# 2025-016 Harassment, Harassment, Summary Investigation

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-02-05

The grievor disputed the manner in which a harassment complaint submitted against him was administered. As the respondent, the grievor contended that, following a summary investigation (SI) into the handling of the complaint, multiple errors were identified that resulted in a lack of procedural fairness. Despite these findings, and despite being made aware of potential service offences, no individuals were held accountable for the misconduct that caused both personal and professional harm to the grievor. As redress, the grievor requested that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) provide clearer policy direction, including a review of relevant orders to eliminate potential ambiguity, the initiation of disciplinary investigations where appropriate, and acknowledgment of responsibility for the physical, emotional, and reputational harm caused by individuals acting under CAF authority through an ex gratia payment.

The Deputy Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, as the Initial Authority (IA), responded to the grievor's request for clearer policy, advising that following review, a new approach to Canadian Armed Forces Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention was being implemented. With respect to the grievor's request for damages, the IA advised that they did not have the inherent authority to grant redress and forwarded the file to the Final Authority (FA).

The Committee found that even though the harassment complaint was handled in a somewhat confusing manner, the allegations were reviewed and a determination made that the grievor did not harass the complainant. Furthermore, the chain of command took the issues raised by the grievor seriously and initiated a SI into the situation. The Committee found that the grievor had provided no evidence of damages and that the harassment complaint was not frivolous or malicious on its face. 

Ultimately, the harassment complaint was dismissed as unfounded and the Committee determined that it was irrelevant to consider its substance at this point, given that the file was closed with no findings against the grievor. The Committee recommended that the FA not afford the grievor redress.