An Ontario employer just won a reprisal case at the Ontario Labour Relations Board — and still came away with a finding that it broke the law. As reported by HR Law Canada on July 2, 2026, a municipal prosecutor dismissed weeks after filing a workplace harassment complaint could not prove her firing was retaliation. But the Board found the County of Lambton's investigation into her complaint was not "appropriate in the circumstances" — and, notably, described the ruling as its first to examine the scope of that duty.
For CEOs and HR leaders, that second finding is the one that matters. The reprisal claim failed. The investigation still did.
What happened
The facts, per HR Law Canada's reporting: a municipal prosecutor filed a workplace harassment complaint and was dismissed weeks later. She brought a reprisal application under the Occupational Health and Safety Act — the provision that prohibits employers from penalizing workers for seeking enforcement of the Act. The Board was not persuaded the termination was retaliation for the complaint, and the reprisal claim was dismissed.
The Board then turned to a separate question: did the employer's investigation of her harassment complaint meet the OHSA standard? Section 32.0.7 requires every Ontario employer to ensure an investigation into incidents and complaints of workplace harassment is conducted that is "appropriate in the circumstances." The Board found this one was not — and flagged that it had never before been asked to define the scope of that obligation in a decision. That makes Lambton a marker: the OLRB is now prepared to grade the quality of your investigation as a free-standing issue, even when you win everything else.
Update — July 27, 2026: The written decision is now public: Alyssa Gassi v. The Corporation of the County of Lambton, 2026 CanLII 64081 (ON LRB). Dentons' analysis of the full reasons confirms exactly where the investigation failed: the internal investigator decided he needed to meet only one witness — of many — to conclude the complaint was unfounded, gave the complainant no opportunity to respond to that witness's evidence, and offered no justification beyond stating he did not believe further interviews were necessary. That, the Board held, does not meet the OHSA's "appropriate" standard.
The Board's checklist: what "appropriate" now looks like
With the full reasons available, the OLRB's first-ever guidance on the investigation duty can be reduced to working rules:
- Both sides count. An appropriate investigation weighs the rights and interests of the complainant and the respondent — plus the integrity of the investigation itself.
- The investigator must be competent, not necessarily external. A third-party investigator is not required in every case, but an internal investigator needs a working understanding of the OHSA's harassment and reprisal provisions, the employer's own policies, and ideally real investigative experience.
- You can scope — but you must show your work. Not every allegation must be chased or every named witness interviewed. What sinks the file is scoping without explanation. "I didn't think more interviews were necessary" is not a reason; it is the absence of one.
- Reply is non-negotiable. Where evidence could materially affect the outcome, the parties get a chance to respond to it before conclusions are drawn.
- "Appropriate" is procedural, not outcome-based. The Board grades how you investigated, not which conclusion you reached — an employer can reach the "right" answer through a process that still fails the standard.
- Written results are owed; the full report is not. Complainants are entitled to the investigation's results in writing, but not to the investigator's report itself.
The Board also signalled openness to a more flexible definition of "investigation" — potentially including consensual mediation or informal fact-finding in the right circumstances — a thread worth watching in future decisions.
Why this matters for Ontario employers
This decision closes a comfortable gap. Employers have tended to treat the investigation duty as procedural background — something an inspector might ask about, but rarely the thing a tribunal rules on. Lambton puts the investigation itself on trial.
It also fits a clear trajectory. In Metrolinx, Ontario courts confirmed the duty to investigate exists even without a formal complaint — the obligation is triggered by what the employer knows, not by paperwork. Earlier this year, the OLRB ordered nearly $200,000 in damages in a reprisal case where a worker was fired after raising harassment. And just weeks ago, the Ministry of Labour refreshed its official investigation guidance, consolidating its expectations: prompt (ideally within 90 days), objective, confidential, thorough, with written results to the parties. The Ministry's workplace harassment investigations guidance and its Code of Practice to Address Workplace Harassment now read less like suggestions and more like the scoring rubric tribunals will apply.
The pattern is unambiguous: Ontario adjudicators are converging on investigation quality as the compliance question — not just whether you investigated, but whether the investigation would survive independent scrutiny.
What to do now
-
Audit your last three investigations against the OHSA standard. Were they prompt, objective, and thorough? Was the investigator free of any reporting line to the people involved? Were written results delivered to both complainant and respondent? If you cannot answer confidently, the gap is your exposure.
-
Separate the investigation from any termination decision — visibly. Lambton confirms a dismissal near a complaint is not automatically reprisal, but the timing will be dissected. Document legitimate business reasons independently, and never let the same people who are subjects of a complaint drive the exit decision.
-
Escalate to an external investigator when the complaint touches leadership. A complaint from or about anyone senior — or anyone the internal investigator reports to — is precisely the scenario where "appropriate in the circumstances" tips toward independence. Our guide to the workplace investigation process in Ontario walks through when internal handling stops being tenable.
-
Close the loop in writing, every time. The written-results step is the most commonly skipped obligation and the easiest for an adjudicator to check. No written outcome, no complete file.
-
Pressure-test your harassment program before a tribunal does. Policies, training, intake, investigation protocol — our employer's guide to workplace harassment in Ontario covers the full framework.
None of this is legal advice — decisions like Lambton turn on their facts, and terminating anyone with an open complaint is a decision to make with your employment counsel. But the operational lesson doesn't require a law degree: the investigation file you build today is the exhibit a tribunal reads tomorrow.
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.
