- The supervisor would regularly approach her while she was in the office, making unwelcome sexual advances towards her;
- On one specific occasion, he threw himself at her and groped her;
- He continued such misconduct even after the applicant emailed him asking that he discontinue such behaviour.
- The applicant had continued to socialize with the supervisor, including attending at their hot tub parties and going into a hot tub with him, even though according to her, he was continuing to make unwelcome sexual advances towards her;
- If the applicant was trying to fend off repeated sexual advances from her supervisor, why had she voluntarily given him a massage at work when they were alone together in the office?;
- The applicant had willingly sent her supervisor provocative pictures with titles that were somewhat suggestive;
- If the applicant was being continually sexually propositioned, why had she not confided in the supervisor's wife, a woman with whom she was very close; and
- The apparent email sent to the supervisor, objecting to his alleged sexual harassment, was riddled with irregularities, which could not easily be explained away.
The applicant did not attend at the hearing although notified of the hearing. The respondent incurred the costs of attending at the hearing. The Tribunal also set aside the time and resources for the hearing, which are precious given the caseload of the Tribunal and the expense required to facilitate these hearings.
(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or(c) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith
The Tribunal has set a fairly high onus on applicants to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. . . The mandatory one-year limitation period is consistent with the Code's objective that human rights claims should be dealt with fairly and expeditiously. Thus, the Code requires an individual to act with all due diligence, and file their application within one year, when they seek to pursue a human rights claim.I reject the applicant's contention that the alleged discrimination she experienced in 2009 continued until, or reoccurred in, 2011 simply because she attempted to recommunicate her concerns at that time. To allow an applicant to revive an out of time claim by simply restating old concerns would under the purpose of section 34 of the Code.