Workplace Harassment Investigation Steps: A Complete Process Guide

A workplace harassment investigation in Canada follows a structured, multi-step process governed by overlapping federal and provincial statutes, including the Canada Labour Code and occupational health and safety legislation. Employers must assess the complaint, appoint a qualified neutral investigator, conduct procedurally fair interviews, weigh evidence on a balance of probabilities, and produce a written report.

Legal Framework Governing Workplace Harassment Investigations in Canada

Canada's legislative history illustrates how harassment law evolved through successive, layered reforms rather than a single unified statute. The foundational harassment investigation obligations recognized in Canada's framework underscore how employers must navigate an overlapping matrix of federal and provincial regimes before designing any investigation process. Understanding that matrix is the first practical task for every HR professional or legal counsel advising on a harassment file.

The Canadian human rights framework traces its origins to the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, which established the foundational prohibition on discriminatory conduct in federally regulated sectors. Alongside it, provincial human rights codes imposed comparable obligations on employers within their jurisdictions. For decades, occupational health and safety legislation sat in a separate silo, focused on physical hazards rather than interpersonal conduct.

That silo began to dissolve with the passage of Bill C-65 in 2018, which amended the Canada Labour Code to insert Part II harassment and violence provisions. Those provisions came into force on January 1, 2021, and were operationalized through the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations, SOR/2020-130. From that date, federally regulated employers, including banks, telecommunications carriers, and interprovincial transport companies, faced explicit procedural obligations covering not only physical violence but psychological harassment and discriminatory conduct.

Provincial legislatures moved along a parallel track. Ontario embedded workplace harassment obligations in ss. 32.0.1 to 32.0.7 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), requiring written programs, investigation procedures, and complainant notification. British Columbia incorporated harassment obligations through the Workers Compensation Act and WorkSafeBC's 2013 Workplace Bullying and Harassment Policies. Quebec imposed a distinct duty under s. 81.19 of the Act Respecting Labour Standards, requiring employers to adopt a psychological harassment prevention and complaint-handling policy. The result is a patchwork that practitioners must map carefully before drafting an investigation protocol.

Jurisdiction	Governing Statute	Investigation Trigger	Minimum Procedural Requirements
Federal (Canada Labour Code)	Canada Labour Code, Part II; SOR/2020-130	Notice of occurrence of harassment or violence	Written workplace assessment, prevention policy, joint assessment, resolution process, formal investigation if unresolved
Ontario (OHSA)	Occupational Health and Safety Act, ss. 32.0.1–32.0.7	Complaint or employer awareness of workplace harassment	Written harassment program, investigation appropriate to circumstances, written results to complainant
British Columbia (WCA)	Workers Compensation Act; WorkSafeBC Policies D3-115-2, D3-116-1, D3-117-1	Report of bullying or harassment	Employer investigation procedure, corrective action plan, worker protection from retaliation
Quebec (Act Respecting Labour Standards)	Act Respecting Labour Standards, s. 81.19	Complaint filed with employer	Written prevention policy, complaint-handling procedure, reasonable steps to stop harassment

Which federal and provincial statutes trigger an investigation obligation?

The Canada Labour Code applies only to federally regulated employers, a sector covering roughly 6% of the Canadian workforce. Section 122.1 of that Act defines "work place harassment and violence" broadly, capturing psychological harm and discriminatory conduct alongside physical threats. The vast majority of Canadian workers fall instead under provincial OHSA regimes. Ontario OHSA s. 32.0.2(1)(b) obligates employers to develop and maintain a program to implement a workplace harassment policy. Critically, a single incident can simultaneously engage OHS obligations and human rights obligations, meaning an employer may face scrutiny from both a safety regulator and a human rights tribunal arising from the same set of facts.

How do the Canada Labour Code and provincial occupational health and safety legislation apply?

The SOR/2020-130 violence prevention regulations establish a sequential resolution framework for federally regulated employers: the parties first attempt negotiated resolution, then may proceed to conciliation, and only if those options are exhausted or refused does a formal investigation commence. Employers have up to 45 days for the negotiated resolution phase. Ontario OHSA requires employers with more than 5 employees to maintain a written harassment program, a threshold that captures almost every structured workplace. Both regimes came into full alignment in 2021, though provincial programs had been operative for several years prior.

Human rights obligations and the duty to investigate under the Canadian Human Rights Act

The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed employer liability for supervisory harassment in Robichaud v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1987] 2 SCR 84, holding that an employer could be vicariously responsible for the harassing conduct of its agents. Human rights tribunals have since extended that principle: a failure to investigate a harassment complaint is treated as an independent act of discrimination, separate from the underlying harassing conduct itself. The Ontario Human Rights Commission's Policy on Preventing Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment reinforces this position by specifying that employers must respond promptly and meaningfully to all complaints. Understanding how a workplace investigation works from a procedural standpoint is therefore not optional for an employer seeking to discharge its human rights duties.

Violence and harassment prevention regulations: what procedural minimums must employers meet?

SOR/2020-130, finalized in 2020, sets the following procedural floors for federally regulated employers:

• Conduct a written workplace assessment identifying harassment and violence risk factors
• Develop a harassment and violence prevention policy jointly with the workplace committee or representative
• Complete a joint workplace assessment with the designated recipient named in the policy
• Offer early resolution to the person who filed the notice of occurrence
• Receive and record formal notice to employer of any occurrence
• Document and retain records of all resolution attempts and outcomes

British Columbia's WorkSafeBC Policies D3-115-2, D3-116-1, and D3-117-1 establish comparable procedural floors at the provincial level, confirming that procedural rigour is a cross-jurisdictional expectation, not a federal anomaly. For more on this, see related industry context.

Preparing to Investigate: Foundational Decisions Before the First Interview

Before a single interview is scheduled, practitioners must answer a deceptively consequential question: is this complaint one that demands a full formal investigation, or can it be resolved through an early informal process, and what are the legal consequences of getting that threshold assessment wrong? The decisions made in the preparatory phase, covering who investigates, under what mandate, and with what interim protections in place, largely determine whether the resulting investigation will withstand tribunal or court scrutiny.

Assessing whether a complaint warrants a formal investigation or an informal resolution

Ontario OHSA s. 1(1) defines "workplace harassment" as engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome, or workplace sexual harassment. A single isolated remark may not meet that statutory definition, whereas a single serious incident of sexual assault clearly does. The risk in choosing informal resolution for conduct that meets the legal harassment threshold is significant: a human rights tribunal can treat the informal handling itself as a failure to take the complaint seriously, creating an independent ground of liability. Employers should document their threshold assessment in writing, with reasons, before selecting any resolution pathway.

Selecting the right investigator: internal HR, legal counsel, or external neutral?

Investigator selection maps directly onto the complexity and risk profile of the file. Senior HR personnel with no prior involvement in the incident are appropriate for lower-complexity complaints where no senior respondent is implicated. In-house legal counsel introduces potential solicitor-client privilege complications and is generally not recommended as the fact-finder. An external investigator is the preferred choice when the respondent holds a senior leadership role, when the complaint is factually complex, or when union grievance proceedings are anticipated alongside the internal process. What Is Mediation? Process, Roles, and Benefits in Canada and other alternative dispute resolution processes may provide supplementary tools for resolution, but the investigation itself requires an independent neutral fact-finder. Reviewing resources on preparing for a workplace investigation can help HR teams structure their internal readiness before engaging an external firm.

Pre-Investigation Readiness Checklist:

• Complaint received in writing (or verbal complaint reduced to writing with complainant confirmation)
• Interim safety assessment completed to identify immediate risk to complainant or witnesses
• Investigator selected and written conflict-of-interest check conducted
• Mandate document drafted and approved by appropriate authority
• Confidentiality agreements or acknowledgements obtained from all participants
• Respondent notified of complaint and preservation directive issued
• Interim protective measures assessed and documented with scheduled review dates

What qualifications and independence standards must an investigator meet?

No Canadian statute currently mandates a specific credential for workplace investigators, but arbitral jurisprudence increasingly scrutinizes investigator expertise when findings are challenged. Recognized qualifications include:

• No direct prior involvement in the incident under investigation within the preceding 2 years
• No current or recent reporting relationship to either party
• Formal training in trauma-informed interviewing techniques
• Demonstrated familiarity with applicable OHS and human rights legislation
• Professional credentials such as CPHR designation, call to the bar, or ADR Institute of Canada certification

An investigator who lacks these attributes is not automatically disqualified, but gaps in expertise become grounds for credibility challenges at adjudication.

Drafting the investigation mandate and defining its scope

A written mandate is the governing instrument of the investigation process. It should specify the allegations under investigation, framed neutrally without pre-judging outcome, the applicable workplace policy and statutory provisions, the investigator's reporting relationship and deliverables, the timeline for completion, and the standard of proof (balance of probabilities in all Canadian employment proceedings). Scope definition requires particular care: a mandate drafted too narrowly risks missing related misconduct that surfaced during interviews, while an overly broad scope invites procedural fairness challenges from the respondent, who is entitled to know the case against them. British Columbia Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal decisions have identified mandate creep as a recognized basis for setting aside investigation findings, confirming that scope discipline is not merely best practice but a legal requirement.

Interim protective measures: when should the respondent be placed on administrative leave?

Administrative leave with pay pending investigation is not a disciplinary measure and does not attract the procedural rights associated with termination. Courts have nonetheless cautioned that prolonged or punitive suspensions prior to any findings can constitute constructive dismissal; the analogy to Farber v. Royal Trust, [1997] 1 SCR 846, involving unilateral and fundamental changes to employment terms, is instructive. Factors that support placing a respondent on interim administrative leave include: ongoing risk of harm to the complainant, risk of evidence tampering or witness interference, the seniority or authority of the respondent relative to the complainant, and the general vulnerability of the work environment. Any interim measure must be documented at the outset, communicated to the respondent in writing, and reviewed at least every 2 weeks to confirm it remains proportionate and necessary. For more on this, see related industry context.

Step-by-Step Workplace Harassment Investigation Process

Organizations following a documented, step-by-step investigation procedure are substantially more likely to have their investigation findings upheld when challenged before a tribunal or on judicial review, underscoring that process integrity, not just substantive outcome, drives legal defensibility. The 7 steps outlined below function both as procedural milestones and as evidentiary building blocks: each step, if properly executed, produces a documented record that downstream adjudicators can follow and rely upon.

Step 1, Receiving and documenting the complaint

Upon receipt of a harassment complaint, the employer should complete 4 immediate actions:

1. Acknowledge receipt in writing to the complainant within 24 hours of receiving the report
2. Provide the complainant with a copy of the applicable workplace harassment policy
3. Record the date, time, method of receipt, and identity of the receiving HR professional in the investigation file
4. Assign a unique file reference number to preserve confidentiality and enable organized document management

Verbal complaints must be reduced to writing, either by the complainant directly or by the receiving HR professional who then provides the written record to the complainant for confirmation. Unsigned or unconfirmed written summaries weaken the evidentiary foundation of the file.

Step 2, Notifying the respondent and preserving relevant evidence

Notification to the respondent must include the general nature of the allegations, described with sufficient specificity that the respondent can begin to prepare a response, without disclosing the complainant's identity where credible safety concerns exist. The notification must also include a written directive to preserve all relevant documents, electronic communications, and records. Employers should simultaneously issue a litigation hold covering email accounts, messaging platforms such as Microsoft Teams or Slack, and any physical documents such as scheduling records or written notes. Canadian arbitral jurisprudence treats spoliation of evidence seriously: deliberate destruction of relevant materials can attract adverse inferences at adjudication, effectively treating the destroyed evidence as supporting the opposing party's position. Most provincial privacy statutes also impose access and retention obligations on employer-held records, reinforcing the need for prompt and comprehensive preservation.

Step 3, Developing the investigation plan and witness list

The investigation plan serves as the operational blueprint for the entire workplace investigation. It should identify the following elements:

• All potential witnesses: complainant, respondent, direct witnesses to specific incidents, and indirect witnesses aware of the broader workplace context
• The sequence of interviews: complainant first, respondent second after receiving full details of the allegations, third-party witnesses thereafter
• Documents to be reviewed: HR personnel files, performance records, relevant correspondence, surveillance footage where applicable and legally permissible
• Timelines and logistics: whether interviews will be conducted in person or by secure video, and the schedule for completing each phase
• Revision protocol: the plan is a working document and should be updated as new information emerges during the investigation

SOR/2020-130, s. 34 imposes specific investigation plan requirements on federally regulated employers, confirming that a documented plan is a legal obligation in that sector rather than simply a professional preference.

Step 4, Conducting complainant, respondent, and witness interviews

Effective interview technique anchors the factual record of the investigation. Open-ended, non-leading questions produce more reliable accounts than closed or suggestive ones. The complainant interview should systematically cover: what occurred, when and where each incident took place, who was present or may have witnessed it, whether and how it was reported previously, and the effect of the conduct on the worker's health and ability to perform their role. Interviewing the complainant and respondent requires structured techniques that respect the emotional state of participants while maintaining factual discipline.

The respondent interview is the core of the procedural fairness requirement: each specific allegation must be put squarely to the respondent, who must be given a genuine opportunity to provide a full response. Witness interviews should be conducted individually, and each witness should receive instructions to maintain confidentiality and not to discuss their testimony with other participants. All interviews must be captured through detailed contemporaneous notes, and interviewees should be invited to confirm the accuracy of the notes or to provide written corrections promptly after the interview.

Step 5, Evaluating credibility and weighing the evidence

Canadian arbitral jurisprudence, drawing on Faryna v. Chorny [1952] 2 DLR 354, identifies several factors relevant to credibility assessment: the internal consistency of each account across its telling, consistency between oral testimony and available documentary evidence, the inherent probability of the described version of events given the surrounding circumstances, demeanour evidence treated with caution given its known unreliability, and corroboration from independent sources. Investigators must document their credibility reasoning explicitly and in detail. Bare conclusions, stating that a complainant was found credible or a respondent was not, without supporting analysis, are routinely criticized in judicial review decisions and can result in the findings being quashed entirely. A rigorous credibility analysis is therefore not optional formalism but the foundation of a defensible report.

Step 6, Reaching findings of fact on the balance of probabilities

The balance of probabilities standard, confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in FH v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, applies uniformly across civil and administrative proceedings. It requires the investigator to be satisfied that it is more probable than not, meaning greater than 50%, that each alleged act occurred as described. This is not the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and investigators must resist importing that higher threshold into employment proceedings. Findings must be stated separately for each allegation: an omnibus conclusion covering multiple incidents in a single finding is procedurally inadequate. An inconclusive finding, reached where the evidence is genuinely insufficient to resolve the issue on the balance of probabilities, is a legitimate outcome. It must be explicitly documented as an evidentiary insufficiency rather than implied as a finding in favour of the respondent. Each finding must be cross-referenced to the specific evidence on which it rests, ensuring transparency and enabling meaningful review.

Step 7, Preparing the written investigation report

The written report is the formal output of the workplace investigations process and must contain: an executive summary suitable for distribution to appropriate decision-makers, a description of the mandate and scope, a procedural summary identifying each interview date, interviewee, and document reviewed, findings of fact stated separately for each allegation, a detailed credibility analysis, and any recommendations within the scope of the mandate. To ensure the report does not exceed its mandate, investigators should cross-check each section against the original mandate document before finalizing. Inflammatory language, speculative statements, and observations about conduct outside the mandate scope must be removed. Where the report is commissioned through legal counsel, it may attract solicitor-client privilege, but only if the dominant purpose of commissioning it was obtaining legal advice rather than documenting facts for operational HR purposes. Tracking investigation timeline and report production standards is essential for meeting the expectation that written reports be produced within 30 days of the final interview. For more on this, see related guide.

The Investigator's Role: Duties, Powers, and Ethical Obligations

An investigator in a workplace harassment proceeding occupies a role analogous to that of a commissioner of inquiry: neither advocate nor adjudicator, but an independent fact-finder whose legitimacy rests entirely on visible neutrality, methodological rigour, and strict adherence to the mandate. Just as a commissioner who accepted private briefings from one party would have their report set aside, an investigator who departs from procedural symmetry creates grounds for judicial review that can invalidate months of work. Ethical obligations in this role are not aspirational guidelines but legally enforceable standards.

How should an investigator maintain impartiality throughout the process?

Impartiality demands procedural symmetry at every stage: equal preparation time allocated to complainant and respondent interviews, equivalent opportunity for each party to submit relevant documents, and identical confidentiality instructions delivered consistently. Investigators must refrain from sharing preliminary assessments or tentative credibility conclusions with the employer before the report is complete, as doing so creates the appearance of pre-judgment. The applicable legal test, drawn from Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, [1978] 1 SCR 369, asks whether a reasonable and informed observer would apprehend bias based on the investigator's conduct. Reviewing practical investigation questions and investigator standards confirms that this reasonable apprehension standard is broadly applied in effective workplace investigations across sectors.

Managing conflicts of interest and bias risks

A conflict of interest arises in at least 3 categories of circumstance: prior personal or professional relationships with either party, prior involvement in providing advice on the complaint or the underlying events, and existing reporting relationships within the employing organization. Before reviewing any substantive materials, the investigator should complete a written conflict-of-interest disclosure. Where a potential conflict is identified, the investigator must either obtain informed written consent from both parties to proceed or recuse entirely and arrange for a replacement. The ADR Institute of Canada certification provides applicable ethical principles by analogy, including the duty of ongoing disclosure throughout the proceeding if new conflicts emerge. Ontario courts have cited investigator bias as grounds for setting aside findings in at least 3 notable judicial review decisions since 2015, confirming that conflict management is a substantive legal requirement. The principle that investigators read document 26 days retention logs and communications from both parties equally and simultaneously, rather than sequentially in a way that favours one side's framing, reflects this broader symmetry obligation. The obj subtype form type used in formal investigation records should be standardized across the organization to support consistent documentation practices and facilitate retrieval during any subsequent adjudicative review.

Key Takeaways

• Multiple overlapping statutes govern the investigation duty in Canada: federally regulated employers must comply with SOR/2020-130 under the Canada Labour Code, while provincially regulated employers face OHS and human rights obligations that may be triggered simultaneously by a single incident.
• Threshold assessment before any formal process begins is legally significant: choosing informal resolution for conduct that meets the statutory definition of harassment can itself constitute a failure to investigate, attracting independent liability at a human rights tribunal.
• Investigator selection and independence are not administrative details but determinative factors in the legal defensibility of findings; external investigator services should be engaged for senior-respondent or complex files.
• Each of the 7 investigation steps produces a distinct evidentiary record; contemporaneous, detailed documentation at every stage is the most reliable protection against judicial review challenges.
• Written findings must be stated separately for each allegation, anchored to specific evidence, and calibrated to the balance of probabilities standard confirmed in FH v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, not to the criminal standard of proof.

FAQ

What are the 5 steps of the investigation process?

While a thorough harassment investigation encompasses 7 discrete steps, the 5 core procedural stages are:

1. Receiving and documenting the complaint
2. Notifying the respondent and preserving evidence
3. Planning and conducting interviews (complainant, respondent, witnesses)
4. Evaluating credibility and weighing the evidence
5. Preparing written findings and a formal investigation report

Each stage must be documented to withstand scrutiny by a human rights tribunal or court on judicial review.

What steps should be taken during the investigation of a harassment complaint?

During a harassment investigation, the investigator should: acknowledge the complaint in writing within 24 hours; issue a preservation directive to all parties; develop a written investigation plan identifying witnesses and documents; conduct structured, open-ended interviews with the complainant first, respondent second, and witnesses thereafter; assess credibility using recognized arbitral factors; reach findings on the balance of probabilities for each allegation separately; and produce a written report with analysis. Ontario OHSA s. 32.0.6 also requires the employer to inform the complainant of the results and any corrective action taken.

What to do if you are accused of harassment at work?

If accused of workplace harassment, a respondent should:

• Review the written notification carefully and note every allegation described
• Engage legal counsel or a union representative before the investigator interview
• Preserve all potentially relevant documents, communications, and records
• Cooperate with the investigation process and respond fully to each allegation when interviewed
• Refrain from contacting the complainant or witnesses during the investigation

The respondent is entitled to know the case against them in sufficient detail to respond meaningfully, a procedural fairness requirement recognized across Canadian jurisdictions.

What not to say during investigation?

During a workplace harassment investigation, participants should avoid:

• Speculating about the motivations or credibility of other parties
• Making statements about matters outside their direct personal knowledge
• Attempting to minimize conduct by framing it as humour or workplace culture
• Making promises about what the investigation outcome will be
• Disclosing interview content to colleagues, which may constitute interference

Both complainants and respondents benefit from treating every statement as a formal record, because interview notes become part of the evidentiary file relied upon in any subsequent adjudication.

How long can investigations take?

The duration of a workplace harassment investigation varies significantly based on the number of witnesses, document volume, and scheduling complexity. SOR/2020-130 allows up to 45 days for the negotiated resolution phase before a formal investigation commences. Once investigation begins, best practice supports completing the written report within 30 days of the final interview. More complex matters involving multiple complainants, senior respondents, or parallel grievance proceedings can reasonably extend to several months.

How does HR investigate a harassment complaint?

HR investigates a harassment complaint by receiving and documenting the report, assessing whether it meets the statutory threshold for investigation, selecting an appropriate investigator (internal or external), notifying the respondent, conducting structured interviews in a defined sequence, gathering and reviewing relevant documents, assessing credibility using established arbitral factors, and producing written findings. Where HR personnel are themselves implicated or lack independence, an external investigator should be appointed. Throughout the process, HR must ensure procedural fairness, confidentiality, and compliance with the applicable workplace harassment policy and governing legislation.