The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has granted a request to withdraw two applications after determining they were filed without proper consent from the alleged victim of workplace discrimination and harassment.
In a case involving allegations of workplace discrimination, sexual harassment and advances, the tribunal closed two applications that were filed by a third party who had electronically indicated he had consent from the complainant when he allegedly did not.
The applications were filed by K.H. on behalf of P.W., his former girlfriend and colleague at Red Lobster. The applications named both the restaurant and C.E., identified as a general manager, as respondents.
K.H. filed the applications under section 34(5) of the Human Rights Code, which allows a person to apply on behalf of another individual for an order under section 45.2 of the Code, provided “the other person consents to the application.”
Consent requirements at issue
According to the tribunal’s decision, K.H. completed Form 27 (“Application on Behalf of Another Person”), which requires the claimant’s consent to allow someone else to represent their interests.
The tribunal noted that while the form typically requires the claimant’s signature, the electronic filing system allows claimants to check a box that “represents the claimant’s electronic signature, signifying that consent has been provided.”
“In both Applications, consent is provided in Form 27 by clicking this box,” the tribunal wrote.
However, following the filing of the applications, P.W. “advised the Tribunal that she did not, in fact, provide the required consent to the Applications and she requested withdrawal.”
Authority to withdraw applications
In considering whether to grant the withdrawal request, the tribunal cited Rule 10.5 of its Rules of Procedure, which gives it “the authority to accept a request by an applicant to withdraw an Application upon such terms as the Tribunal may determine.”
The tribunal also referenced a previous decision, Kacan v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union (2010 HRTO 795), which “acknowledged the rights of complaints to withdraw an application filed under s.34(5).”
Based on these considerations, the tribunal granted P.W.’s request to withdraw both applications and ordered them administratively closed.
Consent essential for third-party applications
The case highlights the importance of proper consent documentation when filing human rights applications on behalf of another person, particularly in cases involving sensitive allegations such as workplace discrimination and sexual harassment.
While the electronic filing system provides convenience through digital signature options, this case demonstrates that the tribunal will uphold the fundamental requirement that the person on whose behalf an application is filed must genuinely consent to the proceeding.
The tribunal did not address the merits of the underlying discrimination claims in its decision, focusing solely on the procedural issue of consent for third-party applications.
For more information, see Huggins v. Red Lobster Inc., 2025 HRTO 1224 (CanLII).
