From Case To Practice: Workplace Investigations – When Will The Court Intervene?

The Case¹

In this case involving Queen’s University, two individuals brought a motion in court to put an immediate stop to an ongoing harassment investigation being conducted by an external investigator.

The two plaintiffs were a Queen’s student and a lawyer friend of his, both of whom were members of the Queen’s Athletics & Recreation Centre. They had an interaction with the Director of Recreation and Active Living which resulted in the Director filing a harassment complaint against them under the university’s applicable harassment and discrimination policy. Queen’s engaged an external investigator to conduct the investigation and he was in touch with the two plaintiffs (respondents in the investigation) in November of 2025.

On March 10, 2026, the plaintiffs commenced a lawsuit against Queen’s. The university responded indicating that they intended to defend the lawsuit on behalf of the university and the investigator, but the investigator retained his own lawyer the next day. Queen’s nonetheless decided to proceed with the investigation and on March 20, the investigator wrote to the plaintiffs advising them that the deadline for them to respond to the allegations was March 27. The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an immediate order to stop the investigation.

The plaintiffs argued that the investigator was not sufficiently independent because the university initially communicated that it was going to defend the lawsuit on behalf of the investigator. The motions judge found that the investigator’s independence was not compromised given that he retained his own lawyer within 24 hours.

On the question of whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction shutting down the investigation, the judge held that the legal test had not been met. Significantly, the judge noted that “absent exceptional circumstances, a court should not interfere in an administrative proceeding until it has concluded…”.

Here, the investigation was not yet at its halfway point. The investigator had provided the plaintiffs with a summary of the allegations against them and invited them to respond, but they had not done so. The judge noted that all of the concerns raised on the motion could and should have been raised as part of the plaintiffs’ response to the investigation process. As a result, there was nothing for the court to review – no ruling, no decision, no finding of any kind. The motions judge dismissed the motion with costs to Queen’s to be determined.

As the judge noted in their concluding remarks:

[59] Allegations of discrimination and harassment are serious. They should be investigated and, where discriminatory or harassing conduct is found, appropriate sanctions or remedies should follow.

[60] Queen’s University, as an educational institution and employer, has policies and procedures in place for exactly that purpose. Those procedures should be permitted to run their course without court intervention except in the rarest of circumstances. No such circumstances exist here.

What does this mean for the practice…

• Independence matters in workplace investigations.

Parties today understand the importance of investigation independence. To avoid a claim of lack of independence, investigators should be mindful of their actions. Investigators should be able to show, among other things:

• clear mandate and/or terms of reference
• no informal direction from the employer during the process
• documented decision-making autonomy
• no post-investigation “corrections” influenced by parties or the employer

• Courts are reluctant to intervene mid-investigation, but may in exceptional circumstances

The court here refused to stop the investigation, emphasizing that intervention is exceptional. However, a court might be inclined to intervene in a case where a clearly inappropriate or unreasonable process can be shown. Investigations are most defensible when they are:

• structured and procedurally transparent
• clearly grounded in policy or legislative authority
• following a recognizable fairness framework
• fair, thorough, timely and confidential

• The likelihood of a premature fairness challenge can be avoided by building fairness in early

The plaintiffs here had not fully engaged with the investigation process before seeking court intervention. Had the process not appeared fair from the outset, the court may have found reason to intervene. For example, failing to provide a respondent with clear notice of the allegations or not allowing them a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations might signal a process which is not being conducted fairly.

• Courts will not rescue parties from normal investigative discomfort

Investigations are difficult for the parties, but organizations have legal duties to conduct them. Just because a party is experiencing distress does not automatically make the process unfair or inappropriate. Investigators do not have to conduct a perfect process and they often have some discretion in how they proceed. Just because a party disagrees with a given step an investigator chooses to take (or not) does not necessarily make a process unfair or unreasonable.

Footnote

1 Stobo v. Queen’s University, 2026 ONSC 2253