In some situations, an investigation is not only advisable, it may be legally required. For example, in Ontario, the Occupational Health and Safety Act requires employers to ensure that incidents or complaints of workplace harassment, including sexual harassment, are investigated in a manner that is appropriate in the circumstances. Similar obligations exist in other provinces. Allegations involving discrimination may also engage duties under human rights legislation. In federally regulated workplaces, comparable obligations arise under federal legislation such as the Canada Labour Code.

Depending on the circumstances, this may involve a relatively limited internal review or a more comprehensive investigation. 

Even where an investigation is not legally required, an external review may still be helpful. Concerns such as respect in the workplace, breaches of a code of conduct, or conduct that does not rise to the level of harassment can still be disruptive and harmful within a workplace. Depending on the circumstances, those concerns may call for an investigation or another form of workplace assessment.

Smaller or more straightforward matters may be addressed internally, often through HR, without the need for an external investigator.

However, the real question is whether the matter can be investigated fairly, impartially, and effectively. Where there is a pre-existing relationship, a potential conflict of interest, or another reason why neutrality may reasonably be questioned, it may be more appropriate to retain an external investigator.

External investigators are also often brought in where allegations involve senior leaders, the issues are serious or high-risk, the matter is complex, there is a significant risk of litigation, or media or public attention is possible. In those situations, an external investigator can provide independence, relevant experience, and added credibility to the process.

A bilingual investigator may be important where one or more parties or witnesses are more comfortable communicating in French, where the workplace operates in both English and French, or where relevant evidence includes French-language documents or communications. In those situations, a high level of fluency helps ensure that interviews, document review, and credibility assessments are carried out carefully and accurately.

A bilingual investigator can also bring important flexibility to the process. Depending on the needs of the matter, interviews can be conducted in each person’s preferred language, French-language evidence can be reviewed directly, and the final report can be prepared in English or French, as appropriate. This is often especially valuable in bilingual workplaces and helps support a fair, accessible, and effective investigation.

At Prisma, we can adapt the investigative process to the language needs of the workplace, including conducting interviews in English or French and preparing reporting in the language required for the matter.

Every investigation is different, and the timeline will depend on the nature and complexity of the matter. The number of witnesses, the volume of evidence, scheduling considerations, and any applicable policy or legal timelines may all affect how long the process takes.

We aim to move matters forward efficiently while maintaining a fair and thorough process. Where workplace policies or legal requirements establish timelines, we work to meet them while responding appropriately to the circumstances of the investigation. At the outset, we provide clients with a realistic estimate of timing based on the scope of the investigation.

A trauma-informed approach recognizes that being involved in an investigation can be difficult and, in some cases, traumatic. Sometimes that is because of the nature of the allegations. In other cases, the process itself may feel stressful, overwhelming, or triggering because of a person’s past experiences or personal circumstances.

Being trauma-informed means understanding that trauma can affect how a person participates in an investigation. It may influence how they recall events, respond to questions, communicate, or present during an interview. It also means approaching the process with care, flexibility, and respect.

Where appropriate, we can adapt aspects of the process and consider accommodations that support meaningful participation while maintaining procedural fairness. Our goal is to conduct investigations in a way that is fair and thorough, while also being attentive to the impact the process may have on the people involved.

We approach interviews with care, privacy, and discretion. Interviews are conducted as privately as possible, and information is shared only to the extent necessary for a fair and thorough investigation. This also helps protect the integrity of the process by supporting the independence of the evidence.

However, we cannot promise complete confidentiality. Information shared in interviews may be reflected in our report, and investigation materials may, in some circumstances, need to be disclosed in legal or other proceedings. For that reason, we work to protect privacy as much as possible, while being clear about the limits of confidentiality in an investigation

This can depend on the governing law, and the workplace’s policies. In federally-regulated workplaces, for example, both parties receive a condensed, anonymized version of the investigator’s report. In Ontario under OHSA, the employer must inform the parties in writing the summary of the findings and any corrective action, rather than the full report itself.

Outside of those kinds of legal requirements, whether participants receive the full report will often depend on the circumstances and the applicable workplace framework. In many cases, participants are not automatically entitled to the full report.

Our role as investigators is not to recommend discipline or decide what consequences should be imposed on particular individuals. As an impartial third party, our primary role is to investigate the allegations and provide findings based on the evidence.

That said, some mandates also ask us to provide broader recommendations related to policies, training, workplace practices, or other systemic issues identified during the investigation. In federally regulated matters, recommendations are part of the legislative framework.