Harassment in the workplace in Ontario is governed by legislation that leaves little room for discretion. When harassment occurs — or when you have reason to believe it has occurred — the law prescribes specific actions. This is not about HR best practices. It is about legal compliance.
For a comprehensive overview of all investigation types and requirements, see our Complete Guide to Workplace Investigations in Ontario. This guide maps the obligations, identifies the practical steps employers must take at each stage, and highlights where Ontario-specific requirements diverge from general Canadian employment law.
The Statutory Landscape: What Ontario Law Actually Requires
Ontario employers operate under overlapping legal frameworks that create a web of obligations around workplace harassment. Understanding which statute applies — and when multiple apply simultaneously — is essential.
OHSA: Your operational baseline. The Occupational Health and Safety Act, amended by Bill 168 (2010) and Bill 132 (2016), treats workplace harassment as a health and safety issue. This framing is important: it means workplace harassment triggers the same enforcement mechanisms as physical safety violations. Ministry of Labour inspectors can issue compliance orders, and penalties mirror those for unsafe workplaces.
OHSA requires every employer with more than five workers to maintain a written workplace harassment policy (s.32.0.1), establish a harassment program with complaint and investigation procedures (s.32.0.6), investigate all incidents and complaints of workplace harassment (s.32.0.7), and inform both the complainant and respondent of the investigation results and any corrective action (s.32.0.7(1)(b)).
Ontario Human Rights Code: The discrimination dimension. Where harassment in the workplace is connected to a protected ground — race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status, or disability — the Human Rights Code applies.
The Code provides a direct complaint mechanism through the HRTO, which can award general damages, lost wages, reinstatement, and systemic remedies. Unlike OHSA, the Code does not cap damages for lost income, and general damages for injury to dignity have trended upward significantly since 2015.
Where the statutes overlap. A complaint of sexual harassment, for example, engages both OHSA (as workplace sexual harassment) and the Human Rights Code (as harassment based on sex). An employer must satisfy the requirements of both statutes simultaneously. This means maintaining separate or combined compliance with OHSA's program requirements and the Code's substantive protections.
Not sure if your situation requires a formal investigation? Take our free 2-minute assessment to find out if you're legally required to investigate, what it will cost, and your recommended next steps under Ontario law.
Practical Steps: From Complaint to Resolution
Legal obligations are meaningless without a process to execute them. Here is the sequence Ontario employers should follow when harassment in the workplace is reported.
Step 1: Receive and document the complaint. Every complaint must be documented in writing, whether it arrives formally or informally. Train managers to recognize complaints even when the word "harassment" is not used. "I can't work with him anymore, he's making my life miserable" is a complaint that may trigger your investigation obligation.
Document the date, time, manner of report, and substance of the allegations. Do not editorialize or assess credibility at this stage. See our guide on how to report workplace harassment for details on what employees and managers should document.
Step 2: Assess interim measures. Before the investigation begins, evaluate whether immediate action is needed to protect the complainant, preserve evidence, or prevent further incidents. Options include temporary reassignment (of the respondent, not the complainant unless they request it), work-from-home arrangements, schedule adjustments, and in serious cases, administrative suspension with pay.
Interim measures are not discipline. They are precautionary actions that demonstrate the employer is taking the situation seriously while respecting the respondent's presumption of innocence.
Step 3: Select and brief the investigator. The choice of investigator matters enormously for defensibility. Use this decision framework: internal HR can investigate when the complaint is straightforward, neither party is in a senior leadership role, there is no allegation of sexual harassment, and the internal investigator has formal training. Retain an external investigator when the respondent is a senior leader or owner, the allegations involve sexual harassment, there is a risk of litigation, prior internal complaints about the same respondent were inconclusive, or there is any perception of bias.
Provide the investigator with clear terms of reference: what allegations to investigate, what policies apply, and the expected timeline.
Step 4: Conduct a fair investigation. Procedural fairness is the standard against which your investigation will be judged. This requires notice to the respondent of the specific allegations, an opportunity for the respondent to respond to each allegation, interview of relevant witnesses, collection and review of documentary evidence, and assessment of credibility using objective criteria.
The standard of proof is balance of probabilities — is it more likely than not that the alleged conduct occurred? This is not a criminal standard. You do not need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Step 5: Issue findings and communicate results. The investigation report should address each allegation with specific findings. OHSA s.32.0.7(1)(b) requires you to inform both parties of the results and any corrective action. You do not need to share the full investigation report — a summary of findings and outcome is sufficient.
Step 6: Take corrective action. If harassment is substantiated, corrective action must be proportionate to the severity and frequency of the conduct. The range includes formal written warning with clear expectations, mandatory training, suspension without pay, demotion or transfer, and termination for cause in serious or repeated cases.
Document the rationale for the corrective action chosen. Under-responding — for example, issuing a verbal warning for sustained sexual harassment — creates liability as surely as over-responding.
Step 7: Monitor and follow up. Check in with the complainant at 30, 60, and 90 days post-resolution. Document these check-ins. Watch for reprisal — any adverse change in the complainant's working conditions that could be linked to their complaint.
Ontario-Specific Nuances That Catch Employers Off Guard
Several aspects of Ontario harassment law diverge from what employers expect based on general employment knowledge or other jurisdictions.
The "ought to know" standard. Harassment under OHSA does not require the respondent to intend harm. The test is whether the conduct "is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome." An employee who claims they were "just joking" is not insulated if a reasonable person would have known the conduct was unwelcome.
No complaint required to trigger investigation duty. The duty to investigate arises when you receive a complaint OR when you become aware of an incident. If a manager witnesses harassment or hears about it secondhand, the obligation is triggered even if the affected worker never files a formal complaint. The Metrolinx arbitration established this clearly.
Ministry of Labour can order external investigations. Under Bill 132, if a Ministry of Labour inspector is not satisfied that an employer's investigation was adequate, they can order the employer to retain an independent investigator at the employer's expense. This authority fundamentally changed the risk calculus for employers who conduct superficial internal investigations.
HRTO and OHSA remedies are not mutually exclusive. An employee can simultaneously file a complaint with the Ministry of Labour (OHSA), file an application at the HRTO (Human Rights Code), and pursue civil litigation for constructive dismissal. Each forum has different timelines, standards, and remedies. Employers must be prepared to respond on multiple fronts.
Annual policy review is mandatory. OHSA s.32.0.1(2) requires annual review of the harassment policy. This is not a suggestion. Ministry of Labour inspectors can and do ask for evidence of annual review during workplace inspections.
Building Organizational Capacity
Compliance is the floor, not the ceiling. Employers who treat harassment in the workplace as a compliance checkbox miss the operational benefits of building genuine capacity.
Train managers to recognize and respond. Frontline managers are your early warning system. They need practical training — not a 45-minute e-learning module, but scenario-based training that teaches them to recognize complaints (even when the word "harassment" is not used), document what they observe and hear, escalate appropriately without investigating themselves, and avoid inadvertent reprisal. Managers should also understand the distinction between general workplace harassment and bullying, as this affects how investigations are framed.
Normalize reporting. If your workplace has zero harassment complaints, you do not have zero harassment — you have a reporting culture problem. Employees must trust that complaints will be taken seriously, handled confidentially to the extent possible, and resolved without reprisal.
Audit your policies annually. Use the annual review as an opportunity to assess whether your policy reflects current legislation and case law, your complaint mechanism is accessible and understood, investigation timelines are being met, corrective actions from prior investigations have been implemented, and training is current and reaching all levels of the organization.
When to Bring In External Help
The complexity of harassment in the workplace in Ontario has increased significantly since Bill 132. Many mid-market employers and SMBs lack the internal expertise to manage every situation.
Consider external investigation support when the allegations are serious or involve senior leadership, you have limited internal HR capacity, there is any risk of litigation or regulatory complaint, prior internal processes have been challenged or found inadequate, or you need an independent perspective to maintain credibility with your workforce.
At 1205 Consulting, we provide workplace investigation services designed for organizations that need professional, defensible investigations without law firm pricing. We are HR-practical investigators — we understand both the legal framework and the operational realities that mid-market companies face.
Contact us for a confidential assessment of your situation. We will tell you whether you need an external investigation or whether your internal process is sufficient — and we will be direct about it.