NC-244 - Harassment

The Alleged Harasser was one of the Appellant’s superiors at the Detachment at issue. The Appellant brought a harassment complaint (Complaint) against the Alleged Harasser. The Complaint contained four Allegations. The Complaint was one of five associated harassment complaints, initially submitted as a single complaint to the Office for the Coordination of Harassment Complaints.

Two investigators were assigned to examine the Allegations and provide a Final Investigation Report (FIR). The Respondent, after considering the FIR, which contained interviews with eight individuals, including the Appellant and the Alleged Harasser, found that the Complaint did not meet the definition of harassment.

The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s Decision. The Appellant raises a broad range of grounds as to why he believes the Respondent’s Decision was procedurally unfair, based on an error of law, and clearly unreasonable. 

The ERC found that the appeal should be allowed because the Decision was based on errors of law, was procedurally unfair, and was clearly unreasonable.

The ERC found that the Respondent misdirected the onus of proof concerning the Complaint onto the Appellant in his assessment of the evidence. In addition, the Respondent failed to consider the Allegations collectively, as a series of incidents.

The ERC also found that there was procedural unfairness based on the insufficiency of the harassment investigation.

Further, the Respondent failed to meaningfully account for the central issue of credibility, resulting in a clearly unreasonable Decision. The ERC also addressed other key issues raised by the Appellant, which generally pertained to the processing of this Appeal.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be allowed, and the matter be remitted to a new decision-maker, with directions for rendering a new decision.