What Constitutes an “Appropriate” Workplace Investigation? Labour Board Weighs In.
Ontario employers are required under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) to investigate incidents and complaints of workplace harassment in a manner that is “appropriate in the circumstances.” There has been relatively little guidance on what this means in practice.
In the recent decision of Gassi v. The Corporation of the County of Lambton, 2026 CanLII 64081 (ON LRB), the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “Board”) considered whether an employer’s workplace investigation met that standard. This decision serves as a useful reminder that the adequacy of an investigation will depend not only on whether interviews were conducted, but on whether the process was fair and responsive to the issues raised.
Background
The applicant was employed as a Municipal Prosecutor and filed a workplace harassment complaint alleging inappropriate conduct by several individuals including the Manager of Court Services, various court staff, police officers, two Municipal Prosecutors, and a Justice of the Peace.
The employer appointed an internal investigator to conduct the workplace harassment investigation. As part of the investigation, the investigator met with the applicant to discuss her allegations and subsequently met with the Manager of Court Services and a management representative. Following the investigation, the investigator concluded that the applicant’s complaint of workplace harassment and discrimination was not supported.
The Applicant challenged the adequacy of the investigation, arguing in part that it was not “appropriate in the circumstances” as required by the OHSA.
What the Board Considered
The Board stated that the relevant consideration in determining whether an investigation is appropriate is “an assessment of the procedural elements of the investigation.” Specifically, the Board stated that “the focus must be on whether the investigation was fairly and appropriately undertaken in a manner that would permit an employer to determine whether workplace harassment has occurred.”
The Board acknowledged several aspects of the investigation that were positive, including that the employer took the complaint seriously, the investigator had knowledge of workplace harassment and reprisal provisions of the OHSA and had received training, that the investigator took steps to maintain confidentiality, and that the investigator obtained an understanding of the complaint by reviewing written material.
However, two aspects of the investigator’s process drew scrutiny:
1. The investigator interviewed one of several individuals identified as having relevant information without explaining why the others were not interviewed.
2. During the investigator’s initial interview with the applicant, she was told that she would have an opportunity to respond to information obtained during the investigation. However, after conducting witness interviews, the investigator concluded that the complaint was unsubstantiated and finalized the investigation without ever providing that opportunity.
The Board found that the information obtained from the Manager of Court Services contributed to the investigator’s conclusion that the complaint did not amount to workplace harassment. Taken together with the unfulfilled commitment to let the applicant respond, the Board determined that the investigation was not appropriate in the circumstances.
Why the Decision Matters for Employers
The Gassi decision underscores that procedural fairness is a critical component of a workplace harassment investigation. For employers, the decision highlights two practical considerations:
Document decisions regarding investigative scope. There is no requirement that every individual identified by a complainant be interviewed. However, investigators should be able to explain and justify decisions about which witnesses were interviewed and why other potential witnesses were not.
Carefully consider whether parties should be given an opportunity to respond to information gathered during the investigation. In Gassi, the Board took issue with the fact that the investigator relied on information obtained during the investigation but concluded the investigation without giving the applicant the opportunity to respond, despite having advised her that she would be given that opportunity. The decision serves as a reminder that procedural fairness may require additional investigative steps before findings are finalized.
Goulart Workplace Lawyers regularly advises employers on workplace investigations and workplace harassment complaints and conducts independent workplace investigations across a variety of workplace settings. If you have questions about your investigation obligations under the OHSA, contact a member of our team.
