NC-228 - Harassment

The Appellant alleged that the Alleged Harasser engaged in a pattern harassment, most involving the issue of the Appellant’s compliance with the residency policy.

The Respondent determined that, on a balance of probabilities, the Alleged Harasser never exhibited any improper or offensive conduct, and exercised his managerial authorities and responsibilities in a legitimate, proper, and respectful manner. Therefore, the Allegation was not established.

On appeal, the Appellant argued that the investigation and resulting Decision were flawed, due to tunnel vision. The Appellant also argued that the Respondent failed to distinguish the question of his residency from the question of the Alleged Harasser’s behaviour, making the Respondent’s findings outside a range of reasonable outcomes.

There Was No Breach of Procedural Fairness

The ERC found that the Appellant offered no compelling evidence to show that the investigators failed to examine the Alleged Harasser’s behaviour, or that they could have obtained other significant or relevant information that could have materially affected the Respondent’s findings. Therefore, the Appellant did not establish that the investigation was not thorough and neutral.

The Decision Is Not Clearly Unreasonable

The ERC found that the Respondent’s Decision contains a rational and tenable line of analysis that is based on the evidence, and which supports his findings for each of the alleged behaviours comprising the Allegation. Therefore, the ERC found that the Appellant did not establish that the Decision is clearly unreasonable because it is based on an assumption that he was not in compliance with policy.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.