Ontario employers, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “OHSA”), are required to investigate workplace harassment complaints in a manner that is “appropriate in the circumstances.” Until recently, however, there was limited guidance about what that standard requires in practice.
In Alyssa Gassi v. The Corporation of the County of Lambton, 2026 CanLII 64081 (ON LRB) (“Gassi”), the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “Board”) provided important guidance on the procedural elements of an appropriate workplace investigation. The central lesson is straightforward: an investigator who relies on evidence obtained from other participants should ordinarily give the complainant a meaningful opportunity to respond before concluding.
For employers, human resources professionals and workplace investigators, the decision is a timely reminder that even a prompt, good-faith investigation may fall short if its process is not procedurally fair.
Background
Ms. Gassi began working as a municipal prosecutor for the County of Lambton on October 28, 2024. On March 3, 2025, she submitted a workplace complaint that several coworkers had engaged in conduct she viewed as harassment.
The County assigned its Senior Labour Relations Consultant (the “Consultant”) to investigate. The Consultant had workplace investigation training, reviewed documents and met with Ms. Gassi for approximately three hours. He advised her that the investigation would take several weeks and that she would have an opportunity to respond to the information gathered. He later interviewed two County employees.
After those interviews, the Consultant concluded that there was no harassment or toxic work environment as defined by the County’s policy. On March 31, 2025, he advised Ms. Gassi that her concerns did not support a finding of workplace harassment or discrimination. Despite his earlier assurance, he did not allow her to respond to the evidence obtained from the other County employees.
Shortly after, Ms. Gassi’s employment was terminated for cause on April 4, 2025. She complained to the Ministry of Labour that, among other things, the County had not conducted the workplace harassment investigation in accordance with the OHSA. After an inspector attended the County, found no violation and issued no order, Ms. Gassi appealed under section 61 of the OHSA. The appeal required the Board to consider whether the investigation was “appropriate in the circumstances” and whether the results had been communicated in accordance with the OHSA.
The Board’s Decision
The Board found that the County’s investigation was not “appropriate in the circumstances.”
The Board acknowledged several positive features of the process. The County took the complaint seriously and acted promptly. The investigator had relevant training, understood the applicable workplace harassment requirements and the employer’s policy, took steps to maintain confidentiality, and obtained an understanding of the complaint.
Those features were not enough. The evidence gathered from the two County employees influenced the decision to dismiss Ms. Gassi’s allegations, yet she was not allowed to address it. In the Board’s view, that omission prevented the investigation from satisfying the statutory standard.
What Does “Appropriate in the Circumstances” Require?
The Board emphasized that workplace investigations are fact-specific. There is no rigid checklist that must be followed in every case. An investigator does not necessarily need to investigate every allegation or interview every person named in a complaint. Investigators must retain enough flexibility to exercise judgment based on the circumstances.
At the same time, the process must be fair and allow the employer to determine whether workplace harassment occurred. It must account for the rights and interests of the complainant and the responding party or parties, while preserving the integrity of the investigation.
A Reply Interview May Be Essential
The most important practical lesson from Gassi is the need to consider a reply or follow-up interview. Once evidence has been collected, the complainant should be given a meaningful opportunity to respond to material information that contradicts their account or may influence the investigator’s findings.
This may include evidence from the respondent, information from witnesses, relevant documents the complainant has not previously seen, or other new evidence bearing on the allegations. The investigator need not disclose every detail gathered but should put the substance of material contradictory evidence to the complainant and allow a fair opportunity to answer it.
Practical Steps for Employers and Investigators
- Choose an investigator who is impartial and understands the OHSA, the employer’s policy and basic principles of procedural fairness.
- Before making findings, allow affected parties to respond to material contradictory or new evidence.
- Document the process so the employer can demonstrate that the investigation was appropriate in the circumstances.
Key Takeaway
Gassi is an important reminder that a workplace investigation can be timely, well-intentioned and conducted by a trained investigator, yet still fail to meet the requirements of the OHSA. Procedural fairness must be built into the process from beginning to end.
In particular, employers and investigators should not treat the initial interviews as the end of the evidence-gathering process. Where later evidence may affect the outcome, giving the complainant a meaningful opportunity to reply may be the difference between an investigation that satisfies the statutory standard and one that does not.
Turnpenney Milne LLP advises employers on workplace investigations, including investigation planning, procedural fairness and the selection of an appropriate investigator. Contact us for assistance conducting or reviewing a workplace investigation.
By: Alexa Saleski