Are Delayed Complaints of Sexual Harassment Not Worthy of Human Rights Protection?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
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.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it