Workplace investigations serve a critical function in Canadian employment law, enabling employers to establish facts, assess credibility, and reach conclusions about alleged misconduct or policy violations. The investigation report stands as the documentary record of this process, preserving the investigator's methodology, evidence gathered, and analytical reasoning for future reference. Yet one aspect of investigation reports generates more confusion and debate among Canadian HR professionals than almost any other: the question of recommendations. Specifically, what recommendations belong in an investigation report, what should be excluded entirely, and who bears responsibility for making different types of decisions following an investigation's conclusion. Understanding these boundaries protects both the integrity of the investigation and the employer's ability to respond appropriately to investigative findings.
The conceptual distinction between findings and recommendations lies at the heart of this issue. Findings represent the investigator's conclusions about what happened based on the evidence gathered during the investigation. These findings answer the factual questions that prompted the investigation in the first place. Did the alleged conduct occur? Was the respondent responsible for that conduct? Did the conduct violate workplace policies, professional standards, or legal obligations? Recommendations, by contrast, represent suggestions about what actions the organization should take in response to those findings. This distinction matters enormously because the investigator's role, expertise, and authority differ fundamentally when making factual findings versus when suggesting organizational responses.