The recent decision in Metrolinx v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1587, 2024 ONSC 1900 (“Metrolinx”) (affirmed by the Court of Appeal: 2025 ONCA 415), marks a significant development in the landscape of workplace harassment, offering guidance on the responsibilities of employers and the rights of employees. Employers frequently inquire about the extent of their duty to investigate possible instances of workplace harassment, particularly when no formal complaint has been made. This decision clarifies that that the duty to investigate extends beyond situations where the victim does not report the harassment, or participate in the investigation at all.

In Metrolinx, five employees participated in a private WhatsApp group chat where they made negative, derogatory, and sexist comments about several female colleagues. One of the employees named in the chat obtained screenshots of the conversation and reported it to Metrolinx’s HR department but declined to file a formal complaint. Metrolinx’s HR department forwarded the incident to their internal Harassment and Discrimination Prevention department, which conducted a thorough investigation. Ultimately, all five of the employees involved in the group chat were terminated for cause for violating the company’s sexual harassment policy.

Upon hearing the grievance, the arbitrator initially found that the employer had no grounds to investigate the incident and intrude on private conversations since the complainant had not filed a formal complaint with the company. On appeal, the Divisional Court held that under section 32.0.7(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “OHSA”), Metrolinx was obligated to investigate both “incidents and complaints” of workplace harassment. The Court outlined that:

the Employer’s duty to investigate is not just a duty owed to the complainant, but a duty owed to all employees in the workplace. All employees – not just the direct victim of the comments – have a right to work in an environment that is free from demeaning and offensive comments.

The Court recognized that victims may be reluctant to bring formal complaints due to fear of reprisal, embarrassment, or the prospect of further humiliation. Accordingly, the OHSA imposes a positive obligation on employers to investigate potential incidents of workplace harassment regardless of whether a formal complaint has been made. The Divisional Court overturned the arbitrator’s decision and the matter was remitted to a different arbitrator for reconsideration. This decision was appealed by the Union, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Divisional Court’s decision.

This decision confirms that once a potential incident of workplace harassment is brought to an employer’s attention, the OHSA requires that an investigation be commenced. A victim’s reluctance to report an incident, or be involved in the investigation does not relieve an employer from this duty.

Harassment in the workplace is a serious issue. If you need assistance with an employment matter, contact one of our employment lawyers at Barriston Law today.

Written by Alison Firth and Jim Ruddy

This article is also published on Resolvd.ca