NC-172 - Harassment

The Appellant lodged a harassment complaint (Complaint) against his supervisor (Alleged Harasser) accusing him of failing to use supervision documents appropriately and refusing to document positive aspects of the Appellant’s performance at the detachment. The Appellant also maintained that the Alleged Harasser failed to consider his need for accommodation.

The Respondent dismissed the Complaint finding that the Alleged Harasser was acting within the scope of his duties. The Appellant appealed the Decision arguing that the Respondent erred in law by misapplying the definition of harassment. The Appellant further argued that the Decision was clearly unreasonable on the basis that the Respondent made factual errors in his analysis on the merits of the allegations and did not consider the Appellant’s need for accommodation. Finally, the Appellant requested that additional witnesses be questioned before a decision is made by the Final Adjudicator. 

The ERC found the Appellant’s argument regarding the questioning of additional witnesses to be without merit. In support of this conclusion, the ERC observed that an appeal is not an opportunity to further investigate the harassment complaint or have the evidence re-weighted. In his rebuttal to the Preliminary Investigation Report, the Appellant could have voiced his concerns and requested that the witnesses be interviewed but he failed to do so. The ERC further found that the Respondent did not err in law and that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the Decision is clearly unreasonable. More specifically, the ERC determined that the Respondent relied on the entirety of the evidence before him when he assessed the merits of the alleged behaviours. It was also found that the Respondent grappled with the controversial statements provided by the parties and explained why he preferred the Alleged Harasser’s version of events over that of the Appellant’s. Finally, the ERC found that, besides the general comment that the Respondent failed to consider his need for accommodation, the Appellant had not provided further submissions on this issue and therefore, that the argument was without merit. 

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

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

On October 3, 2016, the Appellant was posted to his first detachment. He displayed several work-related deficiencies from the outset and failed to meet the six-month program requirements. Therefore, he was assigned a second field coach for approximately eight weeks, and then in May 2017, he was assigned a third field coach (the Alleged Harasser).

On November 17, 2018, the Appellant submitted a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser. On July 11, 2019, the Respondent found that the alleged behaviours did not amount to harassment.

The Appellant is challenging the Respondent’s decision that the Alleged Harasser did not contravene the RCMP Code of Conduct.

The appeal was referred to the ERC, who recommended for the appeal to be dismissed.

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