellant’s supervisor. The Alleged Harasser attempted to institute a number of changes to the unit, which led to friction with the Appellant. The Appellant and the Alleged Harasser engaged in a number of meetings to attempt to resolve their conflict. Eventually, the Appellant submitted a harassment complaint, which was investigated. At the final stages of the investigation, the Appellant submitted evidence related to another incident of harassment. This information was not included in the investigation report. The Respondent ultimately found that harassment did not occur.

The Appellant appealed that decision, arguing that the decision was clearly unreasonable. In making this claim, the Appellant submitted a number of documents to challenge the credibility of the Alleged Harasser. The Appellant also believed that the investigators’ failure to include the evidence he presented to them resulted in procedural unfairness.

The ERC found that none of the documents submitted as fresh evidence on appeal were admissible. There is a set criteria to assess fresh evidence and none of the documents met the criteria.

The ERC further found that the decision was not clearly unreasonable. The Appellant effectively asked that the evidence be reweighed, which is beyond the scope of an appeal. In reviewing the arguments related to each alleged incident, the ERC found that there was an insufficient basis to meet the high threshold of clearly unreasonable.

As well, the ERC found that there was no breach of procedural fairness. The Appellant had the opportunity to present additional information to the investigators in two different rebuttals to the Preliminary Investigation Report but did not. Instead, the additional information came later. The ERC found that the Appellant did not provide an explanation for the delay. Furthermore, the ERC found that investigators could not have ignored the evidence provided by the Appellant as it was not presented to them in a timely manner, during the course of the investigation. 

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed. 

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

The Appellant presented eight allegations of harassment against the Alleged Harasser. Following an investigation, the Respondent issued a decision concluding that the incidents forming the Appellant’s allegations did not constitute harassment.

The Appellant challenged the Respondent’s finding that his harassment allegations were not established. He claims that the decision contravenes the applicable principles of procedural fairness and is clearly unreasonable.

The Appeal was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee, who recommended for the Appeal to be dismissed.

Having examined the facts of the matter, the applicable statutory provisions and the relevant jurisprudence, the adjudicator agrees with the RCMP External Review Committee recommendation and dismisses the Appeal.