NC-236 - Harassment

The Appellant performed general duties at a detachment. He was also part of a Team. The Appellant became concerned about tactical decisions being made during high-risk calls. He also believed that detachment members were being put at risk in situations for which they lacked training. The Appellant voiced his concerns to the Alleged Harasser, who was responsible for training at the detachment. In the Appellant’s view, the Alleged Harasser became frustrated by the Appellant’s opinions regarding officer safety, and eventually engaged in disrespectful behavior towards the Appellant.

The Appellant submitted a harassment complaint (Complaint) against the Alleged Harasser. The Complaint included allegations that the Alleged Harasser had made a number of offensive comments towards the Appellant, had yelled at him in front of other members, and had improperly denied him training opportunities. The Respondent issued a Decision finding that the allegations did not constitute harassment, and that there was no need to investigate the Complaint.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s Decision. He believed that the Alleged Harasser’s behaviors towards him in a number of incidents showed a pattern that amounted to harassment. He also believed that an investigation into his Complaint should take place. The appeal was presented eight days past the prescribed 14-day limitation period.

Applying a four-factor test, the ERC found that the limitation period should be extended. One factor, the reasonableness of the explanation for the delay, did not favor the Appellant. However, a balancing of this with the remaining factors warranted an extension of time. The appeal grounds raised by the Appellant pointed to potential merit, he had demonstrated an ongoing intention to pursue his appeal and there was no indication of prejudice to the Respondent arising from the delay. Accordingly, an extension of time to allow a review of the appeal merits would best serve the interests of justice.

The ERC then found that the appeal should be allowed on two grounds. First, the Respondent had erred in law by failing to cumulatively assess the incidents in the Complaint, and by erroneously focusing on the Alleged Harasser’s intent when deciding that harassment had not occurred. Second, the Respondent’s failure to investigate the Complaint resulted in the Decision being uninformed and clearly unreasonable. Several witnesses identified in the Complaint could have provided valuable information to the Respondent when he assessed whether harassment had occurred. 

The ERC recommends allowing the appeal. It also recommends remitting the matter to a new decision-maker with a direction to mandate an investigation into the Complaint.