Workplace investigations are meant to be the compass that guides organizations through allegations of misconduct, harassment, or ethical breaches. Yet, as recent cases in Manitoba and Alberta show, the process often becomes a battleground of expectations, some reasonable, others not so much, and the legal risks for both employers and employees can be enormous.

1. The Case Studies: Manitoba Casino & Medicine Hat

In Manitoba, South Beach Casino terminated its security manager, citing sexual harassment complaints. The manager claims the real reason was retaliation for reporting illegal behaviour. Meanwhile, in Medicine Hat, former Chief Administrative Officer is suing the city and its mayor for over $1 million, alleging wrongful dismissal and defamation after a workplace complaint investigation.

Both cases share a common thread: investigations that participants believe were either weaponized or fundamentally flawed. These disputes highlight how expectations, namely what employees think should happen versus what employers believe they must do, shape the trajectory of legal battles or better yet, the lack thereof.

2. (Un)Reasonable Expectations: What Participants Expect and Where Reality and Desire Diverge

Employees and employers alike have legitimate expectations during workplace investigations, fair process, confidentiality, impartiality, and timeliness. These expectations align with Canadian legal standards and global best practices. Courts often scrutinize whether employers provided procedural fairness, especially when termination is involved.

Problems arise when expectations drift into the unreasonable:

• A “total exoneration” mindset: the expectation that investigations will clear them completely, even when evidence suggests otherwise.

• Unlimited transparency: While some may want full disclosure, employers, investigators and participants alike must balance this disclosure against privacy laws, prevention of reprisal and the integrity of the investigation itself.

• Control over the outcome: Some participants assume they can influence the result, an expectation that undermines the integrity of the process.

• Zero reputational impact: Investigations, by nature, carry reputational risks. Expecting no fallout is unrealistic, though employers should mitigate harm where possible.

In the Manitoba case, Morin claims he was blindsided by harassment allegations and denied details. If true, that’s a failure of reasonable expectations. But expecting the employer to ignore serious complaints because of his whistleblowing role would be unreasonable.

Employers face impactful consequences for failing to complete this balancing act in a reasonable manner, for example, wrongful dismissal and/or defamation claims, human rights complaints, and other administrative and legal scrutiny. Employees also navigate significant risks, such as reputational damage, costly litigation and unexpected counterclaims.

Here are a few key takeaways: 1) Have clear records of steps taken during investigations; 2) Separate roles to avoid conflict of interest; 3) Communicate boundaries; and 4) Train investigators or hire competent ones.

3. Why These Cases Matter

The Manitoba and Medicine Hat disputes remind us that investigations are not just procedural, they are deeply human. When expectations clash with reality, trust erodes, and legal battles ensue. Employers must design processes that honour fairness and transparency, while employees must understand that investigations aim for corroborated facts, not vindication. In the end, managing expectations is as critical as managing evidence. Because when investigations fail to meet reasonable expectations, or indulge unreasonable ones, the courtroom often becomes the next workplace.

‍