# 2022-050 Others, Grievable Issue Under the National Defence Act, Harassment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-05-05

The grievor argued that his assisting member refused to provide assistance. By failing to assign an effective assistant, he subsequently argued that his Commanding Officer (CO) failed to exercise leadership. The grievor also argued that the Harassment Prevention and Resolution Instructions (HPRI) and Military Administrative Law Manual were not applied in assigning an assisting member. As redress, he requested prevention measures, an investigation, and acknowledgements from the assistant and CO of their policy violations.

The Initial Authority (IA), the grievor's CO, rejected the grievances. The IA determined that an assistant under the HPRI is a voluntary position and that an individual cannot be ordered to assist. The IA further determined that the grievor was not personally aggrieved and, therefore, did not meet the requirements of article 7.01 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. 

As a preliminary issue, the Committee considered whether the grievance pertaining to the assisting member constituted a decision, act or omission in the administration of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) as per subsection 29(1) of the National Defence Act (NDA). The Committee noted that it was unclear whether the grievor meant an assistant in the grievance or harassment process. Either way, the Committee did not agree that it was a grievable matter, as the grievance process is not a mechanism to complain about the competence or performance of other CAF members. However, as per subsection 29.12(1) of the NDA, the Committee examined the merits of the grievance since it was referred to the Committee for review. 

Regardless of whether the individual was effective in assisting the grievor, the Committee concluded that the assistant's performance was not fatal to the grievor. The Committee noted that the grievor was able to submit his grievances and that he declined the use of an assistant during the harassment investigation. The Committee found that the CO appropriately discharged his responsibilities by assigning an assistant. Lastly, the Committee found that the grievor did not make a specific complaint, nor provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his argument that the HPRI and Military Administrative Law Manual were not applied. 

The Committee recommended that that Final Authority not afford redress.