# 2025-021 Harassment, Harassment, Situational Assessment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-01-29

The grievor submitted a harassment complaint alleging that, approximately one year earlier, during a temporary tasking, a fellow Corporal informally acting as a temporary second-in-command engaged in abusive and derogatory conduct toward him. Although the respondent later apologized, the grievor maintained that the incident was severe and had a lasting impact on his mental health. The Responsible Officer determined that the allegation did not meet the definition of harassment, as it was not a series of incidents nor a single severe incident. The grievor grieved this determination and as redress, requested that his harassment complaint be reevaluated against the criteria to meet the definition of harassment.

The Initial Authority (IA) concluded that while the conduct was inappropriate and had a lasting impact on the grievor, it did not constitute a severe incident as contemplated by Defence Administrative Orders and Directives 5012-0, Harassment Prevention and Resolution. The IA also considered mitigating factors, including the temporary nature of the respondent's role, the apology provided, and the low likelihood of future workplace interaction between the parties. The IA denied the grievance, finding that the harassment complaint was handled fairly and in accordance with policy.

The Committee found that the allegation, although improper conduct, did not meet the criterion of a severe single incident to meet the definition of harassment as described the section 4.6.4 of the Harassment Prevention and Resolution Instructions. The Committee found that the harassment complaint was properly administered in accordance with applicable policy.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.