When the Door Closes: Understanding Sexual Harassment Evidence in Ontario

Sara Santos-Vigneault
Jan 5
4 min read

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault

Date: January 5 , 2026

Close-up of a mans hand with a watch on a womens back in a dimly lit room. Another blurred hand is seen in the background by a table. — Photo by Heike Trautmann on Unsplash

Sexual harassment often occurs in private or semi-private settings, making it difficult to prove through traditional forms of evidence.

In many cases, there are no witnesses, no recordings, and no physical proof of what took place.

Yet Ontario’s legal framework recognizes these challenges and allows complaints to proceed even when evidence is limited.

Ontario’s human-rights laws define sexual harassment, identify common evidentiary issues, and explain how courts and tribunals assess these cases.

Defining Sexual Harassment Under Ontario Law

Under section 7(2) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, every person has the right to be free from sexual harassment in employment, housing, and services. The law prohibits unwelcome conduct or comments of a sexual nature that create a hostile or intimidating environment. [1]

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) clarifies that sexual harassment includes words, gestures, contact, or requests for sexual favours. It can occur once or repeatedly and does not need to involve physical contact to breach the Code. [2]

Why Evidence Is Difficult to Obtain

The OHRC Policy on Preventing Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment notes that sexual harassment “does not often occur in full public view.” Because there are rarely witnesses or physical evidence, credibility becomes a central issue in many cases. [3]

Private Settings and Lack of Witnesses

Harassment frequently occurs in isolated environments such as offices, meeting rooms, or hallways. When an incident takes place without witnesses, the tribunal must assess the credibility and consistency of the parties’ evidence.

Delayed Reporting and Trauma Responses
Victims may delay reporting due to fear of retaliation, shame, or confusion. Trauma can influence how a person recalls events, and this may affect perceptions of consistency during testimony. [4]
Power Imbalances
Incidents often involve someone in authority over the complainant—such as a supervisor or senior colleague. These dynamics can discourage reporting, reducing opportunities to preserve evidence. [5]

Pattern or Behavioural Evidence
When direct evidence is limited, tribunals may consider “pattern” or “similar-fact” evidence. This refers to repeated conduct by the same respondent, which helps establish credibility and context. [6]

Legal Standards for Proof

Human-rights proceedings use the civil standard of proof, known as the balance of probabilities. This means the adjudicator must determine whether it is more likely than not that the harassment occurred. [7]

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) has held that credible and consistent testimony can meet this standard even without physical proof. Decision-makers rely on internal consistency, supporting details, and contextual evidence rather than documentation alone. [8]

Relevant Canadian Cases

Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252

The Supreme Court of Canada held that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination under human-rights law. The case established that harassment need not be public or involve financial consequences to violate the Code. [9]

Robichaud v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84

The Court ruled that employers can be held responsible for harassment committed by employees in the course of employment. This extended liability to private and unwitnessed conduct. [10]

Bannister v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., 1998 CanLII 7152 (Ont CA)

The Ontario Court of Appeal recognized that harassment can arise from cumulative interactions that collectively create a hostile environment, even when each event appears minor. [11]

Laskowska v. Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30

The HRTO accepted the complainant’s testimony as credible despite the absence of witnesses. The decision emphasized surrounding circumstances and consistency of evidence. [12]

Woman in a brown jacket covers her face with her hands, looking stressful, anxious, showing light blue nails. Worn, light gray background. Mood: anxious or shy. — **Dev Asangbam**

Social Context and Systemic Barriers

Historically, women who reported harassment faced disbelief, blame, and social stigma. Studies show that victim-blaming attitudes remain common, reinforcing the perception that women are responsible for preventing harassment. [13]The Department of Justice Canada notes that trauma, power dynamics, and social pressure contribute to under-reporting and make evidence harder to obtain. [14]

Tribunals now increasingly apply trauma-informed approaches, recognizing that delayed reporting or emotional responses are not indicators of fabrication but typical reactions to harm. [15]

Procedural Avenues in Ontario

Individuals in Ontario may bring sexual-harassment claims under the Human Rights Code, through the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Workplace incidents may also fall under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), which requires employers to maintain harassment-prevention policies and investigate complaints. [16]

Civil claims may be available in certain cases involving constructive dismissal or damages for emotional harm, but the HRTO remains the most accessible route for most complainants.

Conclusion

Sexual harassment that occurs behind closed doors presents some of the most challenging evidentiary issues in Ontario law. The absence of witnesses or physical proof does not lessen the seriousness of the conduct, nor does it prevent a case from proceeding.