NC-193 - Harassment

The Appellant lodged a harassment complaint (Complaint) against the non-commissioned officer in charge at his Detachment (Alleged Harasser) accusing him of several alleged behaviours such as coercion, refusing to comply with the recommendations of the RCMP doctors, asking him to chauffeur him around for personal reasons, questioning him while he was off-duty, placing him on administrative duty, assigning him insignificant tasks and putting him under scrutiny and surveillance.

The Respondent dismissed the Complaint finding that the alleged behaviours did not amount to harassment. Rather, he found that the Alleged Harasser acted within the scope of his duties and treated the Appellant in a respectful manner. The Appellant appealed the Decision arguing that the Respondent erred in law by misusing 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, failed to properly address the main concerns the Appellant had brought forth and did not consider the Appellant’s need for accommodation. 

The ERC found that the Decision is clearly unreasonable as the Respondent failed to address the Appellant’s key arguments in his assessment of two of the alleged behaviours. As for the remaining alleged behaviours, the ERC determined that the Respondent did not err in law and that he 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 one version of events over the other. Finally, the ERC observed that the Respondent, in his role as decision maker in a harassment complaint, was not required to assess the Appellant’s need for accommodation; this issue goes beyond the scope of the appeal which concerns the reasonableness of the Decision. Therefore, the ERC set aside the argument without considering it any further.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be allowed and the matter be remitted to a new decision-maker for decision.