Facts of the Case Between Stevenson V. Property Management Inc., in 2014

The application was filed under section 34 of the human rights code of 1990. The application alleged discrimination in respect to sex. The complaint covered several alleged offenses including sexual harassment and pregnancy, sexual advances and sexual solicitation in associate with the offender. Lom Nova was the applicant, and she was working with Housing Cooperative in Mississauga Ontario ("Stenson v. Precision Property Management Inc., 2014 HRTO 1558 (CanLII)," 2014). The company is known as Precision Property Management Inc. The applicant alleged that at the start of November 2011, she was subjected to sexual harassment directly and on Facebook by a fellow worker at Precision Property Management. The housing co-operatives board and the management company took intuitive to investigate the issue and put forth appropriate measures to ensure such a scenario does not happen again. Nova also alleged that she was harassment and unfair treatment. She reported having been issued a notice of no trespass and hence could not access the company. Also, it was demanded that she pay rent using the money order instead of direct debit from her bank account. She also received a request to confirm that she was a Canada citizen. According to her, all these events started in 2012 after she complained about being sexually harassed. The respondent denied all the applicants allegations and request for the tribunal to dismiss the application.

Reference to Case Law to Support the Lom Nova in her Case

For this case, it was of concern whether or not to dismiss some allegations for having been delayed. The ruling judge dismissed some allegations because she had not been subjected to the discrimination and harassment for the whole period. Through her then legal counsel, she had opened negotiations with the respondent management company and settled on a resolution for the complaint on sexual harassment. She also confirmed that some allegation felt like harassment to her but admitted were not sexual harassment. The legal facts for the case derived from section 34 (1) and (2) of the code which provides that; a person who believes that their rights have been infringed may apply to the tribunal within one year of the offense occurrence (Law society of Ontario, 2017).

Reference to Human Rights Concepts Involved in The Case

The human rights concepts involved in this case include the existence of good faith by the respondent. The applicant was satisfied and somewhat convinced that the respondent would be reasonable and that the case could be solved out of the court room. The applicant did not comply with the statutory time frame for filing a case seeking for justice. Solving a human rights complaint can be achieved in the court room or through negotiations. In either case, it is crucial to file an application on time. In the given case, the allegations were dismissed on the grounds of late filing with the providence of logic and valid explanation for the delay.

Analysis and Interpretation

The case was dismissed because the applicant provided vague evidence and testimonies that lacked cohesion. The two sets of allegations were considered separately. Later the applicant requested to withdraw her tribunal to the tribunal for alternative options. She walked out of the hearing room before receiving a response from the judge or the respond and according to (Law society of Ontario, 2017) the other allegation in the application were dismissed.

Conclusion and Opinion

The court found vague evidence that was not compelling enough to rule in the applicants favor. The previous attempts to resolve the allegation through other means other than filling an application implied the respondent is laudable and had good faith. According to (Sinacore & Morningstar, 2017) it is fair that the application was dismissed for lack of compelling evidence and as abandoned.

References

Law society of Ontario. (2017). Current Disciplinary Actions | LSO. Retrieved from https://www.lsuc.on.ca/regulatory_proceedings/

Sinacore, A. L., & Morningstar, B. A. (2017). Endemic Sexism in the Canadian Workplace: Systematic Support for Sexual Aggression. Global Currents in Gender and Feminisms, 155-167. doi:10.1108/978-1-78714-483-520171015

Stenson v. Precision Property Management Inc., 2014 HRTO 1558 (CanLII). (2014). Retrieved from https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2014/2014hrto1558/2014hrto1558.html