← 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.

Common Report Writing Errors That Undermine Defensibility

Workplace investigations serve a critical function in Canadian employment law, providing employers with the factual foundation needed to make defensible decisions about discipline, termination, accommodation, and policy enforcement. The investigation report stands as the permanent record of that process, and its quality directly affects whether an employer can successfully defend its actions before a tribunal, arbitrator, or court. Yet even experienced investigators make errors in report writing that undermine the very defensibility the investigation was meant to establish. Understanding these common pitfalls is essential for any HR professional, manager, or business owner who may commission, conduct, or rely upon workplace investigation reports.

The legal framework surrounding workplace investigations in Canada derives from multiple sources that apply differently depending on the nature of the employer and the issues under investigation. Federally regulated employers operating under the Canada Labour Code must comply with specific investigation requirements, particularly those arising from the workplace harassment and violence prevention provisions that require employers to investigate complaints and provide written reports to affected parties. Provincial employment standards legislation, occupational health and safety statutes, and human rights codes across British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec each impose distinct obligations on employers to investigate certain types of complaints and to document their findings appropriately. As of the date of authorship, these legislative frameworks universally expect that investigations will be conducted fairly, thoroughly, and without bias, and that the resulting documentation will support whatever action the employer takes in response. The investigation report, therefore, is not merely an administrative document but a legal instrument that may be scrutinized by adjudicators years after its creation.

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.