Workplace investigations are one of the most critical—and most mishandled—responsibilities HR leaders face. A single procedural misstep can expose your organization to wrongful dismissal claims, Human Rights Code violations, and reputational damage that lingers for years.

This guide cuts through the complexity. Whether you're responding to a harassment complaint, investigating alleged theft, or addressing bullying, you'll find the legal framework, process roadmap, cost expectations, and decision criteria that Ontario employers need to navigate investigations successfully.

What Is a Workplace Investigation?

A workplace investigation is a formal, impartial process to establish facts and determine whether alleged workplace misconduct has occurred. It's distinct from informal problem-solving: investigations are structured inquiries with documented findings and conclusions that feed into corrective action decisions.

Purpose. Investigations serve three functions:

Establish whether alleged misconduct occurred (fact-finding)
Protect complainants and the organization from harm
Create a defensible record if disputes or legal claims emerge later

When required. You need an investigation when: a complaint alleges serious misconduct (harassment, discrimination, violence, theft, Code of Conduct breach), the allegation could result in significant consequence (termination, suspension), or there's genuine dispute about facts that affect employment decisions.

What it's not. Investigations differ from mediation (which seeks resolution between parties, requires their agreement, and is typically confidential) and performance management (which addresses ongoing capability gaps without an allegation of misconduct). Don't conflate these processes—using an investigation as a pretext for performance management will backfire.

When Ontario Law Requires You to Investigate

Ontario employers operate under multiple legal obligations that mandate workplace investigations:

Bill 168 (Occupational Health and Safety Act amendments). Since 2010, the OHSA requires employers to investigate incidents or complaints of workplace violence or harassment promptly and thoroughly. Failure to investigate is an OHSA violation—Ministry of Labour inspectors specifically look for investigation documentation and quality.

Bill 132 (Preventing Harassment and Discrimination Amendment Act, 2016). This expanded the OHSA definition of harassment to include sexual harassment and clarified that harassment includes "engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct." Investigations into harassment must be rigorous and well-documented.

Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC). The Code protects against discrimination based on protected grounds (race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, age, etc.). You have a legal duty to investigate if an employee raises concerns their treatment violates the Code. The Ontario Human Rights Commission expects investigations to be timely, thorough, and fair—regardless of whether the person is formally "complaining."

Common law duty of care. Even absent a formal complaint, courts recognize that employers owe a duty of care to employees. This means investigating credible reports of misconduct that could harm workers (physical safety, psychological harassment, violence). Ignoring reports can expose you to negligence claims.

Collective agreements. If your workplace is unionized, the collective agreement typically specifies investigation procedures, timelines, and dispute resolution mechanisms. These contractual obligations override general practice—follow the agreement precisely.

Pattern or public concern. If multiple employees raise similar concerns, or if an incident becomes known widely in your workplace, investigation is prudent even if not explicitly required. Inaction signals tolerance.

Types of Workplace Investigations

Most investigations fall into these categories:

Harassment and Sexual Harassment. Covers OHSA-defined harassment, sexual harassment, and unwanted conduct based on protected Code grounds. These are among the most sensitive and most litigated investigations.

Bullying. Aggressive or intimidating conduct that undermines dignity or creates hostility. Note: Ontario defines bullying separately from harassment; bullying can involve hostile behavior that doesn't target a protected characteristic.

Discrimination. Alleged unfair treatment based on race, gender identity, disability, age, family status, or other Code grounds. Discrimination investigations often require careful analysis of whether legitimate reasons exist for decisions.

Workplace Violence. Actual or threatened physical violence, threats of harm, or aggressive behavior that could cause physical injury. These require priority investigation due to safety risk and OHSA obligations.

Code of Conduct Breaches. Alleged violations of company policies (unauthorized disclosure, conflict of interest, social media misconduct, attendance fraud, etc.). These tend to be more straightforward fact-finding exercises.

Whistleblower/Retaliation Claims. Alleged punishment or adverse treatment for reporting misconduct or refusing to participate in unlawful activity. These demand careful handling—retaliation claims carry statutory protections and are highly defensible if evidence shows timing or motive.

Conflicts of Interest. Alleged undisclosed financial interests, outside employment, or relationships that could compromise objectivity. Investigation focuses on disclosure protocols and materiality of the conflict.

Theft, Fraud, or Misconduct. Investigation of alleged financial or property crime, misrepresentation, or serious personal misconduct. May involve forensic review, financial analysis, or technical investigation.

Each type has different evidentiary standards, procedural requirements, and remedial outcomes. The investigation approach for harassment differs from theft investigation.

The Investigation Process: Step by Step

A legally defensible investigation follows a structured path. Shortcuts create vulnerabilities.

1. Complaint Intake

When someone alleges misconduct, document it carefully:

Who complained, when, and how (email, in-person, phone)?
What specifically is alleged? Get written details or take detailed notes if verbal.
Who is the respondent (the person accused)?
Who witnessed or has relevant information?
Is there safety concern requiring immediate action (suspension, reassignment)?
Has the complainant requested confidentiality? (You likely cannot honor absolute confidentiality in an investigation, but document the request.)

Action. If the allegation involves safety risk (violence, threats, serious harassment), address that immediately—don't wait for investigation. Suspend the respondent, reassign duties, or modify schedule to separate parties. This is not a disciplinary measure; it's risk mitigation. Separate action from investigation timeline.

2. Scope and Terms of Reference

Define what the investigation will and won't cover. This document clarifies the investigation's boundaries for all parties.

Include:

Specific allegations and time period
Parties involved (complainant, respondent, potential witnesses)
Key questions to be answered
Applicable policies and legal standards
Investigator's role, authority, and confidentiality obligations
Timeline for key milestones
That findings and recommendations are the investigator's, subject to employer decision-making

Provide this to the complainant and respondent early so they understand scope and can inform you of additional relevant facts.

3. Investigation Plan

Map the investigation:

Which witnesses have direct knowledge?
What documents exist (emails, messages, scheduling records, prior complaints)?
Interview sequence (typically: complainant first, then documents, then respondent, then supporting witnesses)
Timeline for each phase
How findings will be assessed (balance of probabilities for civil investigations; credibility, corroboration, witness consistency)

A written plan keeps the investigation organized and defensible. Share it with the investigator if using external counsel.

4. Document Preservation

Immediately issue a litigation hold notice requiring relevant parties to preserve documents:

Communications (emails, texts, Teams messages, WhatsApp)
Calendar records
Attendance or timekeeping records
Any documents the respondent, complainant, or witnesses reference
Photographs, audio recordings, or physical evidence

Destruction of potentially relevant documents during an investigation can be framed as spoilation and undermines credibility. Make preservation clear and documented.

5. Complainant Interview

Interview the complainant first, in a safe, private setting:

Allow a support person (colleague, union rep) if requested
Let them tell their account without interruption, then ask clarifying questions
Ask about timing, locations, witnesses, any documentation they have
Ask what outcome they're seeking
Explain the investigation process, timeline, and what comes next
Be clear: the investigation is fact-finding, not dispute resolution. You won't mediate or guarantee a particular outcome.

Document the interview in detail. Many investigators use recorded interviews (with consent) to ensure accuracy. If recording, retain the recording or detailed transcript.

6. Respondent Interview

The respondent must be informed of the allegations and given opportunity to respond. This is fundamental fairness (natural justice).

Before the interview:

Provide written notice of allegations (detailed enough to mount a defense, but not so detailed as to alert them to evidence you haven't yet developed)
Offer time to prepare and consult legal counsel if they wish
Explain the process and their rights

During the interview:

Allow them to provide a full account
Present facts the complainant or others have alleged
Ask for their explanation and any evidence
Clarify inconsistencies
Inform them of next steps and timeline

Document this interview as thoroughly as the complainant's. Respondents often contest investigation findings; detailed notes are your proof of what was said and asked.

7. Witness Interviews

Interview witnesses with direct knowledge in order of reliability (those with direct observation, then those with secondhand information).

Explain the investigation and confidentiality boundaries
Ask open questions about what they observed/heard
Ask about timing, locations, involvement of specific people
Ask whether they have documents (emails, messages, notes)
Ask whether they've discussed the matter with others (don't restrict this, but document it—hearsay can travel and distort facts)

Witness credibility varies. A peer who observed conduct directly is more reliable than a witness who overheard a conversation weeks later.

8. Documentary Evidence

Collect and review:

Email or message threads between complainant, respondent, and witnesses
Calendar records showing who was where and when
Attendance records, scheduling, work output
Prior complaints about either party
Policies the respondent was allegedly trained on
Any written statements, notes, or recordings related to the incident

Organize evidence chronologically and by theme. Cross-reference it to interview accounts—does the email thread match what people said about timing and content?

9. Credibility Assessment

This is the investigator's most challenging task. You're assessing whose account is more reliable where accounts conflict.

Factors:

Consistency: Does the witness account remain consistent across interviews and with documentary evidence?
Corroboration: Are other witnesses' accounts consistent? Does documentary evidence support the account?
Demeanor: Was the witness defensive, evasive, or forthcoming? (Note: some nervous witnesses are credible; demeanor alone is unreliable.)
Motive: Does the witness have reason to fabricate or exaggerate? (e.g., a complainant seeking termination of a rival, a respondent with motive to deny)
Detail: Credible accounts often include specific, verifiable details rather than generalizations
Timing: Were statements made promptly or long after events?

Credibility is not a binary. You may conclude: "The complainant's core account is credible, but the extent of harm may be exaggerated. The respondent credibly denies intent but acknowledges the conduct occurred."

10. Findings and Analysis

Write findings on a balance of probabilities (more likely than not—the civil standard, not criminal proof beyond doubt).

For each allegation:

State the allegation clearly
Summarize complainant's account
Summarize respondent's response
Present witness accounts
Present documentary evidence
Apply the legal test (harassment, discrimination, violence, Code breach, policy violation, etc.)
State conclusion: substantiated, not substantiated, or partially substantiated
If substantiated, assess severity and context

Example structure:

Allegation: Discriminatory Comment on Basis of Gender

The complainant alleges that on March 15, 2026, the respondent stated, "[specific quote]," which the complainant found offensive and demeaning based on her gender.

The respondent acknowledged making the statement but characterized it as a joke and said the complainant misinterpreted it. The respondent stated the complainant had engaged in similar banter previously and had not objected.

Witness A (who was present) corroborated the complainant's account of what was said. Witness B (who was not present but heard about it later) could not confirm the exact wording but supported the complainant's description of impact.

The statement, as documented and confirmed by Witness A, reasonably could be interpreted as referencing gender stereotypes in a manner that would be demeaning or unwelcome. While the respondent may have intended it as humor, intent is not the test; the test is whether the comment was unwelcome and created a hostile environment. The respondent's assertion that similar banter had occurred previously does not negate the complainant's right to find such comment unwelcome on this occasion.

Finding: Substantiated. The respondent made a comment that, on a balance of probabilities, constituted harassment based on gender as defined by the OHSA.

11. Report Writing

The investigation report is the key document. It becomes discovery if litigation follows. Write it for an audience: the employer's leadership, potentially a court, and the complainant and respondent (who will receive summaries or findings).

Structure:

Executive Summary (1 page): allegations, conclusion, key findings
Scope and Mandate (½ page): what was investigated, time period, parties
Investigation Process (½ page): interviews conducted, documents reviewed, timeline
Findings on Each Allegation (bulk of report): detailed analysis as shown above
Credibility Assessment (if complex): how conflicts were resolved
Recommendations (if applicable): what corrective action or next steps
Appendices: interview summaries, key documents, chronology

Tone: Professional, neutral, fact-based. Avoid inflammatory language or conclusions beyond the investigator's scope.

12. Delivery and Next Steps

Once the investigation concludes:

Inform the complainant of findings (typically, a summary or the full report depending on employer policy). Be prepared for their reaction. If findings are not substantiated, they may be disappointed; if substantiated, they may feel inadequately remedied.
Inform the respondent of findings and any consequences. This should happen promptly; delay creates uncertainty and can be seen as unfair.
Determine corrective action. Is an apology required? Retraining? Suspension? Termination? The investigation findings inform the decision, but the employer makes it. A substantiated finding of harassment doesn't automatically mean termination; context and prior misconduct matter.
Communicate to witnesses that the investigation is complete. Thank them for participating. You typically won't disclose findings to witnesses unless they have operational need to know.
Document closure. File the investigation report, findings, and any corrective action decisions in the respondent's personnel file.
Plan workplace restoration. If the investigation involved serious allegations, consider whether the workplace needs specific steps to rebuild trust or prevent retaliation.

How Long Does a Workplace Investigation Take?

Timeline ranges:

Simple, straightforward: 2–4 weeks. Example: One alleged comment, two corroborating witnesses, no documentary complexity.
Moderate complexity: 4–8 weeks. Example: Harassment allegation with multiple interactions over time, several witnesses, email threads to review, some credibility conflicts.
High complexity: 8–16 weeks. Example: Discrimination allegation over an extended period, numerous witnesses, substantial documentary evidence (financial records, emails), credibility conflicts, legal complexity (e.g., whether decision was pretextual).

What delays investigations:

Witness availability (especially if witnesses are on vacation, off sick, or in other locations)
Volume of documentary evidence requiring review
Respondent requesting legal counsel and delaying interviews
Complainant or witnesses becoming unavailable or less forthcoming
Investigator workload and availability
Requests for extension from any party
Need to consult employment counsel on legal interpretation

To stay on track:

Set a realistic timeline upfront and communicate it
Contact all witnesses promptly; don't wait to schedule interviews sequentially
Collect all documents at the outset rather than trickle in
Limit extensions unless there's genuine cause
Use an external investigator (law firm or professional HR investigator) rather than internal staff if you have the budget—they move faster because it's their sole focus

Most investigations should conclude within 6–8 weeks. Delays beyond that risk complainant frustration, respondent stress, and workplace tension.

How Much Does a Workplace Investigation Cost?

Costs vary significantly by type of investigator and investigation complexity:

Law firm investigations:

Rates: $250–$500+ per hour (depending on seniority and market)
Simple investigation (15–20 hours): $3,750–$10,000
Moderate investigation (30–50 hours): $7,500–$25,000
Complex investigation (75–150 hours): $18,750–$75,000+

Lawyers bring legal expertise and defensibility but cost more.

Professional HR investigator:

Rates: $150–$300 per hour
Simple investigation (15–20 hours): $2,250–$6,000
Moderate investigation (30–50 hours): $4,500–$15,000
Complex investigation (75–150 hours): $11,250–$45,000

HR investigators are often faster and cheaper but may lack legal training.

Internal investigation (using HR staff):

No out-of-pocket cost, but staff time diverted from other work
Risk: potential lack of perceived impartiality, legal missteps, missed complexity
Often defensible only if investigation is straightforward and investigator has training

What drives cost:

Number of witnesses. Each interview takes time. Ten witnesses costs more than three.
Duration of alleged misconduct. A single incident is cheaper than alleged harassment over six months.
Volume of documents. If you have 500 emails to review, cost rises.
Workplace location. Multi-location investigations with in-person interviews cost more than interviews by video call.
Complexity of legal issues. A discrimination investigation requires more legal analysis than a Code of Conduct breach.
Report quality. A detailed, heavily documented report takes longer and costs more than a summary report.

Cost-benefit. For straightforward complaints, internal investigation or a simple HR investigator engagement ($3,000–$6,000) is reasonable. For allegations that could result in termination or involve discrimination/harassment, retaining employment counsel ($15,000–$35,000) is prudent investment in defensibility.

For a detailed analysis of investigation economics, read our detailed cost breakdown.

Choosing an Investigator: Law Firm vs. HR Investigator

When to use a law firm:

Allegation involves potential human rights violation (discrimination, harassment, retaliation)
Respondent is senior management or the allegation could result in termination
Allegation is complex, involves multiple parties, or spans extended period
Complainant or respondent is likely to retain counsel
Workplace is unionized and collective agreement specifies investigator qualifications
Prior investigation was flawed and this is a "do-over"
Litigation risk is high

Lawyers understand privilege (attorney-client communication is confidential), can spot legal exposure, and produce reports that hold up under cross-examination.

When to use an HR investigator:

Allegation is straightforward: single incident, few witnesses, limited documentary complexity
Code of Conduct breach investigation (not harassment or discrimination)
Investigation timeline is tight and you need someone available immediately
Budget is constrained and allegation doesn't carry termination or high litigation risk
Investigator has specific industry or HR investigation training

Professional HR investigators (often credentialed through organizations like the OACP—Ontario Association of Certified Professionals) have investigation training and can produce solid reports. They're faster and cheaper.

When to use internal investigation:

Allegation is minimal (single overheard comment, isolated minor policy breach)
You have trained HR staff with investigation experience
Respondent and complainant both accept internal investigation
Unionized workplace where contract allows it
Budget is minimal and legal risk is low

Internal investigations carry perception-of-bias risks but are sometimes appropriate.

Decision framework:

| Factor | Law Firm | HR Investigator | Internal | |--------|----------|-----------------|----------| | Legal complexity | High | Moderate | Low | | Cost | High | Moderate | Low | | Impartiality perception | High | Moderate | Low | | Speed | Moderate | High | Moderate | | Expertise in harassment/discrimination | High | Moderate | Low |

For full comparison and decision criteria, see Law Firm vs. HR Investigator: Full Comparison.

What Makes a Legally Defensible Investigation?

If your investigation ends in litigation—wrongful dismissal suit, human rights complaint, or arbitration—you'll need to defend the process. Courts and tribunals assess investigations against these criteria:

Procedural Fairness (Natural Justice).

Did the respondent know the allegations and have opportunity to respond?
Did the investigator listen to the respondent's account?
Was the process fair on its face (not biased or predetermined)?

Impartiality.

Did the investigator have any conflict of interest (prior relationship, bias toward complainant)?
Did the investigator give equal weight to both parties' accounts?
Does the report show balanced consideration of evidence?

Thoroughness.

Were all key witnesses interviewed?
Were obvious documents reviewed?
Were credibility conflicts explored and resolved thoughtfully?
Did the investigator ask follow-up questions when answers were incomplete?

Appropriate Standard of Proof.

Civil investigations use "balance of probabilities" (more likely than not), not criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt)
Did the investigator apply the right standard?

Clear Findings.

Does the report state conclusions clearly?
Are findings based on evidence presented in the report?
Is the reasoning transparent?

Documented Process.

Are interview notes detailed and available?
Is the chain of evidence clear?
Can someone reviewing the file later understand what was done and why?

Appropriate Scope.

Did the investigation stay within its mandate or expand beyond?
Were findings limited to issues investigated?

A defensible investigation doesn't have to be perfect, but it must be fair, thorough, and documented. Courts and tribunals recognize that investigations involve judgment calls; they assess whether the process was reasonable, not whether the conclusion is the only possible one.

Common Investigation Mistakes

We see these errors repeatedly. They undermine investigations and expose organizations to liability:

1. Conducting investigation while emotions are high. Complaint arrives Friday afternoon; by Monday, you've already interviewed the respondent in anger, made assumptions, and contaminated the process. Pause. Take a breath. Bring in an investigator if emotions are running high. The investigation is fact-finding, not catharsis.

2. Failing to preserve documents. You conduct the investigation, but emails "disappear" or devices are wiped. Discovery in litigation will show document destruction during the investigation—it screams "cover-up" and can cost you a case. Issue a hold notice and enforce it.

3. Interviewing only the complainant and respondent. Witnesses matter enormously. If only two people were present and they tell contradictory stories, you have no way to assess credibility. Invest in finding and interviewing witnesses, even if they're uncomfortable or no longer employed.

4. Ignoring prior complaints about the respondent. If this is the third harassment complaint against the respondent, that context matters. Prior substantiated findings show a pattern. Failure to reference prior complaints suggests you didn't do your due diligence.

5. Concluding the investigation before interviewing the respondent. Some investigators hear the complainant's account, decide "I believe her," and then approach the respondent's interview seeking confirmation rather than genuinely listening. Interview the respondent with an open mind. You may find the complaint was misunderstood, exaggerated, or fabricated.

6. Writing vague findings. "We found there was some tension between the parties." That's not a finding. A finding states: "We substantiate that the respondent made comments about the complainant's appearance that were unwelcome and created a hostile work environment, in violation of the OHSA." Clarity matters for enforceability and defensibility.

7. Allowing the investigation to drift beyond scope. You're investigating alleged harassment, but the respondent mentions the complainant's performance issues. Don't let the investigation expand into a performance review. Stay on scope. Address performance separately if needed.

For deeper exploration of common pitfalls, see Signs Your Investigation Won't Hold Up.

After the Investigation: What Happens Next?

The investigation concludes, but the real work is deciding what to do with findings.

Communicating findings:

The employer, not the investigator, decides what information to share and with whom
At minimum, inform the respondent and complainant of the findings (typically in summary form to limit disclosure of other employees' information)
Determine whether witnesses and broader workplace need to know findings (usually not, unless findings affect policy or involve retaliation)
Frame communication carefully: "We conducted a thorough investigation and found [finding]"

Determining corrective action: A substantiated harassment finding doesn't automatically mean termination. Context matters:

Is this the respondent's first substantiated misconduct? (First offense merits retraining or discipline short of termination)
Was conduct deliberate or inadvertent? (Deliberately calling someone a slur differs from an awkward comment misunderstood)
How serious was the impact on the complainant? (Single comment vs. sustained campaign)
Is there remorse and willingness to change?
Can the respondent and complainant work together afterward, or is relationship irreparably damaged?

Corrective action options:

Mandatory training or counseling
Formal warning with documentation in file
Demotion or role reassignment
Suspension (paid or unpaid)
Termination
Apology (sometimes required)
Workplace restoration activities (mediation, team-building if appropriate)

Workplace restoration: After a substantiated investigation into serious misconduct, the workplace is often fragile. Consider:

Reassuring all employees that misconduct has been addressed
Reiterating workplace policies and zero-tolerance for retaliation
If appropriate, small team activities to rebuild relationships
Monitoring the respondent for genuine behavioral change

Documentation: File the investigation report, findings, and any corrective action decision in the respondent's personnel file. This documentation protects the employer if the respondent later claims unfair treatment.

Addressing retaliation risk: After an investigation, monitor for retaliation against the complainant (schedule changes, exclusion from meetings, negative performance reviews, harassment). Retaliation is a separate violation. Some employers proactively communicate: "Retaliation against anyone involved in this investigation is strictly prohibited and will result in disciplinary action."

For comprehensive guidance on post-investigation steps, see What Happens After an Investigation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can I keep an investigation confidential? A: You cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality—the respondent must be informed of allegations, and findings may need to be disclosed. However, you can request confidentiality from witnesses and limit disclosure of irrelevant information. Be transparent: tell complainants at the outset that confidentiality is limited.

Q: Can I suspend the respondent during investigation? A: Yes, if there's a genuine safety or operational risk (risk of evidence destruction, harm to complainant, etc.). Suspension is not discipline; it's a neutral interim measure. The employer must pay wages during suspension unless there's just cause (a high bar). Document the reason for suspension clearly.

Q: What if the respondent refuses to participate in the investigation? A: Their refusal doesn't stop the investigation. Proceed with the complainant's account, witness interviews, and documentary evidence. In your report, note that the respondent declined to participate. You can still reach a conclusion based on available evidence.

Q: Can the complainant have a support person in interviews? A: Yes. A support person (colleague, union rep, lawyer) can attend for emotional support, but typically cannot speak for the complainant or object to questions. Clarify this role at the start of the interview.

Q: How long should I keep investigation files? A: Retain the investigation file (report, interview notes, findings, corrective action decision) for the duration of employment plus 3–5 years after termination. These documents are legal evidence if disputes arise.

Q: Can an investigation be privileged (attorney-client confidentiality)? A: Only if the investigation is conducted by or under the direction of employment counsel for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. If a law firm conducts the investigation, clearly document that it's for legal advice. If HR conducts it, privilege may not apply. Consult your employment lawyer about privilege before retaining an investigator.

Q: What if I disagree with the investigator's conclusion? A: The investigator provides findings and recommendations; the employer makes the final decision. If you disagree, you can decide not to follow the investigator's recommendation or to conduct a supplementary investigation. But reversing findings based on personal preference (not evidence) is problematic and indefensible if challenged.

Q: Can I investigate if the complainant doesn't want me to? A: If you have a legal obligation (serious harassment, discrimination, violence), you must investigate even if the complainant prefers not to. Explain to the complainant why: you have a duty to provide a safe workplace and to comply with OHSA and Human Rights Code obligations.

When to Call 1205 Consulting

Workplace investigations are high-stakes decisions. A misstep can expose your organization to claims, regulatory violations, and damaged reputation. You need clarity on process, legal obligations, and decision-making.

1205 Consulting helps Ontario employers navigate investigations at every stage:

Upfront. Before complaints arise, we assess your investigation readiness, review policies, and train HR teams on best practices.
During investigation. We advise on scope, process, investigator selection, and strategy for handling complex allegations.
Post-investigation. We help you decide corrective action, communicate findings, and plan workplace restoration.
Dispute prevention. We ensure your investigation is defensible, reducing risk if the respondent later claims wrongful dismissal or human rights violations.

Whether you need a complete investigation conducted by our network of trusted external investigators, or you need legal and strategic guidance to conduct an investigation internally, we ensure your process meets Ontario legal standards and protects your organization.

Book a confidential call with our team to discuss your situation. Workplace investigations are too important to get wrong.

For related reading:

The Complete Guide to Workplace Investigations in Ontario (2026)