Progres ou recul: reflexions sur l'accessibilite a la justice pour les victimes de harcelement sexuel au travail au Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au Québec, l'étiquette juridique accolée au harcèlement sexuel a connu plusieurs changements depuis la première décision canadienne dans ce domaine en 1980. La qualification juridique du harcèlement sexuel est passée de faute extracontractuelle en vertu de l'article 1053 du Code civil du Bas-Canada (maintenant art. 1457 du Code civil du Qué bec)à une atteinte au droit à l'égalité selon la Charte des droits et liberté s de la personne (art. 4, 10, 10.1, et 46) et la Charte canadienne des droits et liberté s (art. 15) à une lésion professionnelle au sens de la Loi sur les accidents du travail et maladies professionnelles (art. 2) à un problème de relations de travail (pour les travailleuses syndiquées) à du harcèlement psychologique selon les nouvelles dispositions de la Loi sur les normes du travail. Un comportement harcelant peut se voir accoler toutes ces étiquettes à la fois. Cependant, quelques-unes d'entre elles imposent le forum compétent. Dans certains cas, il s'agira de compétence exclusive; dans d'autres, de compétence concurrentielle. Enfin, dans d'autres, il n'est pas clair quelle instance a compétence. Le présent texte se penche, en tenant compte des rapports sociaux de sexe, sur les enjeux que ces changements d'appellations et de forum posent à l'accessibilité à la justice des victimes de harcèlement sexuel au travail. Les débats sur la compétence juridictionnelle, et les changements de catégories juridiques qui en découlent, en matière de harcèlement sexuel au travail ont-ils été positifs pour les femmes eu égard à leur accessibilité à la justice? L'auteure conclut que les changements se sont faits sans tenir compte des réalités et des besoins des victimes. In Québec, the legal definition of sexual harassment has undergone many changes since the first Canadian decision in this area in 1980. The legal qualification of sexual harassment has gone from being an extra-contractual tort under article 1053 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada (now Art. 1457 of the Civil Code of Qué bec), a breach of equality rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (art. 4, 10, 10.1, and 46) and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (section 15), an employment injury as defined in section 2 of the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases to a labour relations problem (for unionized women workers) or psychological harassment under the terms of the new amendments to the Act respecting labour standards. Harassing behaviour can come under all of these legal qualifications at the same time. Some of these laws, however, impose a single jurisdiction. In certain circumstances, the jurisdiction will be exclusive; in other instances, parallel jurisdictions are available. Finally, in other cases, it is not yet clear which tribunal has jurisdiction. This article analyzes the issues raised by these many changes in labeling and in forum, from a gender perspective, with respect to access to justice for victims of sexual harassment in the workplace. Have these debates on jurisdictions and consequent changes in legal qualifications had a positive effect on women's access to justice? The author concludes that these changes have been made without taking into account the realities and needs of victims.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".