In Rougoor v Goodlife Fitness Centres Inc., 2024 HRTO 213 [Rougoor], the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO” or the “Tribunal”) highlighted that under the Ontario Human Rights Code [Code], employers are generally not required to investigate complaints from former employees.
Background
The employee worked as a personal trainer at one of the employer’s gym locations in London, Ontario, for nearly two months until she was dismissed in January 2018.
In July 2018—more than six months after her dismissal—the employee informed her former employer that that she had been sexually harassed by a co-worker during her employment.
Later that year, the employee filed an application with the Tribunal. As part of her application, the employee claimed that, in addition to the complaint made in July 2018, she had also orally reported the harassment to her managers during her employment. The employee further claimed that the employer failed to take any action in response to her complaints, including conducting an investigation as required under the Code. The employer disputed this, claiming that it was unaware of any alleged harassment that the employee was experiencing until July 2018.
Decision
The HRTO dismissed the employee’s application. In doing so, the Tribunal found that the employee did not raise her harassment complaint to the employer until July 2018, by which time the employer was no longer obligated to investigate the complaint.
The Tribunal explained that while the Code requires an employer to investigate allegations of harassment and discrimination, this obligation stems specifically from an employee’s statutory right to employment without discrimination. Importantly, this means the duty to investigate exists only within an active employment relationship. Generally, once employment ends, the employer’s investigative duty also terminates, as there is no longer a connection to the underlying, employment-specific right that the Code protects.
The credibility of the witnesses played a decisive role in the Tribunal’s determination of when the complaint was first raised. The employee’s testimony suffered from internal inconsistencies, and notably, she could not provide any corroborating evidence—either from witnesses or documents—to support her allegations. The employer’s case proved much stronger as multiple witnesses, including the employee’s former managers, consistently testified that they had never been made aware of the alleged harassment during her employment. Their testimony was substantially corroborated by the documentary evidence.
Based on its analysis, the HRTO concluded that the employee reported allegations of harassment only after her employment had ended, by which time the employer had been released from its duty to investigate. As such, the employer did not breach its obligations under the Code.
Takeaways for Employers
In light of the Rougoor decision, employers should keep the following takeaways in mind:
- Duty to Investigate May Survive if Misconduct Impacts Current Employees: While Rougoor confirms that employers generally have no legal duty to investigate complaints from former employees, this duty may continue if the alleged misconduct involves and could be affecting current employees still in the workplace. For example, if a former employee reports that their supervisor harassed both them current staff, the employer must still investigate the allegations involving current staff. The complainant’s employment status does not override the employer’s obligation to address potentially ongoing workplace discrimination and/or harassment.
- Document, Document, Document: Thorough documentation plays a crucial role in litigation. In Rougoor, the employer’s case was significantly strengthened by consistent witness testimony and supporting documentary evidence, including internal documents and emails. This highlights the importance of maintaining detailed records of all workplace incidents to safeguard against future claims.
This blog is provided as an information service and summary of workplace legal issues.
This information is not intended as legal advice.