NC-197 - Harassment

The Appellant lodged a harassment complaint (Complaint) against the Acting Operations Officer at his Detachment (Alleged Harasser), accusing him of several alleged behaviours having taken place during the Appellant’s initial Field Coaching Program phase. These included leaving the Appellant in the care of an inappropriate coach, failure to consider accommodation and to ensure proper use of documentation by field coaches, ignoring the Appellant’s requests for assistance and, delaying/cancelling his training.

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 indicating that it had been reached in a procedurally unfair manner due to the insufficiency of the investigation. The Appellant further argued that the Decision was clearly unreasonable on the basis that the Respondent made factual errors in his analysis of the merits of the allegations and failed to provide sufficient reasons with respect to certain findings. Finally, the Appellant argued that the Respondent did not consider the Appellant’s need for accommodation. 

The ERC found that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the Respondent’s Decision was rendered in a procedurally unfair manner and that it was clearly unreasonable. More specifically, the ERC determined that the failure to interview more witnesses had not resulted in a breach of procedural fairness. Nor was the Decision clearly unreasonable. The Respondent relied on the entirety of the evidence before him when he assessed the merits of the alleged behaviours, grappled with the contradictory statements provided by the parties and explained why he preferred the Alleged Harasser’s version of events over that of the Appellant’s. In addition, the ERC found that the Respondent engaged in a coherent and rational analysis of the evidence and that his reasons were sufficient to explain why he reached the conclusions that he did. 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 and, whether it was rendered in a procedurally fair manner. The ERC set aside the argument without considering it any further.

The ERC recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

The Adjudicator agreed with the ERC Findings and Recommendations and as such, adopted the ERC Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as their reasons for concluding for that this appeal be dismissed.