NC-279 - Harassment

The Appellant submitted a harassment complaint (Complaint) against a Corporal with whom he had worked intermittently (Alleged Harasser). Ultimately, the Respondent determined that the Complaint was not established, and that there was no contravention of the RCMP Code of Conduct (Decision).

The Appellant presents an appeal. He spends a significant portion of his appeal maintaining that the Alleged Harasser truly harassed him. In his view, the Respondent should have rectified this alleged mistreatment by enforcing various authorities. He also challenges the Decision, on several grounds.

The appeal does not raise any preliminary issues.

The ERC recognized the Appellant’s argument on appeal that he was harassed. It also recognized his feelings of hurt, anger, and exasperation. However, the law does not authorize the ERC to reopen a complaint, reevaluate allegations of harassment, or assess fresh incidents of reported bad behaviour. The law authorizes the ERC to consider whether a respondent reached a decision in a procedurally unfair way, erred in law, and/or came to a clearly unreasonable decision. The ERC therefore dealt with the Appellant’s arguments on appeal that raised those three grounds.

The Appellant did not establish the procedural unfairness of which he complained. It would be improper to entertain his concern with investigator incompetence at this stage, given his omission to raise it at the “earliest practical opportunity” (i.e., during the investigation). It also was not clear that investigators failed to pursue “obviously crucial evidence” which could have seriously affected the Decision. Additionally, there was no evidence, other than suspicion, to defeat the presumption of decision-maker impartiality, and support a finding that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Appellant further did not establish the errors of law that he alleged. He did not point to, and the ERC is otherwise unaware of, any legislative or other authority that obligates a decision-maker in a harassment complaint process to transcribe audio statements or type handwritten notes. Moreover, the Respondent correctly cited the principle that allegedly harassing incidents must be considered jointly. It is therefore presumed that she properly applied that principle, absent proof to the contrary. The record does not contain such proof. In fact, the Decision indicates a global evaluation.

Finally, the Appellant did not demonstrate that the Decision was clearly unreasonable. His central concerns seem to be that the Respondent failed to weigh certain evidence the way he would have weighed it, and that she refused to take any actions against the Alleged Harasser. Again, the law does not authorize the ERC to reopen a harassment complaint or to reassess evidence on appeal.

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

The ERC recommends dismissing the appeal.