A recent arbitration decision, Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board v Ontario Principals’ Council, highlights an often misapplied principle: although employers may impose non-disciplinary suspensions during investigations, the decision must be grounded in a reasonable, evidence-based assessment and a meaningful balancing of interests.

Background

A high school principal was assigned to home with pay for nearly seven months while the employer investigated allegations of anti-Black racism arising from a student discipline decision. The leave was expressly non-disciplinary, with full salary and benefits maintained, but included restrictions such as no contact with members of the school community.

The allegations originated from a parent complaint, supported by an advocacy organization, regarding how the principal and vice-principal handled discipline involving a Black student. After meeting with the parent and the organization, senior leadership determined that a third-party investigation was required and removed both administrators from the school pending its outcome.

The investigation ultimately found the allegations unsubstantiated and confirmed the principal had not breached the employer’s policies. The union nevertheless challenged the initial decision to assign the principal to home, arguing it was unreasonable, arbitrary, and inconsistent with the requirement to exercise management discretion in good faith.

Decision

The arbitrator confirmed that employers may impose non-disciplinary suspensions pending investigation; however, that discretion is constrained. It must be exercised reasonably, in good faith, and based on an objective assessment of the information available at the time of the decision.

In this case, the employer failed to conduct a meaningful preliminary assessment before removing the principal from the workplace. The decision-maker relied largely on allegations raised by the parent and advocacy group without reviewing available records or seeking input from the principal or vice-principal. The arbitrator rejected the position that any such inquiry would interfere with the investigation, noting that basic fact-checking—such as reviewing documents or asking clarifying questions—would not have compromised the process.

The arbitrator further found that the employer failed to establish that the principal’s continued presence posed a serious and immediate risk to students, the integrity of the investigation, or the employer’s reputation. Concerns about potential harm were speculative, and there was no evidence that the principal had interfered with the investigation or that the student felt unsafe in her presence.

In addition, the employer did not meaningfully consider less intrusive alternatives. The arbitrator found that the principal could have remained in the workplace with appropriate restrictions, such as removing her involvement in discipline relating to the student or implementing oversight measures. The arbitrator further emphasized that the employer had an ongoing obligation to reassess the necessity of the home assignment as the investigation evolved.

While the arbitrator acknowledged that reputational considerations are relevant—particularly in the education sector—he concluded that a well-informed member of the public would not have lost confidence in the employer had the principal remained at the school with safeguards in place. By contrast, the unexplained removal of both administrators created its own reputational harm.

Although the decision was not found to be made in bad faith, the arbitrator concluded that it was influenced by a desire to respond to external pressure and demonstrate responsiveness to serious allegations, rather than by a balanced and evidence-based assessment. As a result, the employer’s decision to assign the principal home was found to be unreasonable and in breach of the parties’ agreement.

Takeaways for Employers

This decision is a reminder that non-disciplinary suspensions require thorough assessments and must be justified based on evidence as opposed to assertions.

• Conduct at least a preliminary assessment of the facts before deciding on interim measures: Employers should not treat serious allegations as automatically justifying removal from the workplace. Before imposing a temporary suspension, the employer should make reasonable efforts to understand the factual context, including reviewing available documents, timelines, policies, prior records, and other readily accessible information. Depending on the circumstances, this may also include asking basic clarifying questions of the employee or other relevant individuals. To be clear, a preliminary assessment does not require the employer to complete the investigation in advance, but it does require more than accepting allegations at face value.
• Be able to point to a concrete risk: A non-disciplinary suspension should be tied to an identifiable and evidence-based concern, such as a serious risk to safety, the integrity of the investigation, workplace operations, or the employer’s legitimate reputational interests. General discomfort, public scrutiny, or the seriousness of the allegations will not necessarily be enough. Employers should be prepared to explain why the employee’s continued presence in the workplace created a real and immediate concern, and why that concern could not reasonably be managed in another way.
• Consider and document less intrusive options first: Removal from the workplace should not be the default interim response. Employers should meaningfully assess whether the perceived risk can be addressed through narrower measures, such as temporary reporting changes, restrictions on particular duties, limits on contact with certain individuals, enhanced oversight, or reassignment of specific responsibilities.
• Continually reassess the proportionality of interim measures: Employers should revisit the necessity and scope of any interim measure as the investigation progresses, particularly where the leave becomes lengthy, new information emerges, witnesses have been interviewed, or the original risks become less pressing. A home assignment that may be defensible at the outset can become unreasonable if it continues longer than necessary or if the employer fails to consider whether restrictions can be modified, narrowed, or lifted. Employers should build in periodic check-ins and be prepared to explain why the measure remains necessary and proportionate.

This blog is provided as an information service and summary of workplace legal issues.

This information is not intended as legal advice.