Stenson v. Precision Property Management Inc., 2014 HRTO 1558 (CanLII)
Facts of the Case
The applicant is a member of Lom Nova Housing Co-agent Inc., situated in Mississauga, Ontario. Exactness Property Management Inc. is the administrative organization contracted by the top managerial staff of the lodging co-agent to benefit the townhouses, which make up the lodging improvement. (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014)
The applicant asserts that beginning in November 2011 she confronted sexual harassment and advances, both specifically and on her Facebook page, from one of the support staff, working inside the lodging co-agent (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014). Following her complaint to the lodging co-agent’s board and to the administrative organization, the complaint was investigated and steps were taken to guarantee that these events did not proceed (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014). This was affirmed in a letter from the Applicant’s then lawful guidance to the President of the Precision Property Management Inc., in June 2012 (Human Rights Code , 1990).
The applicant additionally claims that she has confronted harassment and unfair treatment, as a type of response, from the workplace staff of the administrative organization, including the issuing of a no trespass notice, a demand to affirm her Canadian citizenship and a request that she pays her lease utilizing a cash arrange instead of by coordinate charge from her account (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014). She expresses that these events all began in 2012 after she had complained about inappropriate behavior and proceeded all through 2012 (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014).
A preparatory issue in this Application was whether all or a portion of the affirmations ought to be expelled based on delay. The candidate affirmed that the occasions that she depicted identifying with sexual harassment by a maintenance staff working inside the lodging co-agent all happened between November 2011 and April 2012 (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014). She complained to the respondent administration organization in May 2012. She confirmed that in June 2012 her then lawful guidance sent a letter to the respondent administration organization for her sake tolerating the determination of the sexual harassment complaint (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014). She expressed that she presented her Application to the Tribunal in October 2013, in light of the fact that, by and large, she was not completely happy with the determination of her complaint to the respondent (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014). Further, Her Application was additionally the consequence of the unfair treatment that she got from the staff of the administration office following her underlying complaint about sexual harassment. She affirmed that while she felt this was harassment, it was not sexual harassment (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014).
The respondent denies the applicant’s complaints and requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application.
Applicable Legislation
The application was filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code , which describes discrimination concerning housing on account of sex, including sexual harassment and pregnancy, sexual solicitation or advances, association with a person distinguished by a ground recorded on the basis of retaliation or danger of response. (Human Rights Code , 1990). Applicant felt that her rights had been infringed on under section 5 of Part I which states that every person has the right to equal treatment with respect to employment without sexual harassment and discrimination because of a series of grounds including sexual harassment (Human Rights Code , 1990).
Furthermore, according to Section34 (1) and (2), The Code set up time limits inside where Melanie Stemson’s rights under the Code have encroached must present an application (Human Rights Code , 1990). The Tribunal has set a genuinely high onus and because of that, Melanie Stenson has to give a sensible clarification to the delay while perceiving that there will be honest to goodness conditions that legitimize practicing the discretion under section 34(2). (Human Rights Code , 1990)
Decision and Opinion
The affirmations for this case included two particular arrangements of charges: claims of sexual harassment and assertions of reprisal, following an objection about sexual harassment, yet not identified with sexual harassment or advances (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014). Since the asserted reprisal proceeded after the complaint of sexual harassment was settled, Here the two arrangements of affirmations ought to be considered independently as opposed to as a solitary arrangement of occasions (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014). At the end of the day, rejection of the alleged sexual harassment claim does not require a programmed dismissal of the claim of badgering, as a type of retaliation (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014).
The candidate depicted, under oath, a progression of occasions identifying with her cases of harassment and response (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014). The portrayed occasions were asserted to have happened all through 2012, with no particular “last occasion” referred to. She expressed that both she and her kids keep on being treated with unfairly (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014). Over the span of the candidate’s declaration, she was requested to portray how these occasions identify with any of the grounds ensured by the Code (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014). She requested a couple of minutes to think. She at that point expressed that she wished to withdraw her application to the Tribunal and investigate elective alternatives to manage the issue (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014). She left the hearing room without waiting for a response from the respondent (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014).
The Tribunal has a duty to dispose of applications reasonably, evenhandedly and quickly, as per Section 40 of the Code and the Tribunal’s own particular guidelines (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014). In this example, Melanie Stenson is esteemed to have successfully abandoned her Application by summarily leaving the hearing room without finishing her confirmation or taking into consideration round of questioning by the respondent’s counsel (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014). The remaining charges in this Application are accordingly dismissed, as abandoned (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014).
I find that the Melanie Stenson has not set up a decent confidence purpose behind the late recording of the Application identifying with her cases of sexual harassment She acknowledged the determination of her complaint by the administration organization, as demonstrated in the letter sent by her legal counsel in June 2012 (Stenson v. Precision Property , 2014). She affirmed that there had been no incident that could be named Sexual harassment or advances after April 2012. In this way, Melanie Stemson’s claims of Sexual harassment are dismissed.
