Are Delayed Complaints of Sexual Harassment Not Worthy of Human Rights Protection?

Sophie Poinar
{"title":"Are Delayed Complaints of Sexual Harassment Not Worthy of Human Rights Protection?","authors":"Sophie Poinar","doi":"10.5206/uwojls.v14i2.16001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nWithin the current legislative landscape in Ontario, survivors of sexual harassment are treated differently than survivors of sexual assault and sexual misconduct with respect to when they can advance a legal claim against their perpetrators. Under sections 16(1)(h) and 16(1)(h.1) of the Ontario Limitations Act, survivors of sexual assault and misconduct are able to file a civil claim whenever they choose to do so. Under s 34(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, survivors of sexual harassment must file a human rights complaint within one year of the experienced harassment. This paper argues that s 34(1) should not apply to complaints based on sexual harassment. The author provides four reasons to substantiate this argument: (1) this provision fails to align with contemporary understandings of sexual harassment; (2) it is arbitrary to apply drastically different timelines to survivors depending on the type of sexual violence they have experienced; (3) two important objectives of limitation periods will not be seriously threatened by the suggested amendment to the Human Rights Code; and (4) section 34(1) favours the interests of the harassers over those of the survivor, the public, Bill 132 and the Human Rights Code.\n","PeriodicalId":40917,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Legal Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Western Journal of Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5206/uwojls.v14i2.16001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Within the current legislative landscape in Ontario, survivors of sexual harassment are treated differently than survivors of sexual assault and sexual misconduct with respect to when they can advance a legal claim against their perpetrators. Under sections 16(1)(h) and 16(1)(h.1) of the Ontario Limitations Act, survivors of sexual assault and misconduct are able to file a civil claim whenever they choose to do so. Under s 34(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, survivors of sexual harassment must file a human rights complaint within one year of the experienced harassment. This paper argues that s 34(1) should not apply to complaints based on sexual harassment. The author provides four reasons to substantiate this argument: (1) this provision fails to align with contemporary understandings of sexual harassment; (2) it is arbitrary to apply drastically different timelines to survivors depending on the type of sexual violence they have experienced; (3) two important objectives of limitation periods will not be seriously threatened by the suggested amendment to the Human Rights Code; and (4) section 34(1) favours the interests of the harassers over those of the survivor, the public, Bill 132 and the Human Rights Code.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
拖延性骚扰投诉不值得人权保护吗?
在安大略省目前的立法格局中,性骚扰幸存者与性侵和性行为不端幸存者在何时可以对施暴者提出法律索赔方面受到不同的待遇。根据《安大略省限制法》第16(1)(h)条和第16(l)(h.1)条,性侵犯和不当行为的幸存者可以随时提出民事索赔。根据《安大略人权法》第34(1)条的规定,性骚扰幸存者必须在经历骚扰后一年内提出人权投诉。本文认为,第34(1)条不应适用于基于性骚扰的投诉。提交人提供了四个理由来证实这一论点:(1)这一规定与当代对性骚扰的理解不一致;(2) 根据幸存者所经历的性暴力类型,对他们适用截然不同的时间表是武断的;(3) 时效期的两个重要目标不会受到拟议的《人权法》修正案的严重威胁;以及(4)第34(1)条有利于骚扰者的利益,而不是幸存者、公众的利益、第132号法案和《人权法》。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊最新文献
Deductibility of Surrogacy Payments in Canadian Tax Law Are Delayed Complaints of Sexual Harassment Not Worthy of Human Rights Protection? The Conflation of the Justification Framework for Infringement of Aboriginal Rights with the Oakes Test in Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia Indeterminate Sentences and Section 12 of the Charter Harm Reduction in Prisons: Restraints within the Prisoners’ Rights Discourse
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1