NC-259 - Harassment

The Appellant alleged that the Alleged Harasser committed a series of harassing behaviours while the two worked together to deliver training to other RCMP members. An investigation was mandated and a Final Investigation Report was produced.

In the first decision on the matter, the decision-maker determined that the Alleged Harasser’s actions were deliberate, calculated, and cruel. Consequently, she found that the harassment complaint was established.

The Alleged Harasser appealed the first decision, based, in part, on a breach of his right to be heard. The first decision-maker did not hold a conduct meeting before rendering her decision, as required by RCMP policy. Consequently, the Conduct Appeal Adjudicator allowed the Alleged Harasser’s appeal and remitted the matter back to the point of error. She ordered a new decision-maker review the Final Investigation Report, and determine whether a prima facie case was established.

The resulting redetermination was the Respondent’s Decision.

In her Decision, the Respondent found that, based on her review of the Final Investigation Report, a prima facie case was not established.

On appeal, among other things, the Appellant was perplexed by the existence of two diametrically opposed decisions on the same matter. He expressed his concern that the Respondent had not followed the applicable legislation and RCMP policy related to the appeals process.

Error of Law: The Respondent’s Decision Is Invalid

The RCMP Act sets out two options for disposing of an appeal against a conduct authority’s finding: (1) dismiss the appeal and confirm the finding being appealed; or (2) allow the appeal and make the finding that, in the Commissioner’s opinion, the conduct authority should have made. These were the only two options available to the Conduct Appeal Adjudicator.

Therefore, the ERC found that the Conduct Appeal Adjudicator erred in law when she remitted the matter back for both a reconsideration of the FIR and a new decision on the harassment complaint. For this reason, the second Decision should have never been issued and is invalid.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be allowed.