What happens after the investigation — outcomes, communication, and closure?

Delivery of the report is the start of a new phase, not the end. The post-investigation phase has its own legal traps.

Communicating the outcome — what each party is entitled to know. In Ontario, under OHSA s. 32.0.7 and the Code of Practice, the worker who allegedly experienced harassment and the alleged harasser (if a worker) must be informed in writing of the results of the investigation and of any corrective action taken or to be taken. The Code of Practice (Part III) states the results “must be communicated in writing within ten (10) calendar days of the investigation being concluded.” Two distinctions matter. First, the “results” are a summary of the findings — not the investigation report itself; parties are not entitled at law to a copy of the full report. Second, the level of detail. The Ontario Labour Relations Board in Horner v. Stelco Inc. Lake Erie (2024) held that an employer must tell a complainant the “specific results” and the “specific corrective measures taken” — including which respondent(s) were found to have harassed them — because the OHSA cannot protect workers if victims are left “in the dark.” But the employer need not disclose the specific level of discipline imposed on the respondent, nor the confidential mitigating/aggravating factors behind it. This is a balancing act: meaningful information to the complainant, fairness to the respondent, and the confidentiality promised to witnesses.

The handoff to the employer’s discipline decision. The investigator finds facts; the employer decides consequences, as covered in the findings-and-report note. Once findings land, the employer must actually act on substantiated findings — finding wrongdoing and doing nothing creates ongoing liability. The mechanics of the discipline decision (the warning ladder, the just-cause threshold) belong to the progressive-discipline note, and termination mechanics to the terminations note. Two cautions sit at the boundary: an unsubstantiated complaint made in good faith must not be met with discipline or reprisal against the complainant; and where the complaint is unsubstantiated, the employer should still close the loop respectfully with the complainant.

Record-keeping. Keep a complete, secure investigation file: the intake/complaint, the allegations, the mandate, interim measures, communications with the parties, confidentiality and anti-reprisal instructions, evidence reviewed, interview notes, the credibility analysis, findings, rationale, the outcome, and follow-up. For federally regulated employers, the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations, SOR/2020-130, require records — including, under s. 35(1)(g), “a copy of each report that is prepared by an investigator” — to be kept for ten years (s. 35(2)). Records should be reviewed periodically for patterns (repeat respondents, hot-spot departments). Privacy law applies to the file (PIPEDA federally; provincial equivalents where applicable).

Ongoing confidentiality. Confidentiality survives the investigation. Information stays on a need-to-know basis; the report typically remains confidential unless a policy, agreement, or law requires disclosure. Where an incident was widely known, a general communication (without identifying details) can calm the rumour mill and signal that the matter was handled.

Anti-reprisal and monitoring after the file closes. This is the most dangerous post-investigation trap. Reprisal protections — under OHSA s. 50 and the Ontario Human Rights Code — continue after closure, and a reprisal claim can succeed even where the underlying complaint was unsubstantiated. Retaliation can be subtle and even unintentional: a schedule change, a “restructuring” that reduces a complainant’s responsibilities, a transfer framed as a fresh start, or a shift in a manager’s tone. Monitor post-investigation decisions affecting participants, document the legitimate business reasons for them contemporaneously, and remind the parties that reprisal will not be tolerated and to report it immediately. The reprisal prohibition itself, and the broader duty framework, belong to the compliance cluster.

For a K-W SMB, the practical close-out is a short outcome letter to each party (results + corrective action, within the Ontario 10-day window), a secured file, and a calendar reminder to check in with the parties two or three months out — a follow-up conversation often does more to prevent a reprisal claim than the outcome letter itself. This is general information, not legal advice.