Fair to everyone in it
Everyone interviewed hears how the process works. The respondent hears the allegations in enough detail to answer them, and gets the chance to. A process that is fair to the respondent is the one that survives the grievance.
— The practice / Workplace investigations
Workplace investigations for Ontario employers — harassment complaints, misconduct allegations, and the complaints nobody inside the organization can investigate objectively. Impartial, documented, and built to be read back at arbitration.
Ontario employers have to investigate harassment complaints, and most can do it themselves. These are the times they shouldn’t.
Four stages, agreed up front. You always know which one it is in, and nothing is added to it without your sign‑off.
Tell me what has been alleged, by role rather than by name. I’ll tell you whether an outside investigation is the right tool, and whether I am the right person for it.
The allegations, the scope, the timeline, who receives the report, and the price — in writing, before anyone is interviewed.
The complainant, the respondent and the witnesses, with union representation where the collective agreement provides for it. Documents and messages gathered as the work happens.
A finding on every allegation, with the reasons, delivered to the person the terms of reference name. What happens next is your decision.
An investigation is worth exactly what it is worth when somebody else reads it — an arbitrator, an inspector, or the union. Every part of the work is done for that reader.
Everyone interviewed hears how the process works. The respondent hears the allegations in enough detail to answer them, and gets the chance to. A process that is fair to the respondent is the one that survives the grievance.
When accounts conflict, the report says which one was preferred and why: consistency, corroboration, detail, and what is plausible in the circumstances. Never simply who seemed more believable.
Interview notes, statements and documents kept as one file from the first day. If the matter goes further, the evidence is already in order.
Each allegation is decided on a balance of probabilities. Nothing is left open for somebody else to fill in later.
The first question the other side asks is whether the investigator was independent. So the answer is settled before the first interview, not argued afterwards.
I find the facts; you decide what to do about them. The report says what happened and how I reached that conclusion, not what discipline should follow. And I don’t investigate a matter I am already advising you on.
More than twenty years in Labour Relations, across healthcare and the private sector, and on both sides of the table: a union steward, organizer and representative first, now advising employers. I know what a union looks for in an investigation report, because I used to be the one reading them.
It isn’t a way to reach a decision that has already been made. If the outcome is settled before the first interview, an investigation only makes it harder to defend.
And I am not a lawyer, so a report is not legal advice. When what you do with the findings needs counsel — a termination, a settlement, a court date — I will tell you that you have reached that point.
A first conversation needs no names. Describe the allegation and the people involved by role, and I’ll tell you whether an outside investigation is the right call.
Please keep names and details out of the contact form — that is what the first call is for. You’ll hear back the same day.