Workplace investigations are among the most sensitive processes an employer can undertake. They involve high stakes for everyone: the complainant, who seeks validation and safety; the respondent, who wants fairness and clarity; and the employer, who must balance legal compliance, confidentiality, and organizational integrity.

In Ontario, the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) sets out clear obligations for employers when it comes to workplace harassment investigations. Section 32.0.7(1)(b) requires employers to inform both the complainant and the respondent in writing of:

• The results of the investigation, and
• Any corrective action that has been or will be taken as a result.

On paper, this seems straightforward. In practice, however, many participants walk away feeling dissatisfied, sometimes even distrustful, because the communication they receive feels minimal, legalistic, and opaque.

So, why does this happen, and how can employers do better without breaching confidentiality or creating new risks? Let’s explore.

1. Why Participants Feel “Left in the Dark”

The Expectation Gap. Complainants often expect a detailed explanation of what happened, who said what, and why certain conclusions were reached. Respondents want to understand how their credibility was assessed and why the determinations went the way they did. When they receive a short letter stating only “allegations substantiated” or “not substantiated,” it feels incomplete compared to the emotional and reputational stakes involved.

Lack of Narrative Closure. Investigations are emotionally charged. Both parties want a story that makes sense, a clear narrative of what was found and why. The OHSA-mandated summary omits the reasoning, evidence, and context, leaving people feeling like the truth is hidden.

Misunderstood Confidentiality. Employers often cite “confidentiality” without explaining what it means or why it matters. To participants, this sounds like an excuse to withhold information rather than a legal and ethical obligation to protect privacy.

Emotional Investment. Both complainant and respondent have invested time, energy, and emotional labour. A two-paragraph outcome letter feels disproportionate to the intensity of their experience.

Silence During the Process. If the employer only communicates at the start and end, the silence in between creates anxiety and suspicion. People assume “no news” means “something is being hidden.”

2. What the Law Actually Requires (and What It Doesn’t)

The Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) has clarified that employers must:

• State whether the allegations were substantiated.
• Identify which respondents were found to have engaged in harassment (if there are multiple respondents).
• Disclose what corrective action was taken or will be taken.

However, employers do not have to:

• Provide the full investigation report.
• Share detailed factual findings or witness statements.
• Reveal the specific level of discipline imposed.

This creates a delicate balancing act: how to meet legal obligations while maintaining trust and fairness?

3. Building Trust Through Better Post-Investigation Reporting

Here’s how employers may go beyond compliance and create a process that feels fair, transparent, and respectful.

Set Expectations Early. From the very first communication, explain:

• What information will be shared at the end (and what won’t).
• Why confidentiality matters, for everyone’s protection.
• That the goal is a fair, impartial process, not punishment or favoritism.

Provide Process Transparency. Outline the steps:

• Who will conduct the investigation.
• The standard of proof (balance of probabilities).
• Expected timelines.
• How evidence will be considered.
• Give status updates during the process.
• Offer a Meaningful Outcome Summary

Go beyond the bare minimum:

• State whether allegations were substantiated.
• Explain the standard of proof used.
• Describe the types of evidence considered (without naming witnesses).
• Outline themes or patterns that informed the decision.
• Acknowledge the Human Impact
• Include empathetic language, which helps people feel heard, even if they disagree with the outcome.
• Offer a Post-Investigation Conversation
• Allow each party to ask questions about the process and how the decision was reached (within confidentiality limits).
• Offer access to Employee Assistance Programs (EAP) and policy refreshers or training.

4. The Bottom Line

Post-investigation communication is not just a compliance exercise. It can be a trust-building opportunity. When employers explain the process, acknowledge the human impact, and provide meaningful (but legally compliant) information, they reduce suspicion, protect relationships, and strengthen workplace culture.