Ontario Labour Relations Board provides employers with guidance on what constitutes an “appropriate” workplace investigation

For the first time, the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) issued a decision providing employers with guidance on the hallmarks of a workplace harassment investigation “appropriate” in the circumstances. The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) requires employers to conduct an investigation into workplace harassment that is appropriate in the circumstances, and to date there has been limited guidance published with respect to what exactly “appropriate” means in this context.

In Alyssa Gassi v. The Corporation of the County of Lambton, 2026 CanLII 64081 (ON LRB), the OLRB considered both a reprisal application and appeal of an inspector’s order brought by the Applicant.

The Applicant worked for the County of Lambton as a Municipal Prosecutor, from October 2024 until April 2025. The County terminated the Applicant’s employment shortly after she alleged she was the subject of workplace harassment. The Applicant alleged that her termination of employment was in reprisal for her report of workplace harassment, and alleged that the County did not complete an investigation that was appropriate in the circumstances, as required by the OHSA.

The OLRB declined to find that the Applicant’s termination of employment was due to her report of workplace harassment. As a reminder, reprisal applications heard by the OLRB come with a reverse onus: it is the respondent employer that must demonstrate that a termination was not reprisal, as opposed to the typical onus where an applicant must prove their allegations on balance of probabilities. The OLRB determined that the County met this reverse-onus and successfully demonstrated that the Applicant’s termination of employment was not connected to her report of workplace harassment. The OLRB instead found that the termination of the Applicant’s employment was due to her unilateral assertion that she was going to work from home on a permanent basis and her decisions to adjourn court early on one day and close court entirely on another, which the County claimed had a negative impact on both the County and members of the public.

In its decision, the OLRB reiterated that temporal proximity alone is not enough to establish a reprisal claim. This is a good reminder to employers to properly document any performance issues and resulting discipline, including the decision to terminate the employment relationship, in the event a termination occurs shortly after an employee complaint.

The Applicant also appealed the determination of a Ministry of Labour Inspector that the investigation the County conducted into her harassment allegations was “appropriate in the circumstances,” as required by the OHSA.

The OLRB agreed with the Applicant, and found that the investigation conducted by the County was not appropriate in the circumstances, primarily due to the fact that the internal investigator unilaterally determined that he only needed to meet with one witness (of many) to determine that the Applicant’s complaint was unfounded, and he did not give the Applicant an opportunity to respond to the witness’s evidence. The investigator also did not justify why he only met with one witness, and merely stated that he did not believe further interviews were necessary, which the OLRB determined was not enough to meet the “appropriate” standard required by the OHSA.

Throughout the decision, the OLRB offered the following guidance with respect to the hallmarks of an “appropriate” workplace investigation:

• The  investigation must include a consideration of the rights and interests of both the complainant and the responding party/parties to the complaint as well as the integrity of the investigation itself;
• While a third-party external investigator is not required or appropriate in every circumstance, an internal investigator must have some understanding of the workplace harassment and reprisal provisions of the OHSA and the employer’s own policies and ideally some experience with investigations and investigative procedures; and
• An appropriate investigation does not necessarily include looking into each and every allegation, or require that each and every person identified in a complaint be interviewed.

While the OLRB declined to make a determination on the definition of the word “investigation” in the context of workplace harassment allegations under the OHSA, the OLRB opened the door to a more flexible definition, which could include either a formal or informal approach, such as a mediation or a fact-finding exercise, subject to the applicable circumstances and on consent of the complainant and respondent. It appears employers will have to wait for another decision to see if the OLRB continues to move in this direction, potentially creating a more flexible approach to workplace investigations.

The OLRB also reiterated two important principles:

• an “appropriate” investigation is a procedural determination, and is not contingent on an investigator coming to one conclusion over another, and
• while complainants are entitled to the results of a workplace investigation in writing, this does not mean that they are entitled to a copy of the investigator’s written report.

Takeaways for employers

In light of this, how do you make sure your internal investigation is appropriate in the circumstances and procedurally fair? Some best practices are:

• Ensure any internal investigator attends training on the OHSA, workplace harassment and any applicable workplace harassment policy. Ideally, an internal investigator’s first investigation is done under the supervision of a more experienced investigator.
• Don’t jump to conclusions. While it is important to provide support for a complainant who comes forward, investigations are a fact-finding exercise, and are typically stressful for both the complainant and the respondent.
• Make decisions, but explain why. While it may not be necessary to interview every witness or look into every allegation, the investigation report should clearly explain why the investigator made those decisions.
• Give the complainant and respondent the opportunity to “reply” to any evidence or allegations that could have a material impact on the investigation and the resulting conclusions.

For more information on this topic, please reach out to Emily Kroboth.