Workplace investigations, whether in a corporate office or a public institution, are among the most sensitive processes an organization can undertake.  They carry high emotional, reputational, and legal stakes for everyone involved: the complainant seeking validation and safety, the respondent seeking fairness and clarity, and the employer or governing body tasked with balancing legal compliance, confidentiality, and public trust.

In Ontario, the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) 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.

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.

This issue of post-investigation disclosure is not limited to private workplaces. A recent case involving the Durham Regional Police Service illustrates how the same principles apply, and how the stakes can be even higher when public institutions are involved.

1. Case Study: Durham Police Investigation and the Disclosure Expectation

In 2019, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) launched a six-year investigation into DRPS following allegations of misconduct, harassment, bullying, and abuse of power. The investigation was prompted by whistleblower complaints and focused on leadership practices.

The investigation concluded in July 2025, but the report has not been made public. Findings were shared only with the Durham Police, the Durham Police Board, and Ontario’s Solicitor General. This has sparked political pressure.

The Durham Region Council, led by an Ajax Regional Councillor, unanimously passed a motion urging the Premier and other officials to release the findings and recommendations. The Durham Police Board claims it supports disclosure but insists only the now-defunct OCPC had the authority to release the report. The OCPC was dissolved on September 1, 2025, under the new Community Safety and Policing Act (CSPA). Its successor, the Inspectorate of Policing (IoP), has not committed to releasing the full report.

This case highlights a critical issue that when disclosure is minimal or delayed, trust erodes, not just among investigation participants, but across the broader community.

2. Why Participants Feel “Left in the Dark”

Whether in a police force or a corporate office, investigation participants often feel frustrated by the lack of meaningful communication. Here’s why:

a. The Expectation Gap

Complainants expect a detailed explanation of what happened and why certain conclusions were reached. Respondents want to understand how their credibility was assessed. A short letter stating “allegations substantiated” or “not substantiated” feels incomplete compared to the emotional toll and reputational stakes involved.

b. 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.

c. Misunderstood Confidentiality

Employers and institutions 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.

d. 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.

e. Silence During the Process

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

3. Legal Boundaries: Disclosure vs. Risk

While transparency is essential, employers must also navigate serious legal risks:

a. Privacy Obligations

Employers have a duty to protect the personal information of all parties involved. Disclosing witness statements, detailed findings, or disciplinary measures can violate privacy laws and expose the organization to liability.

b. Defamation Risk

If post-investigation communications suggest misconduct without sufficient legal grounding or due process, the organization may face defamation claims, especially from respondents who feel unfairly portrayed.

c. Reprisal and Retaliation

Disclosure of findings can unintentionally expose complainants or witnesses to reprisal. Even subtle disclosures can lead to workplace retaliation, ostracism, or reputational harm.

d. Fishing Expeditions in Other Forums

Once disclosed, investigation summaries or findings may be used in arbitrations, civil and criminal litigation, regulatory decisions, or human rights proceedings. This can complicate legal strategy, expose the employer to broader scrutiny, or lead to unintended consequences if the information is taken out of context.

e. Confidentiality Agreements

Investigators, witnesses, and parties may be bound by confidentiality clauses. Breaching these can undermine the integrity of the process and lead to legal challenges.

4. What the Law 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).
• Disclose what corrective action was taken or will be taken.

However, employers are not required 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 mitigate legal exposure.

5. Building Trust Through Better Post-Investigation Reporting

Whether you're a public institution like the Durham Police or a private employer, here’s how you can go beyond compliance and create a process that feels fair, transparent, and legally sound.

A. 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.

B. 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 to reduce anxiety and suspicion.

C. 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.

D. Acknowledge the Human Impact

• Include empathetic language, which helps people feel heard, even if they disagree with the outcome.

E. 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), policy refreshers, or training.

6. Public Sector Implications: Transparency Is Accountability

The Durham police case underscores a broader truth: public institutions may be held to a higher standard of transparency expectation. When reports are withheld, even after millions in public spending, it may undermine public confidence in oversight mechanisms.

Transparency doesn’t mean breaching confidentiality. It means explaining the process, sharing findings responsibly, and demonstrating that corrective action is being taken. It means showing that the system works, not just behind closed doors, but in the light of public scrutiny.

7. Conclusion: Disclosure Is a Trust-Building Opportunity, With Boundaries

Post-investigation communication is not just a compliance exercise. It’s a strategic opportunity to build trust, with employees, system partners, and the public. But trust must be built within the boundaries of privacy, defamation risk, confidentiality obligations, and the potential for misuse in other legal forums. When organizations go beyond the legal minimum and embrace meaningful, respectful, and legally sound disclosure, they don’t just protect themselves, they strengthen the very culture they aim to uphold.