NC-258 - 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 15 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 multiple 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 there were errors of law. 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, and incorrectly considered the intention of the Alleged Harasser.

The ERC also found that there was procedural unfairness based on the insufficiency of the harassment investigation, and because the Appellant was unable to fully respond to the Preliminary Investigation Report.

Further, the Respondent failed to fully account for the central issue of credibility, resulting in a clearly unreasonable Decision. The ERC also addressed other key issues raised by the Appellant.

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.