Another Lesson in Procedural Fairness in Workplace Investigations

Introduction: Qi v Canada (Attorney General)

A recent Federal Court decision, Qi v Canada (AG), 2025 FC 1783, provides yet another lesson in what procedural fairness requires in workplace investigations.

The case concerned a judicial review of a grievance decision by the CRA's HR department, based on an investigation into allegations of workplace harassment. Interestingly, both parties agreed that the applicant’s right to procedural fairness had been breached. The key issue before the Court, then, was not whether the process was fair — but how to fix it.

Background: A Workplace Harassment Investigation Under Scrutiny

The applicant, an employee of the CRA, had filed several allegations of workplace harassment. An internal investigation was conducted, resulting in a final report that substantiated only one of the four allegations (a poisoned work environment).

The applicant challenged the process, claiming procedural unfairness in how the investigation was conducted and finalized. Both parties ultimately agreed the investigation process fell short of procedural fairness requirements — leaving the Court to determine the appropriate remedy.

Procedural Fairness Breaches Identified

The decision highlights a number of procedural fairness breaches:

1. Applicant was never given an opportunity to review/comment on the statements or evidence of the witnesses or responding parties, even after asking if there were any facts in dispute

2. Applicant asked to provide additional written materials and to address facts remaining in dispute but was ignored

3. Applicant was never provided with a copy of the preliminary report before it was finalized into a final report, even though she repeatedly asked for it and the other parties got a chance to review

4 . The final report explained why only one of the allegations (poisoned work environment) was substantiated and didn't address why the other 3 allegations weren't

The Remedy: Start Over or Reopen?

Having established that fairness had been breached, the main question was: what’s the appropriate remedy?

The respondent argued the investigation could simply be reopened from the point where the breach occurred, citing Brown v Canada (AG), 2024 FC 823. However, the Court found that case distinguishable — the Brown investigation was far more complex, involving 20 interviewees, 7 reports, and significant procedural delays.

By contrast, the Qi investigation involved only three interviewees and two preliminary reports before the final one.

Citing the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Cardinal v Director of Kent Institution, [1985] 2 SCR 643 (at para 23), the Federal Court reaffirmed that when procedural fairness is breached, the decision is typically invalid — and the proper remedy is to order a new hearing.

Accordingly, the Court ordered a new investigation to be conducted — either by the same investigator or a different one.

Key Takeaways for Employers and HR Professionals

• 
  

• Transparency and balance build defensibility. Give all parties a fair and balanced opportunity to review, respond, and clarify disputed facts.

• Document the process. Keep records of communications, submissions, and procedural decisions to show fairness and thoroughness. And if you've decided to ignore certain information or evidence received, explain why to avoid any appearance of inadvertent omission.

• Remedies can be costly. A redo of an investigation wastes time, money, and credibility — making upfront procedural diligence the better investment.

Interested in Learning More?

To learn more about my investigations practice, click here or contact me.