Sexual Harassment Case Against Red Lobster Dismissed

On May 27, 2025, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario permanently dismissed a high-value sexual harassment complaint against Red Lobster Inc., a claim estimated at over $400,000. The dismissal did not turn on the merits of the allegations. It followed repeated requests to withdraw the application, requests the Tribunal accepted as clear and voluntary. For Ontario employers, the case is a useful reminder that human rights proceedings can be shaped as much by procedure and consent as by the underlying facts.

What happened

The applications alleged sexual harassment against Red Lobster. They were filed not by the complainant herself but by a third party, under a provision of the Human Rights Code that allows a person or organization to bring a claim on behalf of someone who may be unable to do so. Throughout early 2025, however, the complainant sent the Tribunal repeated correspondence making three things clear: the applications had been filed without her consent, she wanted to formally withdraw both complaints, and she did not wish to proceed.

On May 9, 2025, the Tribunal granted the withdrawal requests and closed the file. The third-party applicant then filed a request for reconsideration, arguing that the complainant's vulnerability and emotional distress meant her withdrawal should not be treated as valid. The Tribunal rejected that argument and confirmed the dismissal.

What the HRTO decided

Applicant versus claimant: why the distinction mattered

The case turned on the difference between the applicant and the claimant in human rights applications filed under section 34(5) of the Human Rights Code. That distinction was set out in detail by the HRTO in the Korevaar decision on behalf of Kacan v. Community Living Tillsonburg, where the Tribunal explained that the applicant is the person or organization initiating and managing the application on someone else's behalf, while the claimant is the individual whose rights are alleged to have been violated. In Huggins, the Tribunal emphasized that the claimant's consent, to proceed or to withdraw, remains decisive even when a third party filed the application. Because the claimant is the core rights-holder, the Tribunal concluded it had no authority to override her repeated requests to withdraw.

Key lessons for Ontario employers

Why employers should act before a claim is filed

Waiting for a human rights complaint to surface, particularly one as serious as sexual harassment, is a costly approach. Preventive measures help Ontario employers reduce the likelihood of complaints in the first place, demonstrate due diligence if a complaint does arise, and show a genuine commitment to a safe, respectful, and compliant workplace. The employer in this case avoided a hearing by circumstance, not by design. The reliable protection is the work done long before any application is filed.

How Achkar Law helps Ontario employers

Achkar Law advises employers across Ontario on preventing, investigating, and responding to workplace harassment and discrimination. We help with drafting and implementing workplace harassment and human rights policies, conducting internal and third-party investigations, preparing HRTO responses and representation through our workplace disputes and litigation team, and delivering employee training on respectful workplace conduct.

The information in this article is general and is not legal advice. An employment lawyer can advise on your organization's specific situation. This article summarizes a public decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2025 HRTO 1224.