Our Insights

Workplace Investigations: 7 Lessons for Employers on Fairness, Trust and Accountability

Workplace investigations are about more than determining whether a complaint is substantiated. They are an important part of how organizations demonstrate fairness, accountability and their commitment to a respectful workplace.

When an employee raises a harassment complaint, leaders may feel pressure to resolve the matter quickly. Yet a rushed or incomplete investigation can create additional risks, undermine employee trust and leave workplace issues unresolved.

A recent Ontario Labour Relations Board decision highlights why the investigation process matters just as much as the outcome. For employers, it offers seven practical lessons on conducting fair, impartial and defensible workplace investigations and understanding what needs to happen after the findings are delivered.

In Alyssa Gassi v. The Corporation of the County of Lambton, the Ontario Labour Relations Board considered, for the first time in substantive detail, what it means for an employer to conduct an investigation that is “appropriate in the circumstances” under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). The Board made an important distinction: its role was not to decide whether harassment had actually occurred or whether the investigator reached the “right” conclusion. The question was whether the investigative process itself was adequate. 

What the Gassi Decision Means for Workplace Investigations

The case involved a municipal prosecutor who brought forward allegations of workplace harassment involving several individuals. The employer appointed an internal investigator who had investigation training and experience. The investigation began promptly, and the complainant was interviewed extensively about her concerns. 

Those were all positive features of the process. 

However, the investigator’s subsequent inquiries were much narrower. Although several individuals had been identified in the complaint, only one of those individuals was interviewed, along with another person. There was no clear explanation for why the other potentially relevant individuals were not interviewed. The complainant had also been told she would have an opportunity to respond to information collected during the investigation, but that follow-up did not occur before the complaint was dismissed as unsubstantiated. 

The OLRB concluded that, in those particular circumstances, the investigation did not satisfy the statutory requirement to be “appropriate in the circumstances.” 

Importantly, however, the Board did not say that investigators must interview every person whose name appears in a complaint, investigate every possible allegation, or conduct an exhaustive inquiry every time someone raises a workplace concern. Investigations remain contextual. What is necessary in a complicated sexual harassment complaint involving competing credibility issues may be very different from what is necessary when the relevant facts are largely undisputed. Employers need a process whose scope can be explained and defended. 

Why a Fair Workplace Investigation Process Matters

This may sound technical, but it has a very practical workplace implication. An investigation is not simply a mechanism for producing an answer of “substantiated” or “unsubstantiated.” It is a structured process for gathering relevant information, testing competing evidence, giving people a meaningful opportunity to respond and reaching findings based on the evidence available. 

Ontario’s OHSA requires employers to ensure that an investigation is conducted into incidents and complaints of workplace harassment that is appropriate in the circumstances. Ontario’s Code of Practice provides additional guidance: an appropriate investigation should generally be objective, confidential, thorough and timely, and should normally include interviews with the complainant and respondent, relevant witnesses, collection of relevant documents, appropriate notes and a written investigative report. 

The Code also indicates that investigations should generally be completed within 90 calendar days, unless there are extenuating circumstances that justify a longer timeline. 

Leaders should also be able to answer some fundamental questions about the process: 

• Why did we investigate this issue? 
• Who conducted the investigation, and why were they appropriate? 
• What allegations were within scope? 
• What evidence did we seek? 
• Who did we interview? 
• Who did we decide not to interview, and why? 
• Were both parties able to respond meaningfully to the information that mattered? 
• How did we reach our findings? 
• And what did we do after receiving those findings? 

If an organization cannot answer those questions after an investigation, there may be a process problem even if leaders genuinely believe they reached the correct result. 

7 Practical Lessons for Conducting Workplace Investigations

1. Do not wait for the words “formal complaint”

One of the most persistent misconceptions in workplace investigations is that an employer’s obligation only begins when an employee submits a formal written complaint. 

An employer may have an obligation to investigate when management becomes aware of a possible incident of workplace harassment, whether through a written complaint, a verbal disclosure, something witnessed by a supervisor or information learned through another source. The Ontario Code of Practice specifically states that an investigation should occur when the employer or a supervisor becomes aware of an incident, not merely when an employee invokes a formal complaint process. 

A good first response is: What information do we have, what risks may exist, and what obligations does that information trigger?

2. Decide deliberately whether the investigator should be internal or external

Not every workplace complaint requires an external investigator. An investigation may be conducted internally by someone such as an HR professional, supervisor or senior manager, provided that person can conduct the investigation objectively and is not involved in the incident or under the direct control of the alleged harasser. 

Inspectors can also order an employer to retain an external investigator. This is often recommended, especially for small to medium sized organizations, finding an impartial and fair internal person to investigate isn’t often possible. Ensure you select an external investigator that has experience, understands harassment and human rights obligations and is independent and impartial.  

Canadian Equality Consulting provides independent professional impartial investigation services.

3. Scope the investigation before starting interviews

Prior to starting interviews, it is important to ensure the scope of investigation is defined. 

At a minimum, identify: 

The allegations: What specifically is said to have happened? 

The relevant policy or legal issues: What workplace policies or obligations may be engaged? 

The people involved: Who is the complainant? Who is the respondent? Who may have relevant first-hand evidence? 

Potential documents: Emails, Teams or Slack messages, text messages, schedules, performance documents, photographs, security records or other records. 

The initial witness list: Who may actually know something relevant? 

The investigator: Why is this person appropriate? 

Interim measures: Is anything required while the investigation proceeds? 

Scope can change or evolve as evidence emerges, which is normal, however, always make sure you document the rationale. 

4. You do not have to interview everyone, but document your rationale

This may be one of the most useful aspects of the Gassi decision. The OLRB did not create a rule requiring every individual named in a complaint to be interviewed. Instead, the decision reinforces the importance of judgment. 

A witness might reasonably not be interviewed because their evidence is duplicative, because they did not observe the relevant events, because documents conclusively establish the fact in question or because the issue falls outside the scope of the investigation. 

A practical investigation file might therefore contain a working witness list with brief notes such as: 

Interviewed: direct witness to February 12 meeting. 

Not interviewed: did not attend incident and information would be second-hand. 

Not interviewed: evidence already independently confirmed by email record and two direct witnesses. 

Added during investigation: identified by respondent as a direct witness to allegation three. 

This is a small administrative practice that can significantly improve the integrity and defensibility of the investigation.

5. Give people a meaningful opportunity to respond to evidence that matters

Perhaps the most significant practical lesson from Gassi concerns the opportunity to reply. 

Investigations frequently uncover information after the initial complainant and respondent interviews. A witness may contradict an important fact. A new document may emerge. Someone may provide a materially different account of a conversation. 

When that evidence could influence a finding, fairness may require going back to one of the parties for their response. 

This does not necessarily mean giving the complainant or respondent every interview note, document or piece of evidence collected. In fact, the OLRB confirmed that the OHSA does not require employers to provide the full investigation report, witness statements or the investigator’s notes to the complainant. 

But there is an important difference between protecting the confidentiality of the investigation file and relying on significant adverse information without allowing a party to meaningfully address it.

6. Document the reasoning, not only the evidence

Investigation notes must capture what people said and why investigators made particular procedural decisions. An investigation file should allow another knowledgeable person to understand the path the investigation took. 

For example: 

Why was the scope narrowed? 

Why was an allegation added? 

Why was a witness considered relevant? 

Why was another witness not interviewed? 

Why was an external investigator chosen? 

Why did an investigation exceed 90 days? 

Why was one party recalled for a second interview? 

Why was a particular document considered reliable? 

The goal is not to create endless bureaucracy. It is to create a decision trail. 

This distinction is especially important because the OLRB’s focus in Gassi was on the procedural adequacy of the investigation rather than whether the Board itself agreed with the investigator’s ultimate findings. If the process is later challenged, documentation showing thoughtful procedural decisions can matter enormously.

7. The investigation is not finished when the report arrives

Employers sometimes treat receipt of the investigation report as the end of the process. Legally and culturally, it is usually closer to the beginning of the response.

Under Ontario’s OHSA, both the worker who allegedly experienced harassment and the alleged harasser, if that individual is an employee, must be informed in writing of the results of the investigation and of corrective action that has been or will be taken. Ontario’s Code of Practice indicates this communication should occur within 10 calendar days of the investigation concluding. That does not mean providing the entire investigative report. The legislation distinguishes between the investigation report and the results communicated to the parties.

Employers then need to consider what the findings require. That may include discipline, coaching, changes in reporting relationships, policy revisions, management training or other corrective measures.

An investigation may resolve specific allegations without addressing the underlying challenges affecting a team. Communication may remain strained, working relationships may have deteriorated, and employees may be uncertain about how to move forward. Depending on the circumstances, workplace facilitation, leadership coaching, team effectiveness support or voluntary mediation may help address these challenges, rebuild trust and strengthen how people work together.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission similarly advises employers to consider whether an investigation, regardless of whether the complaint is ultimately substantiated, reveals broader barriers, cultural issues or a need for organizational education or intervention.

Why Interim Measures Matter During Workplace Investigations

Another important part of a strong investigation process occurs before findings are made. Employers sometimes believe they cannot act until an investigation determines what happened. But there may be circumstances where temporary measures are appropriate to protect employees or the integrity of the investigation. Depending on the facts, employers might temporarily modify reporting relationships, adjust schedules, restrict unnecessary contact between parties, preserve evidence, provide access to support resources or place an employee on a non-disciplinary leave. 

The key is to avoid turning an interim measure into premature punishment or inadvertently penalizing the employee who raised the concern. The Ontario Human Rights Commission specifically cautions that organizations should consider interim measures case by case and avoid responses that effectively disadvantage someone simply because they brought forward a complaint. 

Confidentiality in Workplace Investigations: What Employers Should Know

Employers also need to communicate carefully about confidentiality. Workplace investigations should absolutely be treated as confidential. Ontario’s OHSA framework specifically restricts disclosure of information obtained about harassment incidents and complaints unless disclosure is necessary for the investigation, corrective action, worker protection or otherwise required by law. But promising an employee “complete confidentiality” can create unrealistic expectations. An investigator may need to put allegations to the respondent. Witnesses may need enough contextual information to answer questions. Senior leaders may need enough information to determine corrective action. 

A better explanation is: Information will be shared only to the extent reasonably necessary to conduct the investigation, protect employees, make decisions and meet the organization’s legal obligations. 

How Human Rights Obligations Affect Workplace Investigations

Workplace harassment complaints can trigger more than one legal framework. In Ontario, allegations connected to race, disability, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, family status, age, religion or other protected characteristics may also engage obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code. 

The Ontario Human Rights Commission emphasizes that organizations should respond to discrimination and harassment allegations seriously, promptly and fairly, using objective and qualified investigators and processes that address relevant human rights issues. 

This matters because an investigator can accurately determine what happened while still misunderstanding why it matters. For example, an investigation involving racialized employees may need to consider subtle or cumulative patterns rather than searching only for explicit racial slurs. A disability-related complaint may engage accommodation issues alongside interpersonal conduct. Sexual harassment investigations must account for power dynamics and should not assume that the absence of an immediate objection means conduct was welcome. 

Good investigation practice therefore requires both investigative skill and sufficient understanding of the legal and workplace context surrounding the allegations. 

Workplace Investigation Checklist for Employers

Before your next workplace investigation, ask: 

At intake 

• Have we captured the specific allegations clearly? 
• Do we understand who is involved and when the relevant events occurred? 
• Does the complaint raise safety, human rights, accommodation or reprisal concerns? 
• Are immediate interim measures necessary? 
• Have relevant records and electronic evidence been preserved? 

Before investigating 

• Is the investigator appropriately trained? 
• Are they genuinely impartial? 
• Should this investigation be conducted externally? 
• Have we established an initial scope? 
• Have we identified potentially relevant witnesses and documents? 

During the investigation 

• Have both the complainant and respondent been thoroughly interviewed? 
• Has the respondent been given a meaningful opportunity to answer the allegations? 
• Have relevant witnesses been considered? 
• If someone has not been interviewed, can we explain why? 
• Are we following new evidence where it reasonably leads? 
• Have the parties had an opportunity to address significant contradictory evidence? 
• Are decisions about scope being documented? 
• Are the parties receiving reasonable status updates? 
• Is confidentiality being protected? 

At conclusion 

• Does the report clearly distinguish evidence, findings of fact and conclusions? 
• Can the findings be traced back to the evidence? 
• Have both parties been informed in writing of the results as required? 
• Have appropriate corrective actions been identified? 
• Does anything uncovered during the investigation suggest a broader culture, leadership, policy or systemic problem? 
• Should the harassment policy or complaint process itself be revised? 

Beyond the Investigation: Rebuilding Trust and Team Effectiveness

Employees rarely evaluate their organization’s commitment to a respectful workplace by reading the harassment policy. They evaluate it by watching what happens when somebody actually raises a concern. Those experiences become part of the organization’s culture.

A comprehensive harassment policy cannot compensate for an investigation process employees perceive as predetermined, superficial or unfair. Conversely, a thoughtful and procedurally fair process can reinforce trust, even when an investigation involves difficult circumstances or an outcome with which not everyone agrees.

For leaders, the responsibility extends beyond investigating individual incidents. Workplace investigations can reveal patterns of behaviour, gaps in organizational practices and opportunities to strengthen leadership accountability. Acting on these insights can help organizations address underlying challenges, improve how teams work together and prevent concerns from recurring.

The Gassi decision should therefore be viewed as more than an Ontario employment-law development. It reinforces a broader leadership principle: when organizations ask employees to trust internal systems for resolving serious workplace concerns, those systems must be worthy of that trust.

How CEC Supports Workplace Investigations and Conflict Resolution

Canadian Equality Consulting supports organizations in addressing workplace concerns through independent workplace investigations, conflict prevention and resolution, mediation, workplace facilitation and team effectiveness services. Our approach considers both the immediate issue and the broader organizational context, helping employers respond fairly, strengthen working relationships and identify opportunities to build healthier workplace cultures.

Whether your organization needs an impartial workplace investigator or support navigating the challenges that follow a workplace complaint, CEC can help.

Explore our Workplace Facilitation, Mediation and Team Effectiveness Services

This article provides general workplace information and is not legal advice. Investigation requirements vary by jurisdiction, collective agreement, workplace policy and the circumstances of the particular complaint. Employers should obtain legal advice where appropriate. 

Related Articles

• Sexual Harassment Training & Prevention in Canada
• Rethinking Psychological Safety: A Strategic Imperative for Resilient, High-Growth Organizations

Stay Connected

Sign up for our newsletter to be the first to know.