Calling a workplace investigation confidential or privileged doesn't settle whether the investigator's notes can be withheld in a later human rights proceeding. That's one of the lessons in Ms. V v. The Kamloops and District Elizabeth Fry Society and another, 2026 BCHRT 198, a BC Human Rights Tribunal decision about access to investigation records and the privacy of people involved in sensitive allegations.
The complainant, identified only as Ms. V, alleged sexual harassment by a former executive director and an inadequate response by her former employer. The respondents denied the allegations and relied on an outside investigation that did not substantiate them. Those issues remain unresolved. This decision dealt instead with two preliminary applications: what additional investigation material the employer had to disclose and whether the complainant could remain anonymous.
Ms. V sought a wide range of records, including draft reports, witness interview notes, the investigator's communications and legal advice. The Society had already disclosed the final report and several related records. It argued that the remaining materials were privileged or irrelevant.
The Tribunal didn't treat the investigation file as a single category. It accepted the Society's claim of solicitor client privilege over confidential communications with its lawyer about legal advice. Reliance on the separate investigation report did not, without more, waive that privilege. It also declined to order disclosure of draft investigation reports and an investigator's personal preliminary impressions, concluding that those evolving internal thoughts had not been shown to be relevant to an issue in dispute.
But the witness interview notes, interview memoranda and phone memoranda were different. They recorded information collected during an investigation whose fairness and reliability the complainant directly challenged. They were arguably relevant to those issues. The fact that litigation was anticipated, or that documents had been marked as privileged, didn't establish that their dominant purpose was preparation for litigation. The Tribunal ordered those factual interview records disclosed within two weeks.
The privacy application produced another careful distinction. The Tribunal ordered Ms. V to be anonymized in its decisions until the complaint reaches a merits hearing, and it also anonymized Ms. W in this decision. It declined the broader publication ban requested. At this preliminary stage, protecting identities in tribunal decisions was a proportionate measure, whereas restricting third parties' publication more generally wasn't shown to be necessary.
For employers and investigators, the decision illustrates the importance of knowing exactly what each document is and why it was created. Legal advice, drafts recording tentative personal analysis, and factual notes of witness interviews may be treated very differently. Labelling an entire investigation privileged doesn't replace that assessment. Just as importantly, the ruling says nothing about whether the underlying harassment allegations are true. Those questions have yet to be decided.