NC-183 - Harassment
The Appellant elected to challenge a speeding ticket he received while driving a covert police vehicle. The ticketing officer raised concerns to the Alleged Harasser regarding the Appellant’s behaviour in challenging the ticket. The Alleged Harasser attended the Appellant’s traffic court hearing. The Appellant took issue with the Alleged Harasser’s concerns and actions in response to him challenging the ticket, which led to the Appellant submitting a harassment complaint. After an investigation, the Respondent found that harassment had not occurred.
The Appellant appealed this decision on the basis that there were errors in the findings by the Respondent. The Appellant challenged many of the findings in the Respondent’s decision, arguing that the Respondent failed to consider the evidence that supported the Appellant. The Appellant also alleged that the Respondent exhibited bias in omitting certain details in the decision and that the Respondent was protecting the Alleged Harasser due to his rank and role within the Force.
ERC Findings
Clearly Unreasonable Decision
The ERC found that none of the alleged deficiencies in the Decision led to it being clearly unreasonable. The Respondent, in the Decision, did not mention every piece of evidence. However, the Respondent did make findings regarding the alleged incidents and there existed evidence to rationally support the Respondent’s findings. The ERC found that the findings that the Appellant believed were omitted, were not necessary in assessing whether harassment occurred.
Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
The ERC found that the alleged errors and omissions were insufficient to create a reasonable apprehension of bias. Furthermore, the ERC observed that bias is not made out by the mere fact that the decision was unfavorable to the Appellant. As well, the Appellant did not demonstrate a relationship between the Alleged Harasser and Respondent to a degree that established a reasonable apprehension of bias.
ERC Recommendation
The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.
Page details
- Date modified: