# 2021-059 Harassment, Harassment, Situational assessment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-12-14

The grievor contested the decision of the responsible officer (RO), also her commanding officer, not to proceed with the investigation of her harassment complaint against the Base Surgeon (B Surg). The grievor claimed that the B Surg abused his authority on several occasions to ensure that a medical release happened for the grievor and that it appeared the B Surg did not follow proper procedures by making efforts to prevent a new Permanent Medical Category from being assigned to the grievor. The grievor indicated that she felt targeted and harassed and that she was not comfortable with the B Surg being involved in her health care because his actions had a negative impact on her recovery. The grievor maintained that the RO was in a position of conflict of interest as he was named in the complaint.

The Initial Authority (IA) determined that the situational assessment (SA) was conducted fairly and appropriately by the RO, and that the conclusion that the complaint did not meet all six criteria of the definition of harassment contained in section 3.6 of the Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) 5012-0, Harassment Prevention and Resolution, was correct. Further, the IA determined that the RO was not in a conflict of interest to evaluate the complaint because he was not named as a witness or a respondent in the complaint. The IA conducted a second SA as part of the synopsis wherein he came to the same conclusion. It was found that the complaint did not meet two of the harassment criteria because the allegations were not considered to be “improper conduct” by the B Surg and the individual could not have reasonably known that the statements would cause offence.

The Committee found that the B Surg's conduct towards the grievor was not improper, instead, that his conduct was part of his duties and functions. The Committee found that the grievor's allegations, as stated, did not meet the criteria for harassment set out in DAOD 5012-0 and that there was no requirement to conduct an investigation. With respect to the allegation that the RO was in a conflict of interest, the Committee found that as the grievor's commanding officer was not named as a respondent or a witness in the complaint, he was not in a conflict of interest and the RO was properly determined.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority deny the grievor redress.