Many workplace investigations across Canada are conducted through flawed, discretionary processes that open the door to bias, retaliation, manipulation, and lasting harm. When employers decide whether to investigate at all, selectively choose who to interview, or control what evidence is included or excluded, the process quickly shifts from seeking truth and justice to protecting the organization. At that point, it’s no longer an investigation, it’s damage control.

Under Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) legislation and Human Rights law, employers are legally obligated to maintain a psychologically safe workplace. That includes responding to complaints of bullying, harassment, and workplace violence with a process that is fair, timely, impartial, and thorough.

Unfortunately, in practice, many investigations are either watered down or weaponized. Key witnesses are deliberately left out. Complainants are retraumatized. Alleged perpetrators, especially those in positions of power, are shielded from accountability. Investigators may be internal, unqualified, or influenced by internal politics. The result is often a toxic culture of fear, silence, and escalating harm.

Note: This guide is not a critique of those who are doing this work with professionalism, integrity, and trauma-informed care. Their efforts are not only respected, they are also essential.

Rather, this is a spotlight on the many investigations that continue to fail due to negligence, bias, and systemic flaws. By naming the problems, we can push for higher standards, real accountability, and meaningful change.

This guide exposes how investigations break down and, more importantly, outlines what a lawful, trauma-informed, and unbiased process must include. This is not about optics or checking boxes. It’s about upholding human dignity, preventing harm, and protecting organizations from legal, financial, and reputational fallout.

Here’s how it falls apart:

1. The employer decides whether to investigate or not

This is a serious red flag. In Alberta, Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) legislation mandates that every report of workplace harassment must be investigated—this is not optional. When employers choose not to investigate, they are likely in violation of OHS Code Part 27 and may be subject to legal and financial penalties.

However, the law lacks teeth when it comes to enforcement. Employers who ignore legitimate complaints or conduct biased, performative investigations often face little to no consequence. This not only fails the injured worker, it erodes trust, enables abuse, and perpetuates unsafe workplaces.

There is an urgent need to strengthen OHS legislation by enforcing clear, mandatory consequences for employers who:

• Refuse to investigate credible complaints;
• Conduct investigations through a biased or self-protective lens;
• Retaliate against those who report harm.

Without accountability, the cycle of harm continues—at the expense of employee health, organizational integrity, and public trust.

If this matters to you, take action now, Go to the link provided, scroll to the button directly under the first image, and use the template letter to raise your voice.

Share your ideas, stories, or steps you’ve taken to protest or advocate for stronger, enforceable laws. We must pull our resources together and fight for protection. Every voice counts, especially yours.

2. The employer chooses who to interview or exclude

• Cherry-picking witnesses or excluding key individuals undermines the integrity of the process. It creates a biased investigation and denies procedural fairness.
• This often results in factual distortion, gaslighting, and mobbing tactics being ignored or concealed, especially if witnesses with corroborating evidence are excluded.

3. Lack of transparency and accountability

• If the process is controlled solely by the employer (especially if the alleged perpetrator is in leadership or HR), conflicts of interest are unavoidable.
• Most employers, including HR, are not trauma-informed, trained psychological harassment investigators. Also, we see far too many outsourced to HR or Law Firms for “independent investigators” who are not trauma-informed, not culturally competent, and not neutral.

4. Failure to meet legal standards

• Investigations must follow the principles of natural justice: the right to be heard, the right to respond to allegations, and an impartial decision-maker. If any of these are absent, the process is not lawful.
• Under Human Rights legislation, mishandling a complaint, especially involving protected grounds like disability, race, gender, or age, can lead to civil liability.

5. Long-term consequences

• A biased or mishandled investigation often leads to:
  • Retaliation and reprisals.
  • Targets losing their jobs, health benefits, and financial stability.
  • Reputational harm.
  • Escalation of harm to psychological and physical health.
  • Organizational trust erosion, legal claims, and turnover.

Bottom Line:

If employers are making arbitrary decisions around investigations, they’re failing their legal duties and exposing both the organization and individuals to serious risk.

What’s needed:

• Mandatory trauma-informed, unbiased, culturally competent investigations.
• Clear internal policies aligned with the Alberta OHS Code and Human Rights legislation.
• Oversight and accountability mechanisms, ideally from external regulators or psychological safety advisory boards.
• Third-party investigators vetted for neutrality and qualifications, not internal HR or “friends of leadership.” Having options for the complainant and aggressors to select an investigator from is a trauma-informed practice.

Workplace Investigation Checklist – Legal, Unbiased, Trauma-Informed

🔹 Before the Investigation Begins

• Immediate Action to Stop Harm: Interim measures in place to protect complainant(s), e.g., schedule adjustments, temporary separation from alleged perpetrator, access to mental health supports.
• Written Complaint Accepted: Verbal or written complaint formally recorded. Anonymous complaints are still valid and must be assessed.
• Notification of Investigation: Complainant and respondent notified in writing that an investigation will occur.
• External, Qualified Investigator Assigned: Independent third-party with expertise in psychological safety, trauma, DEI, and employment law.
• No Conflicts of Interest: Investigator is not friends, relatives, or close associates of anyone involved.
• Trauma-Informed Approach Confirmed: Investigator uses methods that avoid re-traumatization and supports all parties appropriately.
• Investigation Plan Created: Defines scope, timelines, interview order, and relevant documents to review.

🔹 During the Investigation

• All Relevant Witnesses Identified and Interviewed: Including those named by the complainant, the respondent, and any third party with potential knowledge.
• Fair Opportunity to Respond: Each party is given full details of the allegations against them and a chance to provide their side.
• Evidence Collected and Preserved: Emails, texts, notes, policies, recordings, calendars, photos, or any other supporting documents.
• Interviews Are Confidential, Safe, and Recorded: Notes or transcripts are maintained and securely stored.
• No Retaliation Policy Reiterated: All witnesses reminded that retaliation will not be tolerated.
• Complainant Allowed to Bring a Support Person: Ideally, trauma-informed support or advocate. This support person does not talk, ask questions, or take notes.
• Neutral Language Used Throughout: No judgmental, minimizing, or dismissive tone in any communication. The interview location is neutral and safe for interviewees.

🔹 After the Investigation

• Report Written: Includes summary of allegations, evidence gathered, credibility assessments, findings of fact, and whether policy or legal breaches occurred.
• Findings Shared with Parties: At minimum, each party must receive a summary of findings and conclusions.
• Corrective Action Taken (if warranted): Includes discipline, training, apologies, policy review, leadership change, or referral to law enforcement.
• Support Offered to All Affected Parties: Especially the complainant, whether the claim was substantiated or not. Includes mental health care, legal support, or workplace accommodations. If the employer does not wish to terminate the substantiated aggressor, mandatory resources are put in place for the harmful behavior to change, and progress is monitored. CIWBR offers all of these services.
• Policy and Practice Review: Post-investigation, the employer reviews what went wrong systemically and how to prevent recurrence.
• Records Secured and Retained: In accordance with Alberta employment and OHS standards.

Reminder: If any of the following occur, the investigation is not lawful or fair:

• Only management-selected witnesses interviewed.
• Key witnesses were excluded without justification.
• The complainant was not given details of the outcome.
• Retaliation occurs after reporting.
• The investigator is internal and unqualified.
• No report produced.
• No action taken despite findings of harm.