Workplace investigations are meant to be the cornerstone of fairness and compliance. They protect employees, guide employers, and uphold trust in organizational processes. But what happens when an investigation is so flawed that a decision-maker calls it “patently deficient”? The recent Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision in John Dean Snow v. Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited (2025 CanLII 122531) offers a powerful case study, and a warning.

1. The Story Behind the Case

Snow, a long-serving stock keeper at a Ford’s distribution centre, filed a harassment complaint against his superintendent on April 2, 2024. The very next day, that same superintendent accused Snow of trying to run him over twice with a reach truck, a serious allegation carrying potential criminal and termination consequences.

Ford launched an internal investigation, led by its Employee Relations Manager. By April 30, the company concluded the allegations were unsubstantiated. But when Snow alleged reprisal under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), the matter escalated to the OLRB.

2. What Went Wrong?

Vice-Chair Derek Rogers didn’t mince words: the investigation was “patently deficient.” Why? Because it failed on multiple fronts:

• Key witnesses were ignored. The investigator never interviewed Snow’s direct supervisor or the warehouse manager, both central to the original harassment complaint.
• Motive and timing were overlooked. The investigation didn’t explore whether the superintendent’s counter-allegation was retaliatory, despite its suspicious timing.
• Contradictions went untested. The superintendent’s report contained inconsistencies (near-misses vs. abrupt braking), yet these were never examined.
• Original complaint vanished. Ford provided no evidence that Snow’s harassment complaint was investigated at all.

These gaps weren’t minor oversights, they were fundamental failures that undermined the integrity of the process.

3. The Legal Lens: Section 50(5) OHSA

Under Section 50(5) of the OHSA, once an employee alleges reprisal, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that any adverse action was not retaliatory. This is a high bar. Employers must show, through credible evidence, that discipline or allegations were unrelated to the employee’s protected activity (e.g., filing a harassment complaint).

Ford couldn’t meet this burden. The investigation didn’t address the reprisal question, leaving the company exposed. The Board held Ford liable for reprisal, not because the superintendent’s allegation was proven false, but because Ford failed to demonstrate it wasn’t retaliatory.

4. Would an External Investigator Have Changed the Outcome?

Many organizations assume hiring an external investigator guarantees compliance. Not so. Even with an external investigator, the employer retains legal responsibility under OHSA. If reprisal indicators emerge, such as a counter-allegation immediately after a complaint, the scope must expand to address motive and timing.

If an external investigator requested scope expansion and Ford refused, the investigator’s work might not be deemed deficient. But Ford would still be on the hook for failing to investigate reprisal. Limiting scope after clear signals may be interpreted as a strategic and a compliance failure by an employer.

5. What Does “Patently Deficient” Really Mean?

Within the context of this decision, this term signals an investigation that is obviously inadequate, so flawed that it cannot reasonably fulfill its purpose. It’s not about perfection; it’s about meeting basic standards:

• Interview all relevant witnesses.
• Explore motive and timing when retaliation is possible.
• Test contradictions and verify facts.
• Document every step, including the original complaint.

When these essentials are missing, the investigation collapses under scrutiny.

6. The Bigger Picture and Final Thought

This case isn’t just about Ford. It’s about the growing expectation that workplace investigations be thorough, impartial, and legally sound. In an era of heightened employee rights and regulatory scrutiny, shortcuts are costly. A flawed investigation doesn’t just risk reputational damage; it can lead to legal liability.

Employers must treat investigations as more than procedural checkboxes. They are a test of organizational integrity. When done right, they build trust. When done wrong, they unravel it.

The Ford decision is a wake-up call: investigation quality matters as much as outcome. Whether internal or external, the process must withstand legal and ethical scrutiny. Because in the eyes of the law, “patently deficient” isn’t just a critique, it’s a verdict.

‍