Subscribe to our newsletters
Employers Must Investigate Harassment Even Without a Complaint: Lessons from Metrolinx v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587 (2025 ONCA 415)
Workplace harassment policies exist to protect employees and reduce organizational risk, but employers sometimes hesitate to investigate misconduct that happens off duty, or where the affected employee chooses not to file a complaint. Metrolinx v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587 (2025 ONCA 415) removes much of the room for that hesitation. The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that an employer's duty to investigate workplace harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act can be triggered even when the conduct occurs off duty on personal devices, and even when the targeted employee never files a formal complaint. For Ontario employers, the decision is a clear signal that learning of a harassment incident, by any route, starts the clock on a statutory obligation.
One important caveat on the result. The Court of Appeal did not finally uphold the five terminations. It dismissed the union's appeal, which left in place the Divisional Court's decision to quash the arbitrator's reinstatement award, and sent the grievances back to a new arbitrator to be decided again on the correct legal framework. The lasting value of the decision is its guidance on the duty to investigate and on disciplining off-duty conduct, not a final ruling that these particular dismissals were justified.
Do your harassment and investigation policies require a formal complaint before you act?
If so, they may not match your obligations under the OHSA. Metrolinx confirms the duty to investigate can arise the moment you become aware of an incident. Get your policies and investigation procedures reviewed before an incident tests them.
Call: 1-800-771-7882 Review My Harassment PoliciesBackground: a private group chat becomes a workplace problem
Metrolinx, the provincial transit authority that operates GO Transit, dismissed five unionized employees for sexual harassment. The employees had taken part in a private WhatsApp group chat on their personal phones in which they made derogatory and sexist comments about colleagues, including allegations that a female colleague, identified in the proceedings as Ms. A, had advanced her career through sexual favours.
Ms. A received screenshots of the messages and showed them to a supervisor, but she did not file a formal complaint and indicated she did not want the matter pursued. In 2020, Metrolinx's human resources department became aware of the messages through other internal channels and launched a formal investigation. After receiving the investigator's report, Metrolinx terminated all five employees for cause.
The union grieved the dismissals. The arbitrator allowed the grievances and ordered the employees reinstated, reasoning that the communications were private and off duty, that there was insufficient evidence of workplace impact, that Metrolinx had not properly followed its own investigation procedures, and that termination was disproportionate. Metrolinx applied for judicial review. The Divisional Court found the award unreasonable and quashed it. The union was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and sent the matter back for a fresh arbitration.
What the Court of Appeal found
Off-duty conduct can justify discipline
The Court reinforced that conduct outside working hours can still ground discipline where it harms the workplace. Private messages on personal phones are not automatically shielded by a privacy expectation. Where off-duty communications damage workplace relationships or a colleague's ability to work in a safe environment, the employer may discipline conduct that harms its legitimate interests.
The duty to investigate does not require a complaint
Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the duty to investigate is triggered by a harassment incident, not only by a formal complaint. The obligation applies even where the affected employee declines to participate or asks that the matter not proceed, and even where the employer learns of the misconduct through screenshots, witnesses, or internal reports rather than a complaint.
Internal policies cannot limit statutory duties
The arbitrator had treated Metrolinx's internal policy, which framed investigations as complaint-driven, as a reason the duty had not arisen. The Court rejected that. An internal policy cannot override the OHSA. The Court also disagreed that an employer becomes a conflicted complainant simply by investigating: no complainant is required for an investigation to proceed.
Decision-makers must not rely on harassment myths
The Court held it was an error of law to treat the absence of a complaint as evidence that no harassment occurred. Employees decline to complain for many legitimate reasons, including fear of retaliation, power imbalance, and discomfort. Reasoning from "no complaint" to "no harassment" is exactly the kind of stereotype the analysis must avoid.
Why this matters for Ontario employers
Key lessons for Ontario employers
Investigate on knowledge, not just on complaints
Build your process so that an investigation can begin whenever the organization becomes aware of a possible harassment incident, regardless of how it surfaces. Waiting for a formal complaint, or treating a reluctant employee as a reason to stand down, is the precise failure the Court flagged. Document what you knew, when you knew it, and what you did in response.
Align your policies with the OHSA, not the other way around
Review harassment and investigation policies to remove any language that conditions an investigation on a formal complaint. A policy cannot shrink a statutory duty, and a policy that suggests it can will be held against the employer. Make sure procedures cover informal reports, third-party reports, and incidents discovered internally.
Address off-duty and online conduct directly
Set clear expectations that conduct outside working hours, including private messaging and social media activity between employees, can affect the workplace and attract discipline. Employees should understand that a private group chat is not a liability-free zone when its contents target a colleague.
Keep investigations neutral, thorough, and well documented
Use trained, impartial investigators, maintain procedural fairness, and keep detailed records of the investigation and the disciplinary reasoning. In complex or high-risk matters, consider external legal or investigation support. A defensible process is what carries the discipline through a grievance or a wrongful dismissal claim.
Proportionality of the discipline still matters
The duty to investigate is settled, but whether termination is the proportionate response remains a fact-specific question, as the remittal in this case shows. Match the discipline to the seriousness of the conduct and the surrounding circumstances, and get legal advice before imposing termination or other serious discipline in a harassment matter.
Treat reluctance to complain as expected, not exculpatory
A targeted employee's decision not to come forward says nothing about whether harassment occurred. Train managers and HR to assess incidents objectively rather than reading silence as a sign that nothing happened, and to support employees who may have legitimate reasons for staying out of the process.
Would your harassment investigation hold up if a dismissal landed in arbitration or court?
Metrolinx shows that the duty to investigate, the handling of off-duty conduct, and the proportionality of discipline are all scrutinized closely. A proactive review of your policies and procedures is far cheaper than defending a flawed process after the fact.
Book a Compliance Review Or call us: 1-800-771-7882How Achkar Law helps employers
Achkar Law represents Ontario employers in workplace investigations, harassment disputes, and arbitration matters in both unionized and non-unionized workplaces. We help employers conduct legally defensible investigations, draft and update harassment and workplace policies, assess disciplinary and termination decisions, defend grievance, arbitration, and wrongful dismissal claims, and build proactive strategies that reduce litigation risk before an incident arises.
Related resources
For how courts assess just cause and the higher statutory standard in a harassment dismissal, see our summary of Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited (2022 ONCA 310).
For support reviewing policies, investigations, and compliance obligations, see our labour and employment compliance services.
Call us at 1-800-771-7882 for a confidential consultation.