Sexual Harassment In Canada

Canada is a diverse country and is home to approximately thirty seven million people. Due to the large number of citizens, Canada is a complex society with a variety of rights, freedoms and obligations. Therefore, it is inevitable for conflict to arise through daily interaction between people. Conflict can be defined as a state of disharmony resulting from opposing views or incompatible positions/interests. Many people think that adjudication is the only mechanism to solve conflicts, but there are many alternative dispute resolution processes. Adjudication is a time consuming process, is expensive, only one party can win and it destroys relationships. Mediation has been a popular alternative to adjudication because the mediation process is

Mediation is effective because it gives both parties a chance to engage in open communication about the dispute. The victim can achieve a sense of empowerment if they have a chance to communicate their frustration and explain how the incident has impacted them. Additionally, if the incident was a misunderstanding, the harasser can tell the victim about their personal habits or particular outlook at the time of the incident. However, open discussion is only effective if both parties are willing to listen to each other’s perspective. Mediation is also beneficial because it promotes confidentiality. In sexual harassment disputes, both parties value their professional credibility and do not want the public to know about the incident. If fact, Sandy Welsh’s article stated that 16% to 90% of working women experience sexual harassment in their lifetime, but majority of women do not report. Therefore, mediation gives parties the chance to solve their dispute without tarnishing their reputation. Finally, trained and experience mediators can help diminish power imbalances by using a caucus. A caucus is the act of meeting with the disputing parties individually, away from the mediation table. A caucus can balance power differences, because it gives both parties a chance to tell the mediator about their interests, concerns and ideal

The courts, provincial human rights legislation and The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognize that no rights are absolute and there is no hierarchy of rights. Case law states that conflict regarding Charter rights requires a reconciliation that fully respects the importance of both sets of rights. However, all claims have to be decided on a case by case basis, because there are no set rules or formulas when dealing with competing rights issues.
Mediation is a suitable solution for competing rights disputes because both participants have a recognized Human Rights Code right that needs to be accommodated. Mediation should be used when the parties can not reach an agreement through negotiation because mediation is effective for resolving complex human rights disputes. Mediation encourages parties to participate in creative and cooperative efforts to reach a beneficial solution. Litigation is less likely then mediation to result in harmonious solutions. Additionally, mediation repairs relationships and aims to make both parties understand each other’s perspectives through open discussion. Furthermore, mediation is effective in competing rights scenarios because settlements are legally enforced. Legal enforcement creates empowerment and trust because both parties are required to comply with the settlement