Workplace Harassment Investigation in Ontario: Why You Can't Just Quietly Handle That Complaint
The call usually comes on a Friday afternoon. A founder, voice low, tells me someone on the sales floor said something, it is probably nothing, and could he just pull them both into a room Monday and smooth it over. No paperwork. Just handle it quietly, the way you handle most things when you are running lean. I understand the instinct completely. I have had it myself.
Here is the problem. A workplace harassment investigation in Ontario is not a favour you grant when a complaint seems serious enough. It is a legal duty that triggers the moment you become aware, whether the complaint is written or muttered, formal or "off the record." And the quiet fix, the one that looks kind and proportionate and un-bureaucratic, is often how a manageable people problem turns into an $85,000 court award... especially when the accused is the person carrying the number.
What counts as workplace harassment in Ontario?
The Occupational Health and Safety Act defines workplace harassment as "a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace... that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome." It includes workplace sexual harassment, which covers unwelcome comment or conduct because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, and it now explicitly includes conduct delivered virtually, over the tools your team uses every day.
That is a broad definition on purpose. It is not limited to the obvious. Statistics Canada, drawing on its 2016 General Social Survey, found that 19 per cent of women and 13 per cent of men reported experiencing harassment in their workplace in the previous year, and the single most common type was not sexual harassment or physical violence... it was verbal abuse, reported by 13 per cent of women and 10 per cent of men. The behaviour that most often triggers your legal duties is the everyday kind: the comment, the pattern, the "that's just how he talks."
Do you legally have to investigate every complaint?
Yes. This is the part owners consistently get wrong.
Section 32.0.7 of the OHSA requires that "an employer must ensure that an investigation appropriate in the circumstances is conducted into incidents or complaints of workplace harassment." Read that carefully. It says incidents or complaints. You do not need a signed, formal grievance to owe an investigation. If you become aware of a possible incident, even one raised casually or reported by a bystander, the duty is live.
There is no small-employer exemption. A written and posted harassment policy is required once you regularly employ six or more workers, but the duty to have a policy, a program, and to investigate applies regardless of your size. A five-person startup owes the same investigation a five-hundred-person company does.
"Appropriate in the circumstances" gives you flexibility on scale, not on whether. Ontario's guidance for employers is concrete about what appropriate looks like: the investigation should be prompt, and completed within about 90 days unless there is a compelling reason it takes longer; it should be objective, run by someone not involved in the incident and not under the alleged harasser's control; it should keep information confidential except as needed to investigate and act; and it must end with a written summary of the results and any corrective action, provided to both the worker who complained and the alleged harasser. This is general information, not legal advice, and the right scope for a given complaint is worth confirming with employment counsel. But the floor is clear: you investigate, you document, you close the loop in writing.
What does a botched investigation actually cost?
Here is the case I send founders who think the quiet fix is the cheap one.
In Doyle v. Zochem Inc., a plant supervisor reported sexual harassment by a coworker. The manager she reported to dismissed her, told her in effect to stop being so emotional, ran a cursory look at it, and then terminated her employment five days later. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld $60,000 in moral damages and $25,000 in Human Rights Code damages. The trial judge described the employer's handling of the complaint as "insensitive to the point of verging on cruel." The failure to investigate properly, stacked on top of a bad-faith termination, is what drove the award. Not the underlying harassment alone. The response to it.
Ontario's Human Rights Tribunal has been signalling this for two decades. In Laskowska v. Marineland of Canada, the Tribunal set out a three-part test for whether an employer reasonably responded to harassment: did you have awareness, a real policy, a complaint mechanism and training in place beforehand; once a complaint came in, did you treat it seriously, act promptly and sensitively, and investigate reasonably; and did you reach a reasonable resolution and communicate your findings back to the person who complained. You do not have to be perfect. You do have to be reasonable, and "I had a quiet word with him" is not reasonable when the standard is a documented, objective process. An employer can be found liable for how it handled a complaint even where the original conduct is disputed.
Why "he's our best closer" is the most expensive sentence in sales
The hardest version of this is not the anonymous complaint. It is the complaint about the person you can least afford to lose.
Sales teams concentrate this risk. The top rep is often charismatic, high-status, closes half the pipeline, and knows it. When a complaint lands on that person, every incentive you have points toward minimizing it. You tell yourself it was a personality clash. You worry about the quarter. You decide to "keep an eye on it." I have watched good operators talk themselves out of a process they would have run without hesitation for anyone else, and I have felt the pull of that logic myself.
The research is unkind to the quiet fix on two fronts. First, how you handle the process is not a soft detail... it is a driver of whether the rest of your team stays and trusts you. Colquitt and colleagues' meta-analysis of 25 years of organizational justice research, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, found that procedural fairness, whether people believe the process itself was fair, is strongly tied to trust, commitment and the decision to withdraw from an organization. Your team is watching how you treat the complaint far more closely than they are watching the outcome. Protect the closer visibly and you have told every other rep exactly what a complaint against a high performer is worth: nothing.
Second, speaking up is already costly for the person who does it. Cortina and Magley, writing in the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, documented that employees who raised concerns about workplace mistreatment frequently faced retaliation, social and work-related, for having spoken. The OHSA prohibits reprisal against a worker for raising a harassment concern, and a fumbled, defensive process is often where the reprisal quietly starts... the excluded worker, the suddenly cooler manager, the shift that changes. When protecting revenue becomes the reflex, the person who did the right thing pays for it, and now you have a second, larger problem.
This is the moment that reveals what kind of HR function you actually have. Not the handbook. Not payroll. The judgment call, made under pressure, when the right answer costs you something. Most 20-to-500-person companies discover on a Friday afternoon that they have HR administration and no HR leadership, which is precisely the gap a fractional HR executive is built to fill: senior judgment on the calls that carry real legal and cultural risk, without the cost of a full-time chief people officer you cannot yet justify.
How to handle a harassment complaint the right way
When a complaint lands, the goal is a process you could defend to a tribunal and, just as importantly, one your team believes was fair. As general HR guidance, not legal advice, and worth confirming with employment counsel for anything serious:
Treat awareness as the trigger, not a formal complaint. The moment you know, in writing or not, the duty is live. Do not wait for someone to "make it official." Write down what you were told, when, and by whom.
Separate the response from your read of the person. Your gut about whether the accused "would ever do that" is not evidence, and acting on it before you investigate is exactly the reasoning the courts penalize. Run the same process you would run for anyone.
Pick an objective investigator. Someone not involved in the incident and not under the alleged harasser's control. In a small company, or when the accused is senior or a top producer, that usually means an external investigator... it protects both the integrity of the process and you.
Protect the person who complained from reprisal, and say so. Confirm to them that raising it will not cost them, then make sure it does not. Reprisal is its own violation and its own liability.
Move promptly and keep it confidential. Aim to complete within about 90 days. Share information only with those who need it to investigate or act.
Deliver a written summary to both parties. State that an investigation was conducted and what corrective action, if any, follows. This is required, and it is also what closes the loop and signals fairness to the wider team.
When you communicate the outcome, confirm rather than argue. Tell the parties what was decided; you do not owe a debate about the reasoning, and over-explaining a decision tends to create new exposure. Confirm with employment counsel before communicating anything that touches discipline or termination.
In short
In Ontario, a workplace harassment investigation is a legal duty under the OHSA that triggers on any incident or complaint you become aware of, regardless of your company's size. Handling it quietly and informally, especially to protect a top performer, is what turns a manageable people issue into moral damages, Human Rights Code damages, and a team that no longer trusts you. Investigate every complaint through an objective process, document it, protect the complainant from reprisal, and close the loop in writing.
Key takeaways
The duty is triggered by awareness, not by a formal complaint. OHSA section 32.0.7 requires an investigation "appropriate in the circumstances" into incidents or complaints of workplace harassment.
There is no small-employer exemption. The written, posted policy requirement kicks in at six or more regularly employed workers, but the duty to investigate applies at any size.
The response, not just the conduct, is what courts penalize. In Doyle v. Zochem, the Court of Appeal upheld $60,000 in moral damages and $25,000 in Human Rights Code damages, driven by a dismissive, cursory response and a bad-faith termination.
Reasonableness has a test. Laskowska v. Marineland asks whether you were prepared beforehand, took the complaint seriously and investigated, and communicated a reasonable resolution.
Protecting your best closer is the most expensive choice available. Procedural fairness drives team trust and retention (Colquitt et al., 2001), and people who speak up already risk retaliation (Cortina & Magley, 2003). Visibly protecting a high performer tells everyone else a complaint is worthless.
Frequently asked questions
Do I have to investigate a harassment complaint if it was only made verbally?
Yes. Ontario's OHSA requires an investigation appropriate in the circumstances into incidents or complaints of workplace harassment, and it does not require the complaint to be in writing. Once you are aware of a possible incident, the duty applies. Document what you were told and begin a proportionate process.
Does the duty to investigate apply to small businesses in Ontario?
Yes. There is no small-employer exemption from the duty to investigate. A written and posted harassment policy is specifically required once you regularly employ six or more workers, but the obligation to have a program and to investigate incidents and complaints applies to employers of any size.
How long do I have to complete a workplace harassment investigation?
Ontario's guidance for employers indicates an investigation should be prompt and completed within roughly 90 days unless there are compelling reasons for a longer timeline. It must conclude with a written summary of the results and any corrective action, provided to both the worker who complained and the alleged harasser.
What happens if I get the investigation wrong?
You can be liable for how you handled the complaint even where the underlying conduct is disputed. Courts and tribunals have awarded significant moral and Human Rights Code damages for dismissive, cursory or absent investigations. A fair, documented, objective process is your protection, and it is also what preserves your team's trust.
We are too small for a full-time HR leader. Who handles this?
This is exactly the gap a fractional HR executive fills. Many Ontario businesses with 20 to 500 employees have HR administration but no senior HR judgment for high-risk calls like a harassment complaint against a top performer. A fractional HR executive provides that leadership without the cost of a full-time chief people officer, and knows when to bring in an external investigator or employment counsel.
Work with Ashley
I'm Ashley Wesley (MA, CHRL, CIM), a Fractional VP of Sales and HR and a retained-search partner based in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. I help owners and leaders of 20-to-500-person companies build sales and people functions that hold up under pressure: senior HR judgment on the calls that carry real legal and cultural risk, and selection and retained executive search that hires the right person, not just the one who interviews well. If a complaint just landed and no one on your team is sure what to do, that is the signal, not the exception. Learn more at ashleywesley.com.
This article is general HR information for Ontario employers, not legal advice. Confirm your specific obligations, and anything touching discipline or termination, with employment counsel.
References
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11419803/
Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 247-265. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.247
Doyle v. Zochem Inc., 2017 ONCA 130 (CanLII). https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2017/2017onca130/2017onca130.html
Government of Ontario. (n.d.). Guide to the Occupational Health and Safety Act: Part III.0.I Workplace violence and workplace harassment. https://www.ontario.ca/document/guide-occupational-health-and-safety-act/part-iii0i-workplace-violence-and-workplace-harassment
Government of Ontario. (n.d.). Workplace harassment: investigation guide for employers. https://www.ontario.ca/page/workplace-harassment-investigation-employer
Laskowska v. Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30 (CanLII). https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2005/2005hrto30/2005hrto30.html
Statistics Canada. (2018). Harassment in Canadian workplaces (Insights on Canadian Society, Catalogue no. 75-006-X), drawing on the 2016 General Social Survey. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2018001/article/54982-eng.htm
