When a Workplace Investigation Shouldn't Proceed

Date: July 21, 2026

Panic! at the HR Disco

Faced with allegations of harassment, discrimination, or misconduct, organizations understandably worry (or panic) about the risks of doing too little and falling short of policy or legislative requirements to investigate. However, more attention ought to be paid to the risks of doing too much and, more specifically, launching a formal investigation before confirming one is required.

An investigation must be reasonable in the circumstances.[1] As the jurisprudence continues to develop into what defines a reasonable investigation, there is growing recognition that a reasonable investigation does not always look the way people expect. In some cases, the absence of a proper preliminary assessment may render an investigation unreasonable under occupational health and safety or human rights legislation.

Organizations ought to be particularly attuned to such procedural considerations in light of:

Recent arbitral decisions like Northwest Territories v Union of Northern Workers, 2025 CanLII 91062 (NT LA) [“Northern Workers”][2] and Alyssa Gassi v The Corporation of the County of Lambton, 2026 CanLII 64081 (ON LRB) [“County of Lambton”], which highlight the risks of proceeding with a formal, fulsome investigation without a reasonable basis.
The increased reliance on AI in the complaint process. Anecdotally, we are seeing an increase in the number of complaints using legal terms like "harassment," "discrimination," or "poisoned work environment", creating a sense of urgency in those receiving the complaints, but without particulars supporting those legal conclusions.

Guidance from Recent Arbitral Decisions (for the Panic)

In the Northern Workers decision, the grievor was employed as a Nurse in Charge at a health centre serving a remote, predominantly Indigenous community. Among other issues, the arbitrator was required to determine the reasonableness of the investigation into the allegations raised by community members against the grievor.

Between paragraphs 200 and 208 of the decision, the arbitrator emphasized the importance of an initial assessment before the launch of a formal investigation (and the implementation of interim measures pending the outcome of the investigation, like suspension). The arbitrator observed that:

“The lack of particulars provided in the original complaint letters ought to have been resolved before a full-blown investigation was launched.” The employer “erred by failing to conduct any preliminary assessment or to seek out particulars from the complainants or other available witnesses”.

“[A] complainant must be able to provide some very basic particulars about what it is they allege has taken place” in order for a fulsome investigation to proceed. Put another way, “generalized accusations” of harassment or discrimination, absent sufficient, particularized evidence as to what occurred, are not sufficient to launch a “formal, wide-ranging” investigation.

These observations reinforce an important principle: taking complaints seriously does not automatically support a formal investigation, and a failure to conduct an appropriate, initial assessment of the complaint could constitute a violation of the respondent’s rights to a fair process. This is particularly important to keep in mind as AI continues to be used to draft and summarize complaints using legalese and language that can create a sense of urgency or alarm disproportionate to the facts at hand.

Relatedly, in the County of Lambton decision, the Board considered whether the investigator erred in failing to interview some of the respondents and witnesses that were identified in the complaint. Importantly, the investigator in this case was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for their decision. However, in discussing what constitutes an investigation that is "appropriate in the circumstances," the Board made several important observations between paragraphs 85 and 91:

“[A]n investigation that is appropriate in the circumstances does not necessarily include an investigation into each and every allegation, or that each and every person identified in a complaint must be interviewed.”

“In order to be ‘appropriate in the circumstances’, an investigation must include a consideration of the rights and interests of both the complainant and the responding party(ies) to the complaint as well as the integrity of the investigation itself.”

A reasonable investigation “could entail a formal or informal approach, or perhaps even some other type of mediation / fact finding, subject to the circumstances and the clear consent of the parties.”

What This Means in Practice (i.e., Don’t Panic)

At Langille & Little LLP, we very much appreciate the importance of taking all allegations seriously. Equally important, however, is ensuring a thorough intake process and preliminary assessment consistent with legal requirements and principles of procedural fairness.

Organizations are sometimes reluctant to alter course if senior leaders have already been advised the matter will be addressed through a fulsome investigation, or when a respondent has been advised that they will be required to participate in an investigation. However, in addition to exposing the organization to allegations of procedural unfairness, this can, over time, foster a culture of reliance on complaints and investigations as the primary response to workplace conflict. In doing so, it may limit opportunities for informal resolution, learning, and growth, and create a precedent for organizational response that can become increasingly difficult to depart from.

Moreover, where organizations are unwilling to pivot from an early decision to investigate, independent investigators are then required to consider whether continued involvement is appropriate and consistent with their role as an independent neutral. Continued involvement can be problematic when the allegations are grounded in stereotypical or discriminatory beliefs; the conduct alleged would not amount to a policy or legislative breach even if accepted as true; the allegations are dated and the potential prejudice to the respondent outweighs any legitimate investigative purpose; and when the complainant cannot provide sufficient particulars to permit a fair and meaningful response.

Takeaways (And, if You're Panicking, We May Be Able to Help)

In summary, we suggest the following be taken away from this Insight:

When a complaint is received, it is important organizations take the allegations seriously.

However, a complaint should not automatically trigger a formal investigation, and that should be reflected in the organization’s policies and procedures.

The rationale behind any such procedural decisions ought to be documented and relayed to the complainant in compliance with legislative and policy requirements.

If you have any questions about how this Insight may apply to your organization, or if you would like to discuss a complaint or a complaint policy, please contact Becky at becky@langillelittle.ca.

[1] See for example Section 32.0.7(1) of Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act for the duty to investigate under health and safety legislation, and Laskowska v. Marineland of Canada Ltd., 2005 HRTO 30 regarding the duty to conduct a reasonable investigation under Ontario’s Human Rights Code.

[2] For those concerned with the persuasive value of this decision, we note the jurisdiction – the Northwest Territories.