NC-216 – Harassment

The Appellant alleged that the Alleged Harasser engaged in a pattern harassment, including falsely accusing her of conflicts of interest and dishonesty, placing her in an inevitable conflict of interest, questioning her integrity and honesty, and not performing her job properly.

The Respondent determined that, on a balance of probabilities, there was no prima facie evidence that any of the allegations brought forward by the Appellant met the definition of harassment. Therefore, the Allegation was not established.

On appeal, the Appellant argued that the Respondent was biased against her, and that the Decision did not address the alleged behaviours. As redress, the Appellant requested that a trained adjudicator, who is not associated with the RCMP chain of command, review the material, conduct another investigation, and make a new decision on her Complaint.

There Was No Bias

The ERC found that the Appellant offered no material evidence of bias. Instead, she offered suspicion, conjecture, and mere impressions, which are unacceptable bases on which to find actual or a reasonable apprehension of bias. Therefore, the Appellant did not establish that the Respondent was biased against her.

The Decision Is Clearly Unreasonable and Based on an Error of Law

The ERC found that the Respondent failed to apply the definition of harassment properly, answer key questions, or conduct the required tests for all of the alleged behaviours. The Respondent did not provide the requisite rational or tenable line of analysis between the evidence that was before her and her findings. Therefore, the Decision is clearly unreasonable.

The ERC also found that the Decision reveals a predominant emphasis on the Alleged Harasser’s intentions when grappling with the issue of whether harassment had occurred. Focus on the Alleged Harasser’s intentions, rather than on the impact on the Appellant, is an error of law. Therefore, the Decision is irreparably flawed.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be allowed.