NC-170 - Harassment

The Appellant brought a sexual harassment complaint (Complaint) against a superior at her office (Alleged Harasser). She said that the Alleged Harasser: had sex with her in his home after a social outing at which he pushed her to drink alcohol; had sex with her again in his home in circumstances she could not recollect; and tried to “seduce” her in her home after a social outing at a coffee shop. Following a lengthy and unusual series of internal processes, the Respondent held a harassment investigation. Investigators interviewed both parties and two members, including Constable (Cst.) [X].

The Respondent determined that the Alleged Harasser did not commit harassment and, in turn, that he had not offended the RCMP Code of Conduct (Decision). The Respondent reasoned that:

    - the parties agreed to have a personal and sometimes intimate relationship;

    - the alleged behaviours did not take place at or anywhere connected to work;

    - it was unclear that the Alleged Harasser ought to have known he behaved inappropriately;

    - there was no evidence the Alleged Harasser used his position to exploit the Appellant; and

    - there was no interpersonal workplace relationship reporting policy in effect at the time.

On appeal, the Appellant raised concerns that the Decision was reached in a procedurally unfair way and/or was clearly unreasonable. She broke down those concerns into four key arguments.

After disposing of a collateral issue, the ERC found that the Appellant’s arguments were unsuccessful.

First, the investigators’ failure to interview her sister was not problematic. There was no suggestion that her sister was present during the alleged behaviours or that she could offer a first-hand description of any alleged behaviours.

Second, the investigators’ failure to question Cst. [X] about her alleged “encounters” with the Alleged Harasser was not problematic. Contrary to the Appellant’s position, such questioning could not have displayed a “nexus” between the alleged behaviours and the workplace, at least as the term “nexus” is understood in the context of proving harassment.

Third, the Appellant did not otherwise say what she believed the investigators ought to have done to ensure the investigation yielded more information about her associations with the Alleged Harasser.

Fourth, the Decision was not internally uneven. They Appellant took issue with two distinct findings for two separate allegations and linked them in an attempt to reveal an inconsistency that did not exist. The Respondent’s conclusions exhibited a tenable line of analysis in support of the Decision.

The ERC recognized that the Appellant had dealt with an incomplete response to her Complaint for a regrettable amount of time and apologized to her for its role in that delay.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.