NC-289 - Harssment

The Alleged Harasser was an Inspector at the Detachment at issue. The Appellant brought a harassment complaint (Complaint) against the Alleged Harasser. The Complaint contained eight alleged incidents.

An investigation was mandated into the Complaint. Two investigators interviewed the Appellant and the Alleged Harasser, and provided a Final Investigation Report (FIR) to the Respondent. The Respondent, after considering the FIR, found that the Complaint did not meet the definition of harassment. The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s Decision. 

The ERC found that the Respondent’s decision was procedurally unfair and contained an error of law.

The ERC found that the harassment investigation was insufficient. The investigators interviewed only the Appellant and the Alleged Harasser, despite the Appellant identifying several witnesses in his Complaint, including some who may have had obviously crucial evidence. The absence of third party perspectives left the factual record incomplete on fundamental issues.

The ERC also found that the Respondent committed an error of law by assessing some of the Alleged Harasser’s conduct through the lens of good faith intentions. RCMP harassment policy requires conduct to be assessed based on the impact on the complainant from the perspective of a reasonable person; intent is irrelevant. The Respondent’s decision did not apply the required legal test.

The ERC recommends that the appeal be allowed as follows: remit the matter to a new decision-maker with a direction to determine whether a supplementary investigation can be conducted to obtain witness evidence and any relevant policies. If such an investigation is feasible, both parties should be given an opportunity to comment on any new evidence, before a new decision is made. If the supplementary investigation cannot be completed, the ERC recommends that the Final Adjudicator provide the Appellant with an apology.