NC-205 – Harassment

The Appellant alleged that the Alleged Harasser engaged in a pattern harassment, including a meeting to explain his place in the RCMP’s hierarchy, continually offering key work portfolios and roles to other less-qualified and less-experienced members, and denying him business trips.

The Respondent determined that, on a balance of probabilities, the alleged behaviours—individually and cumulatively—failed to meet one or more of the criteria established in policy. The Respondent found that the Alleged Harasser was acting within his managerial responsibilities, or the behaviours were neither directed at the Appellant nor meant to cause him offence or harm. Therefore, the Allegation was not established.

On appeal, the Appellant argued that the Respondent’s Decision was based on incorrect information, disregarded information, and improper weighing of evidence, which made it clearly unreasonable. As redress, the Appellant requested that his pension be restored without penalty.

The Decision is Not Clearly Unreasonable

The ERC found that the Respondent delivered responsive reasons in her Decision, which addressed the central issues raised by the Appellant. Therefore, the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the decision is clearly unreasonable based on the sufficiency of reasons.

The Alleged Factual Errors are Immaterial

The ERC found that none of the Appellant’s concerns regarding various details in the Respondent’s Decision amount to a fundamental misapprehension of the evidence concerning any of the central findings. Therefore, the Appellant did not establish that the Decision is clearly unreasonable due to factual errors. Consequently, a reweighing of the evidence was not warranted.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.