← University
Investigation Reports: What to Include and What to Exclude
0 of 6

The investigation had concluded 4 days earlier, but the report remained unwritten. A mid-sized professional services firm operating out of 3 offices across western Canada found itself at a critical juncture following a complaint filed by a senior administrative coordinator against a regional manager. The complaint alleged a pattern of conduct over approximately 8 months that included inappropriate comments, differential treatment, and 2 specific incidents that the complainant characterized as harassment.

The firm had engaged an external investigator with 15 years of experience in workplace matters. Over a 3-week period, the investigator interviewed 11 witnesses, reviewed 47 email exchanges, examined performance documentation spanning 2 years, and gathered security access records from the office building. Several witnesses corroborated aspects of the complainant's account, while others provided testimony that contradicted key elements. The regional manager denied the allegations and offered alternative explanations for the conduct described. Documentary evidence supported some factual claims but left others unresolved.

The investigator had now provided a verbal summary of preliminary conclusions to the director of human resources but had not yet drafted the formal report. The director faced pressure from multiple directions. Senior leadership wanted the matter resolved quickly and sought clear recommendations about whether discipline was warranted. The complainant had retained legal counsel and made a formal request for a copy of the investigation report. The respondent's union representative had already indicated that any disciplinary action would be grieved and that the investigation methodology would be scrutinized.

The firm's legal counsel had raised questions about litigation privilege and whether the report should be prepared under legal advice to protect certain communications from disclosure. Meanwhile, the human resources team had discovered that an early draft memorandum prepared during the investigation contained speculative commentary about the respondent's credibility that did not reflect the investigator's ultimate assessment—raising concerns about what should happen to preliminary documents.

The director of human resources understood that the written report would need to serve multiple functions simultaneously. It would need to document findings of fact sufficient to support whatever employment decision followed, withstand potential challenge at arbitration or before a human rights tribunal, satisfy disclosure obligations without compromising legitimately privileged material, and communicate outcomes to both parties in a manner that met the firm's legal obligations while preserving workplace relationships to whatever extent remained possible. The investigation had generated substantial evidence and clear analytical conclusions, but translating that work into a defensible written record presented its own distinct challenges.

Findings of Fact: How to Write Conclusions That Will Withstand Scrutiny

Findings of fact represent the foundation upon which every workplace investigation rests. They are the documented conclusions that transform raw evidence, conflicting accounts, and uncertain circumstances into clear determinations about what happened. When an employer terminates an employee for cause, imposes discipline, or decides that no misconduct occurred, the findings of fact in the investigation report are what justify that decision. They are also what arbitrators, human rights tribunals, and courts examine when determining whether the employer acted reasonably. Writing findings of fact that can withstand scrutiny requires more than summarizing witness statements or cataloguing documentary evidence. It demands a disciplined approach to weighing credibility, applying appropriate standards of proof, acknowledging uncertainty where it exists, and articulating conclusions in language that is precise, defensible, and tied directly to the evidence gathered.

The legal basis for findings of fact in workplace investigations flows from multiple sources across Canadian employment law. Under the Canada Labour Code, which governs federally regulated employers such as banks, telecommunications companies, and interprovincial transportation firms, employers must conduct fair and thorough investigations when complaints arise, and any resulting discipline must be supported by just cause. Provincial employment standards legislation across British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec similarly creates frameworks within which employer decisions must be justified. Human rights legislation at both federal and provincial levels requires employers to investigate complaints of discrimination and harassment, with findings that demonstrate the employer took the matter seriously and reached reasonable conclusions. Occupational health and safety statutes across all provinces require investigation of workplace incidents, violence, and harassment, with documented findings that inform corrective action. As of the date of authorship, these legislative frameworks collectively establish that findings of fact are not merely administrative conveniences but legal necessities that form the evidentiary basis for employer action.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $149 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.