# 2022-002 Harassment, Harassment, Situational Assessment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-10-16

The grievor challenged the decision by the Responsible Officer (RO) to close his harassment complaint file, calling it unfair. He explained that the RO had been biased in his analysis and had disregarded or underestimated the justifications provided by twisting their meaning. He mentioned that the respondent had engaged in reprehensible, discriminatory and racist conduct that could be verified using the evidence he had submitted. As redress, the grievor sought to have his complaint re-examined, applying the principles of procedural fairness, and to have an investigation be conducted. Moreover, he asked that the Canadian Armed Forces grant him reasonable material compensation given the negative repercussions he suffered as a result of the respondent's acts.

The Initial Authority found that, in accordance with Defence Administrative Order and Directive (DAOD) 5012-0, the allegations described in the harassment complaint did not meet the criteria for determining that harassment had occurred and for conducting an investigation or for the grievor's complaint to be re-analyzed.

The Committee found that, according to DAOD 5012-0 and the Harassment Prevention and Resolution Guidelines, some of the situations described in the complaint could be considered harassment. Moreover, the RO sought the information directly from the respondent, which is contrary to the steps set out in the guidelines. Therefore, the Committee found that the RO's decision to close the grievor's complaint file was unreasonable and did not comply with the applicable provisions.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority order an investigation into the allegations of harassment that were retained during the Committee's new situational assessment.