# 2012-138 Harassment

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–01–31

The grievor submitted a harassment complaint against his immediate supervisor which included two allegations; both involved his immediate supervisor making alleged inappropriate and derogatory statements to lower-ranking members about the grievor. A situational assessment (SA) was conducted, and it was determined by the unit's Commanding Officer, acting as the Responsible Officer, that neither allegation met the definition of harassment as the comments were not made directly to the grievor.

The grievor submitted a grievance contending that his harassment complaint was not fully and properly investigated. He also noted that a key witness was never interviewed. As redress, he requested an apology from his immediate supervisor.

There is no Initial Authority decision in the matter as the grievor did not grant an extension to the time limits to render a decision, as prescribed in Queens Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces Chapter 7.

The Board examined the process for dealing with harassment complaints in the Harassment Resolution and Prevention Guidelines (the Guidelines). The Board found that there was no requirement in the Guidelines for an individual to be present to meet the criteria of “directed at” as required in the definition of harassment. In addition, paragraph 8.7 of the Responsible Officer's Guide clarifies that a conduct is "directed at" if the person "personally experiences the conduct and/or the repercussions of it". The Board found that, despite the alleged inappropriate comments not being made directly to the grievor, the comments could be construed as intimidating, demeaning, and could have caused humiliation, and were directed at the grievor. At face value, the Board found that the allegations met the definition of harassment and should have been investigated at the time.

Concerning the grievor's request for an apology, the Board noted that such a finding could be construed as a breach of freedom of expression. In any event, the allegations have not yet been investigated, so this issue was a moot point.

The Board recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff that he partially uphold the grievance, and order a harassment investigation into both allegations.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–06–10

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be partially upheld and that a harassment investigation should have been conducted as the allegations at issue met the definition of harassment. The CDS decided to investigate and consider the merits of the harassment allegations in the context of the grievance. Having reviewed the evidence, the CDS found that the grievor was not harassed.