NC-266 - Harassment

The Appellant brought a harassment complaint (Complaint) against his Detachment Commander (Alleged Harasser). He accused her of berating, embarrassing, and intimidating him on multiple occasions. Following an investigation, the Respondent concluded that the Alleged Harasser did not engage in harassment. There was accordingly no breach of the RCMP Code of Conduct (Decision).

The Appellant appealed the Decision. He argued that the Respondent:

    -       showed bias by rejecting his claims without giving supporting reasons why;

    -       did not consider and address the entire Complaint;

    -       ignored a provision of the RCMP Career Management Manual (CMM); and

    -       expressed unreasonable views and conclusions.

The appeal did not raise any preliminary issues.

The ERC found that the Appellant’s arguments were unsuccessful.

To begin, the Appellant did not establish that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias. The informed person who considered the case realistically and practically, and thought it through, would find it more likely than not that the Respondent decided matters fairly. There was no evidence that the Respondent had a conflict of interest, displayed hostility towards the Appellant, or made a prior decision in which he formed a view of the Appellant or the Alleged Harasser. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the Respondent was inclined to prefer a particular outcome.

Second, the Respondent did not fail to consider a key issue or a central argument. The position the Appellant accused the Respondent of disregarding was not set forth in the Complaint, and occupied only two or so minutes of discussion throughout the Appellant’s two-hour and 15-minute statement. Moreover, the Respondent did in fact explicitly address that position when assessing the Complaint.

Third, the Appellant’s concerns regarding the CMM essentially reasserted a crucial point in the Complaint. This was an improper attempt to reargue that point on appeal. In any event, there was simply no need for the Respondent to consider the CMM provision in question in the Decision.

Fourth, the Appellant did not show that the Respondent’s views and conclusions were so flawed that they undermined the reasonableness of the Decision as a whole. The Appellant took issue with aspects of the Decision that were not pertinent to the Complaint. He also again improperly reargued parts of the Complaint. Furthermore, he mischaracterized disputed elements of the Decision.

The ERC sincerely apologized to the Appellant for the delay to his appeal.

The ERC recommends dismissing the appeal.