The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has denied a request to reconsider its decision allowing a complainant to withdraw two sexual harassment applications that were filed on her behalf without her ongoing consent.
K.H. had filed applications under section 34(5) of the Human Rights Code on behalf of an unnamed complainant against C.E. However, the complainant repeatedly contacted the tribunal requesting that the applications be withdrawn, stating they were proceeding without her consent.
The tribunal granted the complainant’s withdrawal request in May 2025 and ordered both applications to be administratively closed. K.H. subsequently filed a request for reconsideration, arguing there were new facts or evidence that could be determinative of the case.
Clear withdrawal instructions ignored
The tribunal noted it “received clear instructions from the complainant numerous times to withdraw the Applications.” The complainant first contacted the tribunal on Feb. 4, 2025, “indicating that the Applications have been proceeding without her consent.” She then filed a formal withdrawal request on Feb. 19, 2025, and followed up with additional correspondence on March 6, 2025, “reiterating her lack of consent for these Applications.”
Adjudicator Caryn Hirshhorn emphasized that under Rule 6.8, “an Application filed on behalf of another person under s. 34(5) of the Code cannot proceed without the claimant’s consent. Even if a signed Form 27 was filed, the consent has been clearly withdrawn.”
Reconsideration standards not met
K.H. argued in his reconsideration request that new facts or evidence existed that could be determinative, citing “the significant impact of sexual harassment, the Applicant’s extreme personal vulnerabilities, and the substantive value of the claim [estimated at over $400,000 CAD].” He argued “it would be unjust for this matter to be denied a hearing based solely on procedural misunderstandings or her impaired state of mind at the time of the emails.”
However, the tribunal found no basis for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The rule requires at least one of four conditions to be met: new determinative facts or evidence that couldn’t reasonably have been obtained earlier; lack of proper notice through no fault of the requesting party; conflict with established jurisprudence involving matters of general or public importance; or other factors that outweigh the public interest in finality of decisions.
The adjudicator stated she was “unable to discern any new information from the applicant’s submissions” and found “no other factors exist, in the opinion of the Tribunal, that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.”
Tribunal refuses to assess complainant’s mental state
The tribunal explicitly rejected K.H.’s suggestion that the complainant’s mental state should be considered in evaluating her withdrawal requests.
The adjudicator stated: “It is not for the Tribunal to assess the complainant’s state of mind at the time her requests to withdraw were made. Nor is it appropriate for the Tribunal to determine if withdrawal is in the complainant’s best interests.”
This position aligns with the tribunal’s emphasis on respecting individual autonomy in human rights proceedings, even when third parties believe pursuing a complaint would be beneficial.
Reconsideration as improper appeal attempt
The tribunal characterized K.H.’s request as “an attempt at an appeal, instead of providing new information.” The decision reinforced that “a reconsideration is not an appeal.”
The tribunal cited established precedent that reconsideration is discretionary and “not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to change the way it presented its case.” The Divisional Court has previously confirmed that reconsideration should not be treated “as an appeal or an opportunity to repair deficiencies in the original presentation of a case.”
Consent requirements for third-party applications
The case highlights the strict consent requirements for human rights applications filed by third parties. While section 34(5) of the Human Rights Code allows applications to be filed on behalf of others, the tribunal’s rules require ongoing consent from the actual complainant.
The decision demonstrates that even when substantial allegations are involved and significant monetary claims are at stake, the tribunal will not override a complainant’s clear and repeated instructions to withdraw their case.
The tribunal’s approach reflects the principle that human rights proceedings are fundamentally about individual choice and agency. Even when others believe pursuing a complaint would serve justice or the complainant’s interests, the tribunal will respect the complainant’s right to control their own legal proceedings.
Third-party filing limitations
This case illustrates the practical limitations facing those who attempt to file human rights complaints on behalf of others. While the Human Rights Code permits such filings in certain circumstances, the ongoing consent requirement creates significant procedural hurdles.
The $400,000 estimated value of the claim and the serious nature of the sexual harassment allegations were insufficient to overcome the complainant’s clear withdrawal instructions. The tribunal prioritized procedural requirements and individual autonomy over the potential substantive merits of the case.
For more information, see Huggins v. Evelyn, 2025 HRTO 1579 (CanLII).
