NC-263 - Harassment

The Appellant tendered a harassment complaint against his direct superior (Alleged Harasser). He contended that the Alleged Harasser harassed him on separate occasions by: speaking to him while using a stern and angry demeanour; interacting with him in a rude and demeaning way; making remarks that were embarrassing and unprofessional; making remarks that were dismissive of his and others’ efforts; being rude to his peer and inexplicably closing down an investigation; and otherwise treating him in a trivializing and disparaging manner.

Following a mandated investigation during which eight individuals made statements, the Respondent issued the Decision, finding that the harassment allegation in this complaint had not been established and did not meet the standard of harassment as per RCMP policy. The Appellant presented an appeal of the Decision.

In the Appellant’s view, the Decision was reached in a manner that contravened procedural fairness, was based on an error of law and was clearly unreasonable. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent failed to consider his rebuttal to the Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR), failed to consider, aside from the harassment definition, whether the behaviours were discourteous and erred in her assessment of the facts.

The ERC first found that the Respondent applied the correct legal test since harassment and discourtesy do not require the application of the same criteria. The Appellant filed a harassment complaint and the Respondent was bound by the statutory instruments that deal with harassment. Applying the wrong legal test, such as the test for discourtesy in response to a harassment allegation, would be an error of law and would be inconsistent with the RCMP harassment policy. The ERC then found that there was evidence in the decision that showed that the Respondent considered his rebuttal to the PIR; therefore, the Appellant had not reversed the presumption that the decision-maker had considered all evidence. Lastly, the ERC found that the Respondent had correctly applied the definition of harassment to the facts and had not made any factual errors in her assessment.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.