NC-221 – Harassment

The Appellant filed a Harassment Complaint (Complaint) At the time, he had been off duty sick with full pay for roughly 16 years. He accused the Alleged Harasser of helping another member direct him to submit paperwork in anticipation of a possible return-to-work, allegedly in breach of a stay pending the result of a separate, internal process. The Federal Court of Canada would later find that the alleged stay did not stop the RCMP from directing the Appellant to submit the paperwork.    

The Respondent dismissed the Complaint without calling for a harassment investigation (Decision). She found that none of the alleged behaviour was directed at the Appellant, which was an essential element of harassment. She further found that the Appellant had made assumptions about what happened. The Appellant disagreed and presented an appeal. He argued that the Decision was reached in procedurally unfair ways, was based on errors of law, and is clearly unreasonable. 

After addressing some preliminary issues, the ERC found that the Appellant’s main arguments were unsuccessful.

To begin, there was no procedural unfairness. The Appellant failed to satisfy the high threshold for establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias. It was also clear that he had had the chance to tell his side of the story and that he did so comprehensively before the Respondent made the Decision. In addition, there was no indication that he was improperly denied disclosure prior to the Decision.

Second, the Respondent did not commit an error of law. There was no authority that prevented her from making the Decision at the time she did. She appropriately applied the relevant, objective test for determining if harassment occurred. She properly understood the definition of “harassment” set forth in harassment policy. Moreover, there was no factual basis for a purported Charter violation.

Finally, the Decision was not clearly unreasonable. The Respondent turned her mind to the alleged harassment. There was no proof that she disregarded any of the evidence before her. Furthermore, she presented a tenable line of analysis in support of the Decision. This was not to suggest that the Decision was perfect. The Respondent may have bolstered it, for instance, by better explaining that:

-       the allegedly harassing behaviour was not only peripheral, but also vague and speculative;

-       this went against policy and commonsense, which anticipated “precise” complaints; and

-       it was not evident that the alleged behaviour took place, let alone that it was harassment.

Despite these imperfections, the Respondent’s reasons were consistent with the evidence found in the record, and were sufficient to dispose of the Complaint.

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.