NC-282 - Harassment

The Appellant appeals the Respondent’s decision that her harassment complaint was not established. The Respondent found, after completing an investigation, that while there was conflict in the workplace, the Appellant’s allegations did not meet the definition of harassment.

In the Appellant’s view, the decision was reached in a manner that contravened procedural fairness and was clearly unreasonable. The Appellant took the position that the investigation was incomplete as there was no statement taken from a relevant witness. She further argued that the Respondent erred by either discounting witnesses’ accounts or by finding that the established conduct did not meet the definition of harassment.

The ERC first found that the investigators did not miss crucial evidence by not interviewing the Appellant’s colleague that allegedly brought concerns to her. This was because other witnesses had provided the same information and there was no conflict in the evidence. The ERC then found that the Appellant had not demonstrated that the Respondent had erred in her assessment of the evidence. The Appellant’s argument centred on the weight the Respondent afforded to the evidence and the ERC, as an appellate body, could not reweigh the evidence as requested. Lastly, the ERC found that the Respondent correctly applied the legal test of harassment by conducting a comprehensive analysis of the incidents and situating them within the broader context of workplace dynamics. Not only did the Respondent indicate that she considered the behaviours together, she assessed the alleged behaviours taking into account not only the specifics on the interactions in question, but also the surrounding circumstances of each alleged behaviour, including the evidence provided by multiple witnesses describing the workplace as being toxic and the growing conflict that existed between the RCMP and the municipal police service.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be dismissed.