I think with respect to the definition of harassment, it isn't something that allows for a lot of flexibility. It's going to be interpreted legally; it's going to determine the scope of individuals' rights; and it is vital. In the Ontario legislation they have adopted a definition of “harassment”. I understand the challenges of amending the legislation down the road if you did want to change it, but that's why I would encourage you to take a broad and purposive definition, one that covers both personal harassment and grounds-based harassment. For example, we referenced the Treasury Board policy definition. It provides for not only a series of events—typically harassment takes place over a series of events—but also a single serious incident to also constitute harassment. It also provides for workplace to be defined broadly, so including events related to work, locations related to work, and that sort of thing.
Those are the elements I think you want to think about, but I would encourage that it actually be in the legislation.