- Under OHSA s.32.0.7, every Ontario employer must investigate incidents or complaints of workplace harassment — this duty is triggered even without a formal complaint, if the employer becomes aware of conduct that may constitute harassment.
- “Appropriate in the circumstances” is a context-dependent standard — it does not always require an external investigator, but for senior leadership complaints or complex situations, internal investigation is usually inadequate.
- Findings must be communicated in writing to both the complainant and the respondent — the Ontario government’s guidance suggests doing so within 10 calendar days of concluding the investigation.
- Bill 190 (2024) extended the OHSA harassment definition to include digital and electronic harassment — text messages, emails, and social media conduct are now explicitly covered.
- Failure to investigate can result in OHSA fines up to $1.5M for corporations, Ministry orders to retain an external investigator at the employer’s expense, and HRTO awards of $25,000–$150,000+.
- The Legal Framework: OHSA s.32.0.7 and Bill 190
- When the Duty to Investigate Is Triggered
- What “Appropriate in the Circumstances” Means
- Internal vs. External Investigator
- The 7-Step Investigation Process
- Interview Best Practices
- The Investigation Report
- Communicating Findings to Both Parties
- Corrective Action Requirements
- Confidentiality Obligations
- Bill 190: Digital and Electronic Harassment
- 10 Common Investigation Mistakes
- Frequently Asked Questions
Workplace harassment complaints are among the most consequential situations an Ontario employer can face. Handle them poorly — by dismissing the complaint, conducting a superficial review, or failing to follow up with both parties — and you face compounding liability: OHSA fines, HRTO claims, and potential civil litigation simultaneously.
The Ontario government’s harassment investigation guidance provides the framework, but it leaves many practical questions unanswered. This guide fills those gaps with what you actually need to know as an Ontario employer in 2026.
1. The Legal Framework: OHSA s.32.0.7 and Bill 190
The duty to investigate workplace harassment comes from section 32.0.7 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). The section requires that an employer “ensure that an investigation appropriate in the circumstances is conducted into incidents and complaints of workplace harassment in the workplace.”
This obligation sits on top of — not instead of — the Ontario Human Rights Code. The two frameworks operate in parallel:
| Framework | What It Covers | Enforcement Body | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| OHSA s.32.0.7 | Workplace harassment as defined in OHSA — does not require a protected ground; course of vexatious conduct suffices | Ministry of Labour, OLRB | $1.5M corporation / $100K individual |
| Ontario Human Rights Code | Harassment connected to a protected characteristic (disability, sex, race, etc.) | Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) | No cap on general damages; reinstatement; wage replacement |
| Both simultaneously | A single incident can trigger OHSA investigation duty AND HRTO complaint | Both — parallel proceedings | Cumulative: OHSA fine + HRTO damages |
Bill 190 (2024) — Working for Workers Five: As of 2024, the OHSA definition of workplace harassment was expanded to explicitly include conduct through electronic means — text messages, emails, social media, online platforms, and messaging apps. Harassment does not have to occur on employer premises or during work hours to fall within the OHSA definition if it has a workplace impact.
2. When the Duty to Investigate Is Triggered
The most common misunderstanding about the OHSA investigation duty is that it requires a formal, written complaint. It does not.
The duty is triggered whenever the employer becomes aware of an incident or complaint of workplace harassment. This includes:
| Scenario | Duty Triggered? | What the Employer Must Do |
|---|---|---|
| Employee submits formal written complaint | Yes — clearly | Investigate; communicate findings in writing |
| Employee makes verbal complaint to supervisor | Yes | Supervisor must escalate; investigation must commence |
| Employee says “don’t do anything, I just wanted to tell you” | Yes — employer cannot ignore | Explain the investigation obligation; proceed; note employee’s preference for low-key approach where possible |
| Manager witnesses harassment and no complaint is filed | Yes — employer became aware | Investigate the incident; cannot wait for a complaint |
| Anonymous tip or third-party report | Yes — if credible | Assess credibility; if incident is plausible, investigate to the extent possible |
| Conduct observed on social media outside work hours | Potentially yes — if workplace impact (Bill 190 2024) | Assess whether it creates a poisoned workplace; investigate if it does |
| Complaint withdrawn by complainant mid-investigation | Duty persists — employer must still assess | Consider whether other workers are affected; document decision to close or continue |
3. What “Appropriate in the Circumstances” Means
The OHSA standard — “appropriate in the circumstances” — gives employers flexibility but also creates significant uncertainty. Ontario courts and the Ministry of Labour have interpreted this to mean that the investigation must be:
- Proportionate to the severity and complexity of the allegation
- Timely — begun promptly; not allowed to drag on for months
- Objective — the investigator must not have a conflict of interest
- Thorough — all relevant witnesses interviewed; all relevant documents reviewed
- Documented — findings recorded in writing
| Complaint Level | Example | Appropriate Investigation | Who Should Investigate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low severity — isolated comment | Colleague makes a single inappropriate joke; reported to manager | Informal — manager interview with both parties; documentation; coaching for respondent | Internal manager or HR |
| Moderate severity — pattern of conduct | Three complaints about same supervisor using belittling language over 6 months | Formal — structured interviews, witness statements, written findings, corrective action plan | Internal HR or senior manager not in respondent’s chain |
| High severity — sexual harassment allegation | Employee alleges sexual solicitation by manager who controls their schedule | Full formal investigation — independent investigator strongly recommended | External HR investigator or employment lawyer |
| Senior leadership implicated | Harassment complaint against owner, CEO, or senior partner | External investigation is almost always required — no internal objectivity possible | External independent investigator only |
4. Internal vs. External Investigator
There is no OHSA requirement that every investigation use an external investigator. However, the investigator — whether internal or external — must not be:
- The alleged harasser
- Under the direct control of the alleged harasser
- Someone who witnessed the alleged incidents (conflict of interest)
- Someone with a personal relationship with either party that could affect objectivity
If a Ministry of Labour inspector determines that your internal investigator lacked independence, they can order you to retain an external investigator — at your expense — and may treat the earlier investigation as if it never happened.
When to go external: Any time the alleged harasser is in management or leadership; any sexual harassment allegation; any complaint where you don’t have an HR professional with investigation training available; and any situation where both parties work closely together and internal relationships could compromise perceived fairness.
5. The 7-Step Investigation Process
| Step | What It Involves | Key Obligations |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Receive and assess the complaint | Document the complaint; assess severity; decide investigation level and who will conduct it | Do not dismiss as “minor” without documentation; do not tell the complainant you will “look into it” without following up |
| 2. Interim protective measures | Determine whether any immediate protective action is needed (schedule separation, remote work, temporary reporting change) | Interim measures must not punish complainant — changes to complainant’s schedule require agreement; do not isolate the victim |
| 3. Interview the complainant | Take detailed notes of the allegation, timeline, witnesses, documents; ask clarifying questions | Use open-ended questions; do not editorialize; obtain complainant’s confirmation that notes are accurate |
| 4. Interview the respondent | Provide sufficient detail of the allegation for a meaningful response; do not share the complainant’s name if there is a safety risk | Respondent must have a genuine opportunity to respond — lack of fairness to respondent is grounds for overturning findings |
| 5. Interview witnesses | Interview all witnesses named by either party; seek additional witnesses if identified during the process | Witnesses must be told their statements are confidential to the extent possible; document each interview separately |
| 6. Review documentary evidence | Text messages, emails, performance records, security footage, HR files, prior complaints, training records | Preserve all relevant electronic records before employees delete them; review impartially |
| 7. Prepare findings and communicate | Write investigation report; make findings of fact; communicate results to both parties in writing | See Sections 7 and 8 below for full detail |
6. Interview Best Practices
The quality of your investigation depends almost entirely on your interviews. Ontario courts have looked critically at investigations where interviewers were leading, rushed, or failed to document contemporaneously.
- Use open-ended questions: “Can you walk me through what happened?” not “Did X grab your arm?”
- Document contemporaneously: Take notes during the interview, not after. Contemporaneous notes carry significantly more weight.
- Read back the summary: At the end of each interview, summarize your notes and confirm accuracy with the interviewee. Ask them to sign or email confirmation.
- Keep each interview separate: Complainant and respondent should never learn detailed contents of each other’s interviews until findings are communicated.
- Allow a support person: An employee is generally permitted to have a support person (not a lawyer) present during workplace investigation interviews, particularly if discipline may result.
- Maintain neutrality: Do not share your preliminary views, express sympathy in a way that signals you believe one party, or make promises about outcomes.
7. The Investigation Report
The investigation report is the central document of your process. It must be written — not just kept in the investigator’s head — and must contain:
| Report Element | What to Include |
|---|---|
| Background | Date complaint received; nature of allegation; parties involved; investigation scope |
| Process summary | Who was interviewed, when, for how long; documents reviewed; date investigation completed |
| Allegations | The specific conduct alleged, with dates and locations where known |
| Responses | The respondent’s account of each alleged incident |
| Witness evidence | Summary of what each witness said (not verbatim notes — a summary); credibility assessment if inconsistencies exist |
| Findings of fact | A determination for each allegation: “I find that on [date], [Respondent] said [X] to [Complainant] — this is supported by the evidence of [Witness] and the text message at Exhibit A” |
| Conclusion | Whether the conduct meets the OHSA definition of workplace harassment; if so, whether there is a violation |
| Recommendations | What corrective action is recommended — this can be in a separate document if you don’t want findings merged with discipline decisions |
Important: The report does not have to be shared in full with the parties. The employer must communicate the results of the investigation — not the full report. Sharing the full report can compromise confidentiality and may be inadvisable where witness identities need protection.
8. Communicating Findings to Both Parties
After the investigation concludes, OHSA s.32.0.7(3) requires the employer to “in writing, inform the worker and the alleged harasser of the results of the investigation and of any corrective action that has been taken or that will be taken as a result of the investigation.”
The Ontario government’s guidance suggests this communication should occur within 10 calendar days of the investigation being concluded. In practice, this is a target, not an absolute deadline — but delays without justification increase legal exposure.
What to include in the communication letter:
- That an investigation was conducted
- The general findings (harassment substantiated or not substantiated)
- Corrective action that has been or will be taken
- A statement about confidentiality obligations
- Contact information for follow-up
Note: The corrective action letter to the respondent should be separate from any disciplinary letter. The complainant does not receive information about specific discipline — they receive information about corrective steps being taken.
9. Corrective Action Requirements
If harassment is substantiated, corrective action is mandatory. The appropriate response depends on severity:
| Finding | Corrective Action Range | What Not to Do |
|---|---|---|
| Isolated low-level conduct (single comment, poor judgment) | Written coaching; targeted training; monitoring plan | Taking no action at all; verbal-only response with no documentation |
| Repeated or pattern conduct (moderate) | Written warning; mandatory training; schedule modification; performance improvement plan for conduct | Warning without follow-up monitoring; allowing complainant and respondent to remain in contact without safeguards |
| Serious conduct (sexual harassment, targeted intimidation) | Final written warning; suspension; demotion; termination depending on severity and history | Keeping respondent in same team as complainant without protection measures |
| Conduct not substantiated | Still consider whether workplace climate requires intervention; update policy if needed; do not discipline complainant for raising concern in good faith | Reprisal against complainant — this is separately prohibited under OHSA and can trigger a significant OLRB complaint |
If harassment is not substantiated: You are not required to discipline anyone, but you should document your reasoning. You must still communicate the outcome to both parties. You must not treat the complaint as misconduct by the complainant unless there is clear evidence the complaint was made in deliberate bad faith — which is a very high bar.
10. Confidentiality Obligations
The OHSA requires confidentiality “to the extent reasonably possible.” This is not absolute confidentiality — it means you protect identities and details as much as possible without compromising the investigation’s fairness.
- Witnesses should be told that their statements are confidential but that some information may need to be shared to conduct a fair investigation.
- Do not promise witnesses complete anonymity — you may need to share some information with the respondent to allow a meaningful response.
- Results of the investigation must be communicated to both parties — this is a mandatory disclosure that overrides general confidentiality.
- Records of the investigation should be kept for at least 5 years; they may be requested by Ministry inspectors.
11. Bill 190: Digital and Electronic Harassment (2024)
Bill 190 (Working for Workers Five Act, 2024) made it explicit that OHSA’s harassment definition covers conduct through electronic means. Prior to this, there was ambiguity about whether online or text-based conduct was covered.
What this means for investigations in 2026:
| Digital Conduct | Within OHSA Scope? | Investigation Note |
|---|---|---|
| Harassing texts from a co-worker during work hours | Yes | Preserve screenshots; request device records if necessary |
| Harassing messages on work messaging platforms (Teams, Slack, WhatsApp work group) | Yes | Employer may have access to logs; preserve before any system reset |
| Harassing posts on social media outside work hours | Yes — if it creates a poisoned work environment when the target returns to work | Assess impact on complainant’s work experience; screenshot publicly visible posts |
| Anonymous online harassment where the perpetrator’s identity is unknown | Duty to investigate persists — investigate to the extent possible; document limitations | May require digital forensics referral; document your efforts to identify the source |
| Group chat harassment or exclusion | Yes — if it meets the course-of-conduct or severity threshold | Obtain screenshots from complainant; consider whether all group members are witnesses |
12. Ten Common Workplace Harassment Investigation Mistakes
| # | Mistake | Consequence | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Waiting for a formal written complaint before investigating | OHSA violation — duty triggers on employer awareness, not formal filing | Critical |
| 2 | Manager investigating their own team member who is the alleged harasser | Lack of independence voids the investigation; Ministry can order external investigation at employer’s cost | Critical |
| 3 | Not communicating findings in writing to both parties | OHSA s.32.0.7(3) violation; OLRB complaint; can also undermine any subsequent discipline decision | Critical |
| 4 | Promising complete confidentiality to the complainant | Unfair to respondent; impossible to keep in most cases; undermines investigation if promise has to be broken | High |
| 5 | Treating the withdrawn complaint as closed without assessing ongoing risk | If harassment of other workers continues, employer remains liable; one employee’s withdrawal doesn’t extinguish the duty | High |
| 6 | Disciplining the complainant for raising the complaint (reprisal) | OHSA reprisal is separately prosecuted; OLRB can order reinstatement and damages without HRTO proceeding | Critical |
| 7 | Conducting investigation without any written notes or contemporaneous documentation | Investigation findings will be challenged; tribunal will give less weight to undocumented memories vs contemporaneous records | High |
| 8 | Sharing the full investigation report with both parties | Witness identities disclosed; confidentiality broken; can chill future reporting | High |
| 9 | No corrective action after finding harassment substantiated | OHSA violation; HRTO aggravated damages for employer indifference; personal director liability | Critical |
| 10 | Not updating the harassment program after the investigation identifies systemic issues | Annual review obligation means findings must inform program updates; failure to do so is evidence of systemic non-compliance | High |
13. Frequently Asked Questions
Do I have to investigate if the complainant says they don’t want anything done?
Yes. The OHSA duty to investigate belongs to the employer, not the employee. You cannot decline to investigate simply because the complainant asks you not to proceed. You should acknowledge their preference, explain the legal obligation, and try to accommodate their concerns within the investigation process — for example, by using measures to protect their identity from witnesses where possible. Document their preference and your response.
How long should a workplace harassment investigation take?
There is no fixed statutory timeline, but investigations should begin promptly — within a few days of the complaint — and conclude within a reasonable timeframe. The Ontario government’s guidance suggests the 10-day communication window runs from the conclusion of the investigation. Simple cases should conclude within 2–4 weeks. Complex cases involving multiple witnesses, legal counsel, or difficult credibility assessments may take 6–12 weeks. Delays should be documented and communicated to the parties.
Does the alleged harasser have a right to know who made the complaint?
In most cases, yes — the respondent needs enough information to mount a genuine defence, which typically means knowing who the complainant is. Complete anonymity for the complainant is usually incompatible with a fair investigation. However, if there is a credible safety concern, you can delay disclosure while taking interim protective measures. Consult with an employment lawyer before proceeding anonymously in complex cases.
What if the investigation finds the harassment was not substantiated?
Communicate the outcome to both parties in writing. Do not discipline the complainant for raising the concern — unless there is clear evidence of deliberate bad faith, which is a very high bar. Consider whether there are systemic or climate issues that should be addressed even if the specific allegation is not substantiated. Document your decision fully.
What are the penalties for failing to investigate in Ontario?
Under OHSA, corporations face fines up to $1.5 million per violation; individuals (including directors) up to $100,000 plus potential jail time. The Ministry can issue a compliance order requiring you to retain an external investigator at your cost. Separately, the HRTO can award general damages (typically $15,000–$80,000) and lost wages for harassment that the employer failed to stop or investigate.
Can we handle the investigation entirely internally?
For lower-severity cases, yes — as long as the investigator is objective, trained, and independent from both parties. For complaints involving managers, sexual harassment, or situations where internal politics could affect perceived fairness, an external investigator provides significantly more protection. An external investigation that substantiates or dismisses a complaint is much harder for either party to challenge than an internal one.
Sources and references: Ontario Government — Workplace Harassment Investigation for Employers | Ontario Guide to the OHSA — Part III.0.1 | Greenwood Law — Harassment Investigation Legal Guide | OHSA Statute
For help building a workplace harassment investigation process, see our Workplace Harassment Policy guide and Progressive Discipline guide. If a complaint is already in progress, our ESA Complaint guide covers parallel Ministry proceedings. Contact our HR Consulting team to discuss your situation.