NC-134 - Harassment

The Appellant filed two harassment complaints with the Office for the Coordination of Harassment Complaints (OCHC). In her complaints, the Appellant submits that she was harassed by her supervisor (Alleged Harasser) who allegedly, among other things, made derogatory comments towards her, made sexist comments and isolated her. An investigation took place and 27 witnesses were interviewed, including the Appellant and the Alleged Harasser. The Respondent then rendered a decision in which he found that the Appellant had not been the victim of harassment. According to the Respondent, the allegations and facts reported by the Appellant were not corroborated by the witnesses or by the Appellant’s notes and, in some cases, the witnesses and the Appellant’s notes contradicted her version of the facts.

On appeal, the Appellant submits that her right to natural justice and procedural fairness was breached. She also submits that the Respondent erred in his decision by making errors of fact and failing to consider testimonial evidence. Finally, the Appellant submits that the investigators failed to investigate certain facts from her complaints. 

The ERC found that the decision was clearly unreasonable. Since the Respondent does not appear to have considered all the evidence that was before him, he could not meaningfully assess the Appellant’s allegations of harassment. In addition, there was a breach of procedural fairness when the investigators denied the Appellant a copy of the audio recording or a transcript of the witness statements before the Respondent rendered his decision. 

The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed and that the matter be remitted to another decision maker for a new decision. The ERC also recommended that the Appellant and the Alleged Harasser be provided again with the preliminary investigation report and full audio recordings of the witness statements and be permitted to comment fully on the facts in the investigation report.   

The Commissioner's decision as summarized by his office is as follows:

[Translation]

The Appellant filed two harassment complaints against her supervisor (Alleged Harasser). Following an investigation, the Respondent determined that the Alleged Harasser’s actions did not amount to harassment.

The Appellant challenged the Respondent’s decision. She argued that the decision contravened the principles of procedural fairness, was based on an error of law and was clearly unreasonable. The case was referred to the RCMP External Review Committee (ERC) for review. The ERC found that the decision was clearly unreasonable and that there were breaches of procedural fairness in the process. The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed.

According to the Adjudicator, the wrong process was used to challenge the Respondent’s decision. The appeal must therefore be dismissed. Due to the passage of time and the fact that the parties in question no longer work for the RCMP, no further action on this complaint is possible. The Adjudicator apologizes to the Appellant on behalf of the RCMP for the deficiencies in the handling of her harassment complaints.