The Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) has ruled against a former Red Lobster employee’s extensive requests for document production in a case alleging reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).
The Board determined that many of the requested documents were not “arguably relevant” to the issues in dispute and denied their production.
The case, brought by K.H. against Red Lobster, centres on allegations that his employment was terminated in retaliation for filing a workplace sexual harassment complaint on behalf of a colleague. K.H. sought production of various internal communications, performance evaluations, scheduling records, and documents related to the company’s handling of the complaint.
The Board ruled that several of his requests exceeded the scope of the hearing and were not relevant to determining whether a reprisal had occurred.
Scope of the proceeding
The Board reiterated that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the underlying sexual harassment complaint itself. Instead, it can only determine whether K.H. exercised his rights under OHSA, whether he suffered a penalty, and whether there is a causal connection between the two.
“The Board has no jurisdiction to address or remedy the underlying complaint of sexual harassment,” it stated, citing previous OLRB decisions.
Red Lobster had already produced records related to K.H.’s shift scheduling, alleged poor performance, alleged threats against employees, and his dismissal. The company objected to producing additional documents, arguing that K.H. was attempting to expand the case beyond a reprisal complaint into a broader inquiry into the company’s handling of sexual harassment allegations.
The Board agreed, concluding that the requested records, including internal correspondence about the sexual harassment complaint and the company’s response, were not relevant to the issues before it.
Denied document requests
Among the denied requests were:
Correspondence regarding sexual harassment allegations: The Board found that records relating to Red Lobster’s handling of the underlying sexual harassment complaint were beyond its jurisdiction.
Record of Employment for the former General Manager: K.H. argued that the company falsely claimed the manager had been terminated when he was actually transferred. The Board ruled this information was not relevant to the reprisal claim.
Phone records from a specific date: K.H. sought phone logs to prove he reported the harassment on July 7, 2024. The Board noted that Red Lobster had already acknowledged he made the complaint and deemed further records unnecessary.
Interview notes and correspondence with the alleged harassment victim: The Board ruled that documents relating to the company’s response to the complaint were outside its jurisdiction.
“The Board will not order production of documents where the party seeking that production cannot establish that logical connection or is seeking production not to prove a case but to find out if there even is a case,” the decision stated, citing prior rulings.
Summonses to witnesses
The Board also addressed K.H.’s issuance of 22 summonses to witnesses, questioning their necessity and proper service. Several summonses sought personal records from individuals, including a marriage certificate and receipts for cannabis purchases. Others were addressed only to “crew members” without specifying individuals.
Given that Red Lobster, which bears the onus of proof in this case, is expected to proceed first in the hearing, the Board found it unlikely that K.H.’s witnesses would be needed on the first day. Accordingly, the Board relieved all summoned individuals of the requirement to appear at the first hearing date, though it did not quash the summonses outright.
“The relevance of the testimony of the affected individuals and some of the documents that those individuals are asked to bring to the hearing is far from clear,” the Board noted.
K.H. and Red Lobster were directed to inform those named in the summonses that they were not required to attend the initial hearing and provide them with a copy of the decision.
For more information, see Kevin Huggins v Red Lobster, 2025 CanLII 19836 (ON LRB).
