NC-291 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint against her direct supervisor. Her complaint listed eight incidents occurring between August 2017 and July 2018, including repeated comments discouraging her from speaking French in the workplace, direction to use a smaller and less safe vehicle despite available alternatives, interference with travel and scheduling matters, and two degrading sexual remarks. Following an investigation, the Respondent concluded that none of the allegations met the definition of harassment under the RCMP Harassment Policy. While the Respondent agreed that one of the sexualized comments (Incident 7) was “completely unacceptable,” he determined that the Appellant’s response diminished its impact and that overall harm was not established.

The Appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the Respondent erred in his assessment of Incidents 1 and 7, specifically by failing to consider Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (Charter) language rights in the French‑language incident and by unreasonably evaluating the sexualized comment in Incident 7.

The ERC found merit in the Appellant’s first ground of appeal: that the Respondent erred in law by failing to consider relevant Charter values, specifically the constitutional principle of official bilingualism, when determining whether Incident 1 constituted harassment. While the Charter does not create a broad right for federal employees to work in the official language of their choice, the ERC concluded that bilingualism operates as a Charter value, reinforced by the quasi‑constitutional Official Languages Act. As such, decision-makers must meaningfully consider this value when exercising their discretion. The Respondent, however, did not address or balance this constitutional value in his analysis and instead focused solely on operational supervision considerations. The ERC determined that this omission constituted an error of law.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s Doré framework, the ERC found that the Respondent had a duty to engage with and weigh Charter values that were engaged by the Appellant’s allegations. This required at least a brief, but meaningful assessment of how the Charter value of bilingualism should be balanced against operational needs within the detachment. Because the Respondent failed to undertake this proportionality analysis, his decision on Incident 1 could not stand.

The ERC recommends that the Final Adjudicator allow the appeal and remit the matter for a new decision by an appropriate decision‑maker who considers the required Charter values in accordance with the Doré framework.