NC-174 - Harassment

The Appellant was a recruit in the Field Coaching Program. The Alleged Harasser was assigned as his field coach. The Appellant and the Alleged Harasser had a turbulent working relationship. The Appellant ultimately brought a harassment complaint (Complaint) against the Alleged Harasser. The Complaint contained five Allegations.

Two investigators were assigned to examine the Allegations and provide a Final Investigation Report (FIR). The Respondent, after considering the FIR, which included interviews with nine individuals, including the Appellant and the Alleged Harasser, found that the Complaint did not meet the definition of harassment. The Respondent, however, found that there was a workplace conflict between the Appellant and the Alleged Harasser.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s Decision. The Appellant raises a broad range of grounds as to why he believes the Respondent’s Decision was procedurally unfair, based on an error of law, and clearly unreasonable. Among the Appellant’s many submissions, the Appellant asserts that the Decision considered the Alleged Harasser’s intention, and failed to consider the events in totality, when finding that no harassment had occurred.

The ERC found that the appeal should be allowed because the Decision was based on two errors of law. Given that the errors of law are determinative in this case, the ERC did not address the other grounds of appeal.

First, the ERC found that the Respondent misapplied the reasonable person test by improperly considering the Alleged Harasser’s intent.

Second, the ERC found that both the structure and the content of the Decision revealed that the Respondent erred by only considering the Allegations individually, or in pairs, but not collectively, as a series of alleged incidents.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed, and the matter be remitted to a new decision maker with the following directions for rendering a new decision:

• The decision maker properly apply the reasonable person test; and
• The decision maker consider all of the incidents in question as a series or pattern.

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

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint against the Alleged Harasser. The Respondent issued a Record of Decision wherein he determined that harassment was not established, concluding that the Appellant’s complaint was unfounded, though there was a finding of workplace conflict.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s decision. The appeal was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) and, in a Report containing findings and recommendations, the ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed on the basis that the decision contained an error of law. The ERC recommended that the Respondent’s decision be set aside and that the matter be remitted to a new decision maker.

The adjudicator agreed with the finding of the ERC. The adjudicator found that the Respondent’s decision contained an error in law in that it considered the alleged harasser’s subjective beliefs and did not consider multiple incidents as a whole. The appeal was upheld and returned for new decision from a new decision-maker.