The HR Professional’s Complete Guide to Workplace Investigations in Ontario

When Do You Need to Conduct a Workplace Investigation?

Employers in Ontario are legally required to conduct investigations under several conditions:

• Workplace harassment or sexual harassment complaints – Under Section 32.0.7 of the OHSA, employers must ensure an investigation is conducted when harassment is reported or when they become aware of a potential issue, even without a formal complaint.
• Workplace violence incidents – Section 32.0.2 of the OHSA requires investigations into workplace violence incidents.
• Discrimination on protected grounds – Under Ontario’s Human Rights Code, allegations involving discrimination (e.g. race, gender, disability, age) must be addressed.
• Violations of internal policies – Employers may choose to investigate issues like bullying, financial impropriety, conflicts of interest, or incivility, even if they’re not explicitly covered under law.

Before launching an investigation, it may be appropriate to conduct a threshold assessment to determine if the concern were true, would it breach the OHSA, Human Rights Code, or internal policies?

Even if a concern doesn’t meet the threshold of a policy breach, conducting an investigation may still be the right step to preserve psychological safety and show employees they’re heard. An investigation might also be warranted when there are concerns related to reputational risk, patterns of problematic behaviour, or potential legal liability.  

Taking action – even in the absence of a clear policy violation – can help foster a respectful workplace culture and prevent issues from escalating.

What Is an “Appropriate” Investigation Under OHSA?

The Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) requires that investigations be “appropriate in the circumstances.”

But what does appropriate actually mean in practice?

While the law doesn’t dictate a rigid formula, over time, both Ministry of Labour guidance and legal precedent have shaped a clear picture of what’s expected. Here’s what HR professionals need to consider to ensure every investigation meets that standard:

#1. Timely Action

Delays in launching an investigation can undermine credibility, compromise evidence, and possibly breach your legal obligations.

Best practice:Begin as soon as reasonably possible. Ideally within a few days of becoming aware of the concern. Most investigations should wrap up within 60 calendar days, unless there are valid reasons for delay (e.g., volume and/or complexity of concerns, illness or leaves of absence, access to evidence, multiple parties involved).

If timelines extend, document the reasons. Transparency and documentation protect both the process and the people involved.

#2. Independence and Objectivity

The investigator must be unbiased and neutral.  

That means:

• They should not report to, or be the subject of influence from, any of the parties involved
  
• They should not have a personal or professional connection that could create a perceived conflict of interest
  
• In higher-risk cases (e.g. involving senior leadership or complex power dynamics), retaining an external investigator may be the best means of maintaining objectivity
  

Objectivity and the perception of objectivity are fundamental to conducting a fair and legally defensible investigation and are reputational safeguards if your investigation is ever challenged.

#3. Confidentiality (With Limits)

Confidentiality is about protecting privacy while complying with legal and organizations responsibilities.

Participants should generally agree to keep everything discussed with the investigator confidential, including the fact an investigation is taking place. The nature of the allegations, and even the existence of an investigation, can have a negative impact on those involved.  

At the same time, it’s important to clearly explain that confidentiality has reasonable limits. Participants should be informed how their information will be used and who will have access to it.  Additionally, if a complainant shares information that suggests a broader risk to others in the workplace, the organization may have a duty to act on that information, even if it extends beyond the individual concern. 

#4. Thorough, Evidence-Based Process

The investigator must be unbiased and neutral.  

That means:

• They should not report to, or be the subject of influence from, any of the parties involved
  
• They should not have a personal or professional connection that could create a perceived conflict of interest
  
• In higher-risk cases (e.g. involving senior leadership or complex power dynamics), retaining an external investigator may be the best means of maintaining objectivity
  

Objectivity and the perception of objectivity are fundamental to conducting a fair and legally defensible investigation and are reputational safeguards if your investigation is ever challenged.

#5. Cultural and Psychological Safety

Many organizations now recognize that a procedurally fair and “appropriate” investigation also takes into account psychological safety, trauma-informed principles, and a person-centered approach. This means not only gathering facts, but also conducting the process in a way that minimizes harm and fosters trust:

Key practices include:

• Allowing support persons during interviews
  
• Asking sensitive, non-judgmental questions to minimize the risk of re-traumatization
  
• Creating a process where both complainant and respondent feel respected, heard, and treated with respect
• Recognizing and adapting to individual needs, such as neurodivergence, language barriers, or cultural considerations
• Providing participants with choice, where possible
• Ensuring privacy and confidentiality
  

A trauma-informed, person-centered approach doesn’t compromise investigative integrity – it strengthens it by building trust and psychological safety.

The Bottom Line

To meet your OHSA obligation, your investigation must be:

• Timely
• Objective
• Procedurally fair
• Thorough
• Evidence-based
• Documented
• And, in many cases, trauma-aware

Appropriate means intentional, neutral, and fit-for-purpose based on the complexity of the situation.

If you’re unsure whether your internal process checks all these boxes, it may be time to refine your framework—or bring in outside help.

Not every workplace investigation requires outside help. But not every situation should be handled internally, either.

Deciding when to remain internal and when to retain an external investigator is one of the most important decisions an HR leader can make… and one of the most misunderstood.

At Barker Hutchinson, we’ve worked with hundreds of HR professionals and executive teams who recognized that the risks, optics, or internal politics that made neutrality, or the appearance of it, impossible.

Here’s how to evaluate when to keep an investigation internal, and when to retain external support.

Situations Where an Internal Investigation May Be Appropriate

You may choose to keep the investigation in-house when:

• The issue is minor in nature and doesn’t involve a protected ground or serious breach of policy.
  
• You have experienced, trained investigators internally with no real or perceived conflicts of interest.
  
• The investigation is low-risk, meaning it’s unlikely to lead to legal action, reputational fallout, or mental health claims.
  
• There’s consensus among leadership about the scope and path forward.
  

In these cases, a well-structured internal process can demonstrate responsiveness and respect for employee concerns, if it’s conducted fairly, thoroughly, and by the book.

Situations Where You Should Bring in an External Investigator

There are times when independence isn’t just preferable. It’s essential. You should engage a qualified external investigator when:

1. The Complaint Involves Leadership, HR, or Legal Counsel

If the subject of the complaint is someone in a position of authority – especially someone who oversees HR – it is impossible to conduct a credible internal investigation. Even the perception of bias can erode trust and create legal exposure.

2. There’s Risk of Legal Challenge or Media Attention

Sexual harassment. Discrimination based on protected grounds. Allegations tied to workplace violence or psychological safety. These aren’t just HR issues. They’re legal ones. If the findings could end up in court, before a tribunal, or on the front page, you need the credibility that only an independent third party can bring.

3. There Are Conflicts of Interest or Power Dynamics at Play

If the person leading the investigation reports into anyone involved in the complaint, or works too closely with them, the process is compromised from the outset. And if employees don’t believe they’ll be treated fairly, they won’t participate openly.

An external investigator creates the distance needed to uncover the facts without fear or favour.

4. You Don’t Have the Bandwidth or Expertise Internally

Many HR teams are overextended. If you lack the time, training, or procedural clarity to conduct a timely and defensible investigation, retaining an external investigator can reduce risk, maintain objectivity and neutrality, and avoid unnecessary delay.

Still Not Sure Which Path to Take?

Ask yourself:

• Would any party question the neutrality of an internal investigator?
• Is there a risk that how we handle this will set precedent or create liability?
• Do we have the tools and experience to do this right?

If there’s hesitation on any of those fronts, it’s worth having a conversation.

Explore Barker Hutchinson’s process

Workplace Investigation Process (Step-by-Step)

1. Intake & Initial Review
   Document the concern, assess whether it meets the threshold, and determine scope.
2. Notification & Planning
   Notify parties involved and outline timelines, confidentiality, and roles.
3. Investigator Assignment
   Choose an internal or external investigator with no conflict of interest.
4. Fact-Finding
   Conduct interviews, gather evidence, and maintain detailed documentation.
5. Analysis & Findings
   Assess evidence, weigh credibility, and determine whether the complaint is substantiated.
6. Communicating the Outcome
   Provide both the complainant and respondent (if an employee) with written results and any corrective actions within 10 days.
7. Follow-Up Actions
   Implement corrective measures and consider monitoring or education to prevent recurrence.

Because how you investigate is just as important as what you find.

At Barker Hutchinson, we believe an investigation should never retraumatize the people it’s meant to protect.

That’s why we lead with a trauma-informed lens, recognizing that the way questions are asked, how findings are communicated, and even how meetings are scheduled can deeply impact the people involved.

A trauma-informed approach is not just a “soft skill.” It’s a critical best practice that leads to more accurate information, greater participation, and investigations that people trust.

What Does Trauma-Informed Mean in the Context of Workplace Investigations?

In practical terms, it means we:

• Prioritize psychological safety
• Respect individual choice and control
• Recognize how past trauma can affect memory, tone, or behaviour
• Adapt our interview and communication techniques to minimize harm
• Maintain empathy without compromising neutrality

Why This Matters

Traditional investigations can feel cold, clinical, and hierarchical. For someone who’s experienced harassment, discrimination, or abuse of power, that process can reinforce harm, even when intentions are good.

Trauma-informed investigations create space for:

• More accurate testimony
• Stronger participation from witnesses
• Better outcomes for both the individual and the organization

They also reduce legal and reputational risk by ensuring fairness and due process are seen.

Learn More: What It Really Means to Lead a Trauma-Informed Investigation → (link to cluster page)

Common Investigation Mistakes (and How to Avoid Them)

Even well-intentioned HR professionals can fall into traps during an investigation. And those missteps, whether at intake, mid-process, or after the report is delivered, can damage trust and compromise the integrity of the findings.

At Barker Hutchinson, we’ve seen hundreds of investigations from the inside. Some go exceptionally well. Others veer off course because of mistakes that could have been avoided with the right awareness and structure.

Below are just a few of the common pitfalls:

❌ At Intake

• Waiting too long to respond to a concern
• Assigning an investigator with a real or perceived conflict of interest
• Reaching informal conclusions before a formal process is launched
• Oversharing details about the complaint internally
• Failing to implement interim measures when needed

❌ During the Investigation

• Communicating assumptions to the investigator
• Gathering multiple or inconsistent witness statements
• Overlooking the emotional toll on those involved
• Making promises about the outcome

❌ After the Report is Submitted

• Failing to act on substantiated findings
• Forcing the complainant to continue reporting to the respondent
• Minimizing the severity of the conduct
• Breaching confidentiality in how results are shared
• Assuming the matter is resolved without follow-up

Want the Full Checklist?

We’ve created a clear, downloadable resource based on this content: “The HR Professional’s Do’s and Don’ts of Workplace Investigations”

It walks you through each stage of the investigation process: what to do, what to avoid, and how to stay compliant while protecting the people involved.

Common Types of Workplace Investigations

Not all workplace investigations are the same. Each type comes with its own legal considerations, emotional dynamics, and procedural best practices.

Below is an overview of the most common types of investigations, and what HR professionals need to know about each.

Harassment Investigations

Definition: Harassment includes unwelcome conduct that demeans, humiliates, or threatens a person. It can be verbal, physical, psychological, or digital and may involve colleagues, supervisors, clients, or third parties.

Key considerations:

• Not all harassment is loud or obvious. Repeated microaggressions, exclusion, or offhand jokes may still meet the threshold.
• Investigators must explore both intent and impact.
• Even if the alleged behaviour happened outside the workplace (e.g. at an event or online), it may still be within scope if it affects the work environment.

Common mistakes: Failing to act early, dismissing concerns as “personality conflicts,” or allowing the process to drag on without updates.

Sexual Harassment Investigations

Definition: A subset of harassment, sexual harassment includes any unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, or other conduct of a sexual nature that creates a hostile or uncomfortable work environment.

Key considerations:

• Power dynamics are often at play and may silence reporting.
• A trauma-informed approach is essential to reduce re-traumatization and increase participation.
• Employers have a legal obligation under OHSA to investigate—not just respond—when they become aware of concerns.

Common mistakes: Disregarding informal reports or rumours, failing to document interim safety measures, or downplaying severity based on lack of physical contact.

Read more about our Sexual Harassment Investigations Services

Discrimination Investigations

Definition: Discrimination occurs when someone is treated unfairly or denied opportunities based on a protected ground under the Human Rights Code (e.g. race, sex, religion, disability, age, gender identity).

Key considerations:

• Discrimination may be systemic or subtle. Look for patterns in behavior, not just isolated incidents.
• Perception and lived experience matter—even if the conduct wasn’t intended to cause harm
• Credibility assessment must account for emotional tone and context, not just hard evidence.

Common mistakes: Treating discrimination complaints as performance issues, failing to connect individual behavior to systemic patterns, or using “intent” as a defense.

Conflict of Interest Investigations

Definition: These arise when an employee’s personal interests interfere—or appear to interfere—with their professional responsibilities.

Key considerations:

• Conflicts can be financial, relational, or ethical.
• Even the perception of bias can undermine trust and decision-making.
• Transparency and clear documentation are critical for fairness.

Common mistakes: Dismissing conflicts as “technicalities,” failing to disclose or document, or investigating through someone with a stake in the outcome.

Workplace Violence or Threat Investigations

Definition: Includes physical violence, threats, intimidation, or any behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as a risk to employee safety.

Key considerations:

• Under OHSA, employers have a duty to investigate all incidents of workplace violence or threats, even if they don’t escalate into physical harm.
• These cases may also trigger reporting obligations to regulatory bodies or law enforcement.
• Interim safety measures (physical separation, remote work, security support) must be taken seriously and documented.

Common mistakes: Failing to act quickly, underestimating risk, or neglecting to follow up post-incident.

Policy Breach Investigations (Incivility, Bullying, Financial Impropriety)

Definition: Includes violations of company codes of conduct that may not rise to the level of harassment or violence, but still undermine the health and integrity of the workplace.

Key considerations:

• These investigations require a proportional approach: balanced, respectful, but still structured and defensible.
• Incivility and bullying often go unreported. Investigators must be attuned to power dynamics and patterns over time.
• Financial or procedural misconduct may require collaboration with legal or finance teams.

Common mistakes: Brushing off minor violations, failing to document repeated behaviors, or letting toxic conduct go unaddressed because it’s from a high performer.

Need Support for a Complex Case?

Each of these investigation types requires more than just a template or checklist. They demand judgment, neutrality, legal literacy, and empathy.

Whether you’re dealing with a sensitive harassment complaint, a high-risk allegation involving leadership, or a nuanced interpersonal conflict, our team can help.

Book a consultation →

Communicating Investigation Outcomes Under OHSA

Employers must:

• Share a written summary of findings with the complainant and respondent (if a worker)
• Communicate any corrective actions within 10 calendar days of the conclusion
• Share only the details necessary to protect workers and comply with legal obligations

Remember: the summary ≠ the full report. Be factual, concise, and legally sound.