No Investigation, No Defence: The HRTO Just Turned a Skipped Racism Complaint Into a Discrimination Finding

An Ontario employer just learned that the cheapest way to lose a discrimination case is to do nothing. In Dabbagui v. AV Terrace Bay, 2026 HRTO 784, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that a pulp mill breached the Ontario Human Rights Code — not because a manager was proven to have fired someone for his race, but because the company never seriously investigated his complaints of racist harassment. With no investigation on the record, the employer could not show the Tribunal that discrimination had played no role in the termination. That gap cost it the case.

For CEOs and HR leaders, this is the point that should land: the finding did not turn on what the investigation concluded. It turned on the fact that there was no real investigation at all.

What happened

The applicant, a power systems and electrical engineer, joined the Terrace Bay mill in March 2022 on a six-month probationary term. As reported by Canadian HR Reporter and detailed in the Tribunal's decision, he was subjected to racist comments and harassing behaviour tied to his Muslim background during a major maintenance shutdown and the weeks after — including being called a terrorist. He put his concerns in writing and management received the complaint before the decision to end his probation was made.

What the company did next is the case. The mill manager was travelling when the complaint arrived, did not turn to it for roughly a month, and then relied largely on the accounts of the very managers the employee had complained about. He held a closed-door meeting with one of them, produced no notes, memo, or report, appointed no investigator, and never asked the employee for his side. His conclusion, in substance, was that there was nothing further to do. The employee's probation was then ended for what the company described as performance and attitude concerns.

The Tribunal, per Vice-Chair Matthew Létourneau, did not accept that the two events could be cleanly separated. Because the employer had not meaningfully investigated the allegations of racist treatment, it could not rule discrimination out as a factor in the termination. The engineer had sought $400,000; the Tribunal awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, ordered the employer to post the Human Rights Code in the workplace, and — the operationally important part — required it to confirm it had reviewed and implemented a procedure for investigating discrimination complaints.

Why this matters for Ontario employers

The dollar figure is modest. The precedent is not. Dabbagui confirms a principle that is expensive to ignore: when an employee alleges discrimination and you cannot show you investigated, the tribunal is entitled to fill the silence against you. The investigation is not just how you resolve a complaint — it is the evidence that your subsequent decisions were clean.

Two features make this ruling especially useful as a warning. First, it involved a probationary employee. Many employers assume probation is a liability-free zone where they can part ways for any reason. That is broadly true at common law — but the Human Rights Code applies from the first day of employment, and a probationary termination sitting on top of an un-investigated racism complaint is precisely the fact pattern that draws an adverse inference. Second, the failure here was not a close call about investigation quality — it was the near-total absence of a process: no investigator, no interview of the complainant, no notes, no report.

That places Dabbagui alongside a run of recent Ontario decisions converging on the same message. Weeks earlier, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found a municipal employer's harassment investigation was not "appropriate in the circumstances" even as it dismissed the reprisal claim. Ontario courts have confirmed the duty to investigate can be triggered without any formal complaint at all. And the Board has ordered six-figure damages where a worker was fired after raising harassment. Read together, the trajectory is unambiguous — Ontario adjudicators are treating the investigation, or its absence, as the deciding issue.

What to do now

1. Treat every written discrimination or harassment complaint as a trigger — regardless of the employee's status. Probationary, temporary, or permanent, the moment a complaint alleges conduct tied to a protected ground under the Code, an investigation obligation is live. Do not let "he was on probation anyway" become the reason nothing gets documented.

2. Never let the subjects of a complaint be the investigation. The fatal move in Dabbagui was resolving the complaint by consulting the managers who were the subject of it. When the people complained about are your only sources, you do not have an investigation — you have a defence the tribunal will reject.

3. Build the file: investigator, interviews, notes, written outcome. The Tribunal keyed on what was missing — no appointed investigator, no interview of the complainant, no notes, no report. Each of those is a checkbox an adjudicator can verify. A missing checkbox is your exposure. Our guide to the workplace investigation process in Ontario sets out the sequence.

4. Decouple the complaint from the exit — and prove it. If a departure decision is genuinely about performance, document that record independently and before any complaint, and keep the investigation on a separate track handled by separate people. Timing you cannot explain is timing a tribunal will explain for you.

5. Put a real investigation procedure in writing now. The Tribunal ordered AV Terrace Bay to implement one. Do not wait to be ordered. A standing, written protocol — intake, investigator selection, interviews, findings, communication of results — is the difference between a documented response and an adverse inference. Our employer's guide to workplace harassment in Ontario covers the full framework, and how to report workplace harassment in Ontario covers the intake side.

None of this is legal advice — outcomes like Dabbagui turn on their facts, and any termination touching a live complaint is a decision to make with your employment counsel. But the operational lesson needs no law degree: an investigation you skipped is a defence you will not have.

Where 1205 Consulting fits

1205 accepts workplace investigation enquiries for Ontario workplace matters. Acceptance follows fit, jurisdiction, practitioner availability, and conflict screening. For a live matter, involve employment counsel where legal advice is needed and contact us without sending evidence or sensitive personal information through the form.