Code of Conduct Investigations: Ontario Guide

Not every workplace investigation is about harassment or discrimination. Many of the most consequential investigations Ontario employers conduct involve straightforward code of conduct violations: dishonesty, conflicts of interest, misuse of company property, social media violations, or breach of confidentiality. These investigations follow the same rigor as harassment investigations—but with a different focus and a different legal framework. For an overview of all investigation types, see our Complete Guide to Workplace Investigations in Ontario.

The distinction matters because code of conduct investigations determine whether you have "just cause" to terminate an employee, and just cause is the highest evidentiary bar in employment law. Without a properly conducted investigation, you won't have it. And without just cause, a wrongful dismissal claim will cost you far more than the investigation ever would have.

When Code of Conduct Violations Require Formal Investigation

Not every code of conduct breach requires a formal, documented investigation. A first-time minor violation—an employee using company software for a brief personal task—might warrant a quiet conversation with the employee and a note in their file. But certain situations demand a formal investigation with structured process, witness interviews, and a documented report.

Severity matters first. A pattern of dishonesty, deliberate misrepresentation, serious breach of confidentiality, or material conflict of interest rises to the level of a formal investigation. So does any violation that could result in termination. Where an employer relies on "just cause," Ontario courts closely scrutinize the investigation behind it — a weak or unfair process undermines the cause defence and can attract additional damages. If you're contemplating firing someone, you need to be able to show that you took the investigation seriously.

Pattern is a second factor. A single instance of questionable judgment might be addressable through coaching. A pattern of the same behavior, after earlier warnings, demands investigation. The pattern shows intent and establishes that progressive discipline hasn't worked.

Potential for termination is the third trigger. If you think this violation could result in an employee being fired—either immediately for egregious conduct, or eventually through progressive discipline—treat it as a formal investigation. This is the safest approach legally.

Legal exposure is a fourth consideration. Some code of conduct violations create legal risk for the organization itself. Embezzlement, regulatory breaches, deliberate falsification of records, sexual or discriminatory harassment—these aren't just personnel matters. They're organizational risks. Formal investigation is mandatory.

If any of these factors are present, treat the code of conduct investigation with the same rigor you'd apply to a harassment complaint.

---

Considering external support for an Ontario employer-side matter? Review our workplace investigation fit and acceptance process. It explains the screening and delivery boundaries; it does not determine which legal framework applies to a specific matter.

---

The Just Cause Framework: Why Investigation Matters

Here's what Ontario courts require to establish "just cause" for dismissal: the employer must demonstrate that the employee's conduct was so serious that the employment relationship cannot be repaired — and courts scrutinize how that conclusion was reached, so findings that rest on a process a court would view as fair are far harder to attack. Procedural failures are critical—we've detailed the most common mistakes in our Signs Your Investigation Won't Hold Up in Court guide.

That fairness requirement is where investigation becomes critical. Courts will examine whether the employer conducted a reasonable investigation, gave the employee a fair opportunity to respond, and made a decision based on evidence rather than assumption. This investigation must be as rigorous as harassment investigations under the OHSA, even though code of conduct investigations follow a different legal framework.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in McKinley v. BC Tel sets out the governing contextual approach, and courts have applied it across Canada, including Ontario. The test isn't whether the conduct alone justifies dismissal—it's whether the conduct, investigated fairly and assessed proportionately, supports dismissal as a response.

What does this mean practically? It means that even serious code of conduct violations can fail the "just cause" test if the investigation was sloppy. The pattern in the case law is consistent: dismissals for dishonesty have failed where the investigation was run by a manager with a personal conflict and the employee never got a fair chance to respond. Just cause evaporates when the process is unfair.

Conversely, less egregious conduct has supported cause where the investigation was thorough, fair, and well-documented.

Code of Conduct Investigation vs. Harassment Investigation: The Key Differences

The investigation process for code of conduct violations follows the same rigor as harassment investigations, but the focus is different.

In a harassment investigation, you're examining workplace behavior, interpersonal dynamics, credibility of accounts, and whether conduct meets the statutory threshold of "vexatious comment or conduct." The Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) sets the legal standard. Your report assesses whether the conduct breaches the organization's harassment policy and whether it meets the OHSA definition.

In a code of conduct investigation, you're examining whether the employee violated a specific policy and whether the violation was deliberate or reckless. You're not typically assessing harassment or discrimination. You're assessing dishonesty, breach of duty, violation of policy, or conflict of interest. The legal framework isn't OHSA—it's the common law test of just cause.

That said, the investigative process is nearly identical. You need the same structured methodology, the same careful witness interviews, the same document preservation, the same credibility assessment. The output is different—your report concludes on code of conduct violation rather than harassment—but the rigor is the same.

One important distinction: harassment investigations under OHSA are mandatory if a complaint is made. Code of conduct investigations aren't statutorily required, but if you're considering dismissal, they're practically required to establish just cause.

Another distinction: in harassment investigations, you may not need an external investigator if the allegation is straightforward. In code of conduct investigations where the respondent is a senior leader, or where the investigation could lead to termination, bringing in an external investigator is often the safer choice. It removes any appearance that the investigation was biased toward a particular outcome.

Common Mistakes in Code of Conduct Investigations

The first and most costly mistake is treating code of conduct breaches as trivial. Organizations dismiss employees for serious dishonesty with a single conversation and no investigation. When the employee sues, the organization has no documented process to show a court. Just cause collapses immediately.

The second mistake is failing to investigate before terminating. An employee is fired for alleged embezzlement, and only after termination does the organization try to investigate. By then, the investigation looks reactive and defensive rather than fair. Courts view this skeptically. Investigation should precede the termination decision, not follow it.

The third mistake is inconsistent enforcement. An organization investigates and terminates one employee for a particular conduct, but then handles the same conduct informally for another employee. This inconsistency can create a discrimination claim. If the employee terminated is from a protected group and others outside that group received lesser discipline, you've opened a human rights exposure.

How to Conduct a Fair, Well-Documented Code of Conduct Investigation

Start with policy clarity. The employee should have been aware of the policy they allegedly breached. If your code of conduct is vague or the employee's role makes the policy unclear, that weakens your just cause argument.

Next, establish the facts. Who has direct knowledge of what happened? What documents exist? What is the timeline? Build a structured interview plan just as you would in a harassment investigation. Interview the employee who allegedly breached the code, witnesses with direct knowledge, and anyone with context that helps explain what happened. To pressure-test your process against the common failure points, review our 5 Signs Your Investigation Won't Hold Up in Court guide.

Assess proportionality. Is the response proportionate to the conduct? A first instance of a borderline policy violation might warrant a warning. A deliberate, serious breach after prior warnings might warrant termination. But jumping from zero to termination without intermediate steps weakens your just cause argument, even if the conduct is serious.

Look at progressive discipline history. Has this employee been warned about similar conduct before? Has the organization ever overlooked this type of conduct for other employees? Has this employee been given a chance to improve? Courts consider whether the organization gave the employee a fair opportunity to meet expectations before resorting to termination.

Document the investigation thoroughly. Keep detailed notes of every interview. Preserve all relevant documents. Record the timeline of events. Write a clear report that explains the evidence, the credibility assessments, and your conclusion. This documentation isn't just for internal purposes—it's what you'll show a court if the dismissal is later challenged.

Finally, give the employee a fair opportunity to respond. Before you make a final decision, meet with the employee and present the allegations and evidence against them. Ask them to provide their account. Consider their response. Document that you gave them this opportunity. This procedural fairness is critical to a fair just-cause process. For process guidance, see Workplace Investigation Cost in Ontario: 2026 Complete Guide, which can help you determine whether an external investigator is appropriate for your case.

When Code of Conduct Investigations Require External Investigators

You should strongly consider bringing in an external investigator when:

• The conduct under investigation involves a senior leader or someone with influence over HR decisions
• The code of conduct breach is serious and could lead to termination
• You want to remove any appearance that the investigation is biased
• Your organization is small and everyone knows everyone
• The employee has already indicated they may pursue legal action

An external investigator adds cost, but it also adds credibility. If the case goes to court, the record will show that your organization brought in an independent professional. That signals seriousness and fairness. The cost of the investigation is typically far less than the cost of a wrongful dismissal lawsuit.

How 1205 Approaches Code of Conduct Investigations

1205 accepts enquiries about code-of-conduct matters that may require an independent investigation. Before accepting a mandate, we review jurisdiction, fit, practitioner availability, and conflicts. The proposed method, reporting responsibility, timing, and fee are then confirmed in writing.

We are not a law firm and do not advise on just cause, discipline, or termination. Those decisions belong with the employer and its employment counsel.

If a code of conduct violation has surfaced in your organization, the time to investigate is now, before the situation escalates.

Need guidance on a code of conduct matter? Learn about our workplace investigation services or contact us to discuss your situation and determine the right investigative approach.

This article is general information, not legal advice — procedural standards turn on the facts, so involve employment counsel on live matters.