Federal employer obligations under Bill C-65 in 2026 — investigation triggers, timelines, trained investigator rules, and what tribunals expect.
When Bill C-65 received Royal Assent on October 25, 2018, and its regulations came into force on January 1, 2021, it fundamentally reshaped how federally regulated employers must respond to workplace harassment and violence. The framework shifted from a compliance checklist into an active obligation to investigate, remediate, and document.
Yet five years later, many organizations in the banking, telecommunications, interprovincial transportation, and federal Crown sectors still operate under incomplete understandings of the requirements. Some treat investigations as a reactive checkbox. Others hire the first available investigator without verifying qualifications. A few skip investigation after the principal party requests one, exposing themselves to regulatory scrutiny and litigation risk.
This guide walks through the actual mechanics of Bill C-65 investigations: who qualifies as an investigator, what timelines the regulations demand, how the process differs from provincial frameworks, and where organizations commonly stumble.
Key Takeaways
- Bill C-65 applies to federally regulated employers—banks, telecommunications carriers, interprovincial transportation, federal Crown corporations, and First Nations band councils
- Investigations must follow a structured pathway: notice → employer response → negotiated resolution (and conciliation, if both parties agree) → investigation, if the principal party requests it
- The investigator must meet the qualifications in section 28 of the Regulations (training in investigative techniques, relevant knowledge and experience, and knowledge of the Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act); an investigator who does not meet them exposes the outcome to challenge
- The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS) publishes a registry of investigators; under section 27 it is the fallback source when the parties cannot agree on an investigator within 60 days
- Timelines are mandatory: the Regulations require prompt first contact with the complainant after notice, an early start to negotiated resolution, monthly status updates, and completion of the resolution process within one year of notice
- External investigators are often the safer choice for complaints involving senior management or when the scale warrants independent scrutiny
Before diving into investigation mechanics, clarity on jurisdiction is essential. Bill C-65 amends Part II of the Canada Labour Code and applies only to federally regulated industries. If your organization operates primarily in one province under provincial labour legislation, Bill C-65 does not apply—Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act rules, or the equivalent in your province, would govern instead.
Federally regulated employers include:
If you are unsure whether your organization falls under federal jurisdiction, review the Canada Labour Code Part II schedules or consult with employment counsel. Misidentifying your regulatory home can delay investigations and undermine them if they are later challenged.
Handling a federally regulated matter? This article is general information. Our current public investigation service is limited to Ontario employer-side workplace matters, with fit, jurisdiction and practitioner availability confirmed before any proposal. The page does not determine your legal obligations.
The Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations (SOR/2020-130) replaced the old Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations Part XX. While Part XX required employers to have harassment and violence policies, Bill C-65 introduced a procedural framework with enforceable timelines and investigator qualifications.
The key architectural change is the structured investigation pathway. Under the old regime, many organizations documented complaints but did not formalize investigations. Bill C-65 mandates a sequence: notice of occurrence, employer acknowledgment, an attempt at negotiated resolution (with conciliation if both parties agree), and, if the occurrence is not resolved and the principal party requests it, a formal investigation with findings and remedial recommendations.
Additionally, harassment and violence are now treated as a unified regime, not separate processes. A single complaint alleging both verbal threats and intimidating conduct flows through one investigation, not two parallel tracks. This simplification sounds beneficial, but it requires training; many HR teams still think in silos.
Finally, the investigator qualification standard in section 28 of the Regulations is new and specific. Not every HR professional, manager, or internal investigator meets it. This has forced organizations to either invest in training key staff or retain external investigators, a significant operational shift from the Part XX era.
The process is linear but not automatic. Understanding each stage is critical to compliance.
An employee, union representative, or other person alleges that workplace harassment or violence has occurred. "Occurrence" is defined in the regulations as a situation where a person is exposed to harassment or violence in the course of their employment. The notice can be formal or informal; it does not need to be a written complaint form, though best practice dictates documenting the report promptly in writing.
The Regulations require the employer or designated recipient to make first contact with the complainant within seven days of the notice. That contact should confirm receipt, outline next steps, and communicate that the organization takes the matter seriously. This stage is often overlooked in small organizations where the complaint lands with a manager who forgets to log it.
The Regulations require negotiated resolution to begin within 45 days of the notice. Conciliation is a separate, optional track the parties can agree to. In practice this stage is a negotiated resolution or conciliation attempt. This does not mean forced mediation; it means good-faith effort by the employer, in consultation with the complainant (and union if applicable), to reach agreement on remedial measures. Conciliation might result in immediate resolution—an apology, workplace separation, retraining, or adjusted work arrangements—without requiring a full investigation.
If conciliation succeeds, the investigation process ends. The employer and complainant document the agreed resolution, implement it, and monitor compliance.
If negotiated resolution or conciliation does not resolve the occurrence and the principal party requests an investigation (section 25), an investigator is selected under section 27 of the Regulations. The investigation must be objective, impartial, and thorough. It culminates in a written report with findings and recommendations.
The investigator's report must not identify the people involved, and the employer gives a copy to the principal party, the responding party, and the workplace committee or health and safety representative (section 30). The employer and the workplace committee or health and safety representative jointly decide which recommendations to implement, and the employer must implement those (section 31). The Regulations require the entire resolution process, including implementation, to be completed within one year of the notice, or later where a party is absent for more than 90 consecutive days (section 33).
Many guides describe a "qualified person" standard. The Regulations use the term investigator, and they set two rules: who can be selected (section 27) and what the investigator must know (section 28).
Qualifications (section 28). An investigator must:
Selection (section 27). The employer or designated recipient selects the investigator from a list developed jointly with the workplace committee or health and safety representative, or chooses a person that the employer, the principal party and the responding party agree to. If they cannot agree within 60 days, the employer uses a person identified by the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. Whoever is selected must give the employer and both parties a written statement that they are not in a conflict of interest.
In practice, the jointly developed list is the step most employers skip. Agreeing it with your committee or representative before a notice arrives avoids a 60-day search in the middle of a live matter. An internal HR professional with long experience but no training in investigative techniques may not meet section 28, even if you trust them.
The standard is meant to ensure legitimacy and rigour, not to be a burden. Many organizations meet it through formal investigation training and documented case experience.
The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS) publishes a registry of harassment and violence investigators for federally regulated workplaces. Under section 27, it is the fallback source: the employer uses it when there is no jointly developed list and the employer and both parties cannot agree on an investigator within 60 days. Employers can also consult it earlier when building their list.
To use the registry:
Listing on the registry does not establish fitness for a specific matter. Whichever source you use, document the investigator's qualifications: name, training, and a description of the knowledge and experience that meets section 28.
The regulations impose specific timelines that are not advisory; they are mandatory. This is distinct from Ontario's OHSA framework, which does not mandate formal timelines but expects "prompt" investigation. See Ontario Employer Obligations Under OHSA for the provincial timeline expectations.
| Milestone | Requirement under the Regulations |
|---|---|
| First contact with the complainant | Within 7 days of the notice of occurrence |
| Negotiated resolution | Must begin within 45 days of the notice; conciliation is an optional parallel track |
| Status updates | Monthly updates to the parties on the resolution process |
| Appointment of investigator | When the occurrence is not resolved and the principal party requests an investigation (s.25); selected from the jointly developed list, or a person the employer and both parties agree to, or from the CCOHS registry after 60 days without agreement (s.27) |
| Completion of the resolution process | Within one year of the notice of occurrence |
Timeframes run from the notice of occurrence, so document the date and manner of the notice clearly in your records — and confirm the current deadlines against SOR/2020-130 itself or with counsel, as this table is a summary.
Document any justified delays carefully (e.g., the complainant requested a postponement, or the investigator was unavailable). Unexplained delays invite regulatory scrutiny and weaken your position if the process is challenged. If you anticipate missing a deadline, communicate with the complainant and union in writing, explain the reason, and propose a revised timeline.
Many organizations operate across federal and provincial jurisdictions or have employees in multiple provinces. Understanding the key differences between Bill C-65 and provincial frameworks (using Ontario's OHSA as the most common comparison) helps avoid applying the wrong standard.
| Dimension | Bill C-65 (Federal) | Ontario OHSA (Provincial) |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability | Federally regulated industries only | Provincially regulated employers in Ontario |
| Trigger for investigation | Notice of harassment or violence occurrence | Complaint or employer initiative; less prescriptive |
| Resolution before investigation | Negotiated resolution required; conciliation optional; investigation at the principal party's request | Not mandated; investigation can proceed directly |
| Investigator standard | Section 28 qualifications; selection rules in section 27 | No prescribed investigator qualifications; investigation must be appropriate in the circumstances (OHSA s.32.0.7) |
| Investigation timeline | Resolution process completed within one year of notice; first contact within 7 days | No regulatory timeline; OHSA expects timeliness |
| Recommendations | Employer and workplace committee or health and safety representative jointly decide which to implement; employer must implement those (s.31) | Employer obligation less formalized |
| Investigator selection | From a list developed with the policy committee (or, if none, the workplace committee or health and safety representative), or a person the employer and both parties agree to (s.27) | Employer selects; collective agreement terms may apply |
| Regulatory agency | Labour Program (Employment and Social Development Canada) | Ministry of Labour Ontario |
If your organization is federally regulated but operates in Ontario, you must follow Bill C-65, not OHSA. If you operate in multiple provinces, map your employee locations carefully and apply the correct framework to each complaint.
This is a practical decision that shapes the credibility of the investigation and the organizational burden.
Use an internal investigator if:
Use an external investigator if:
External investigator fees vary widely with complexity, party count, and duration — obtain a written fee and scope before work begins. The cost is not insignificant for smaller organizations, but it is far less than the reputational and legal risk of a flawed or internally questioned investigation.
Five gaps recur in federal workplace investigations:
1. Failure to document negotiated resolution. Many organizations attempt informal resolution without leaving a paper trail. Section 23 requires every reasonable effort to resolve the occurrence. Document who was involved, what was discussed, when it occurred, and why negotiated resolution (or conciliation, if the parties chose it) succeeded or failed.
2. Selecting an investigator outside section 27. Organizations assume that if the investigator is qualified, the process is valid. Section 27 also governs selection: the investigator comes from a list developed jointly with the applicable partner, or is a person the employer and both parties agree to, and if they cannot agree within 60 days, from the CCOHS registry. An investigator chosen any other way exposes the outcome to challenge.
3. Treating the resolution timeline as advisory. The one-year completion requirement is mandatory, and monthly status updates are owed to the parties along the way. Many investigations drift because no one is managing the project. Assign an owner, set internal milestones, and monitor progress weekly.
4. Receiving the investigation report without ensuring it addresses all allegations. A qualified investigator will structure findings around each allegation in the notice. If the report is vague, conclusory, or avoids specific allegations, send it back for clarification. A weak report creates litigation risk and fails to guide remedial action.
5. Neglecting to implement recommendations or record the implementation. The investigation is not the end; the recommendations are. Give a copy of the report, which must not identify the people involved, to the principal party, the responding party, and the workplace committee or health and safety representative (section 30). Agree which recommendations to implement, implement them, and record completion within the one-year limit. Document everything.
Not every investigation requires a lawyer, but certain situations warrant legal guidance.
You likely need legal counsel if:
Counsel can review the investigator's report, advise on remedial measures, and help manage any follow-up dispute or grievance. A few hours of legal counsel is a modest cost compared to a misstep that results in further complaint, regulatory inspection, or litigation.
Bill C-65 investigations and human rights inquiries can overlap but are not identical. If a complaint alleges harassment based on a protected ground (race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, national origin), the investigation must address both the Bill C-65 obligations and the human rights implications.
Document carefully. An investigation report that addresses the factual allegations but ignores the human rights dimension may satisfy Bill C-65 but expose you to a human rights complaint afterward. When protected grounds are in play, consult employment counsel to ensure the investigation scope is adequate.
Similarly, if the complaint alleges violence or threats that could constitute criminal conduct, inform the police if there is genuine risk to safety. An investigation does not replace criminal investigation; it complements it. Cooperate with law enforcement while protecting the integrity of your workplace investigation.
1205's current public workplace-investigation offer is positioned for Ontario workplace matters, not as a Canada-wide federal investigation service. Federally regulated employers should use employment counsel to confirm the applicable framework and the investigator requirements in sections 27 and 28, then retain a practitioner whose jurisdictional fit, training, and independence are documented for the specific file.
For an Ontario workplace-matter enquiry, contact 1205. For a federally regulated matter, start with employment counsel or a provider whose federal qualifications are confirmed for the mandate.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Bill C-65 and its regulations are complex, and every investigation is fact-specific. Consult with employment counsel in your jurisdiction before relying on this content for decisions affecting your organization.
The Regulations use the term investigator, not qualified person. Under section 28 of the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations (SOR/2020-130), made under the Canada Labour Code as amended by Bill C-65, an investigator must be trained in investigative techniques, have knowledge, training and experience relevant to harassment and violence, and know the Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and other relevant legislation. Under section 27, the investigator must also give the employer and both parties a written statement that they are not in a conflict of interest.
Bill C-65 applies to federally regulated employers, such as banks, telecommunications, airlines, interprovincial transport, the federal public service, and Crown corporations. It does not apply to provincially regulated employers.
If an occurrence is not resolved by negotiated resolution or conciliation, the principal party can request an investigation (Regulations, s.25). The employer selects the investigator from a list developed jointly with the policy committee (or, if there is none, the workplace committee or health and safety representative), or a person the employer and both parties agree to; if they cannot agree within 60 days, the employer uses a person identified by the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (s.27). The investigator's report describes the occurrence and sets out conclusions and recommendations without identifying the people involved, and the employer gives a copy to both parties and the workplace committee or health and safety representative (s.30). The employer and that committee or representative jointly decide which recommendations to implement (s.31), and the whole resolution process must finish within one year of the notice of occurrence, or later where a party is absent for more than 90 consecutive days (s.33).
No. The Regulations require the employer to tell both parties that they may be represented during the resolution process (ss.20 and 22), but they do not give the complainant a right to attend the respondent's interview. The investigator typically interviews the complainant and respondent separately to gather unfiltered accounts. If the complainant asks to attend the respondent's interview, the investigator decides, weighing fairness and the risk of intimidation.
Refusal to participate does not void the investigation. The investigator can proceed with the available evidence: interviews with the complainant and witnesses, and document review. Document the refusal carefully, note the date and manner of the request, and make clear that the respondent was offered an opportunity to respond. A report based on incomplete respondent input is still valid, but it should state that the respondent declined to participate.
Investigations are confidential to the extent practicable, but workplace separations, schedule changes, or disciplinary outcomes will be apparent to others. The investigator's report must not identify the people involved, and only the principal party, the responding party, and the workplace committee or health and safety representative receive a copy (s.30); do not disclose detailed findings beyond them. You may tell the broader workplace that an investigation occurred and that the matter has been resolved, without disclosing findings, to reduce rumours and show that the organization takes such matters seriously.
The investigator documents the findings and the basis for the conclusion. Both parties receive a copy of the report (s.30). Even if no violation is found, the organization should explain the finding briefly and confirm that the employer remains committed to a harassment- and violence-free workplace. A no-evidence finding closes that occurrence but does not preclude a new notice if new facts emerge.
Fractional HR for Canadian employers: senior HR leadership for a defined period, from stabilizing employee relations to building the people function.
Independent, employer-side workplace investigations for Canadian organizations, with a named investigator, a written scope, and a documented report.
Strategy and execution support for Canadian companies: a strategy that ships, with the operating plan, cadence, and accountability to deliver it.
Post-investigation steps for Ontario employers: communicating findings, remediation planning, and preventing retaliation claims.
Your OHSA obligations as an Ontario employer when a workplace incident requires investigation — what to do, by when, and where to document.
Ontario employers: OHSA Section 32 and the Human Rights Code require you to investigate harassment complaints. Know your legal obligations.
Practical perspectives on fractional leadership, workplace investigations, and Canadian market entry. Delivered monthly.
Free: Workplace Investigation Readiness Checklist
Practical frameworks for consequential business and workplace decisions — no fluff, no spam.
Download checklist