Federal Court Upholds Harassment Investigation Findings Against Chief Administrator

Workplace harassment investigations can become complex, especially when senior leadership becomes the subject of a complaint. A recent Federal Court decision demonstrates how closely courts scrutinize employer responses under the Canada Labour Code and the Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations, and how delays or insufficient action by leadership can attract liability even without intentional wrongdoing.

In Carreau v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1537, the Court dismissed an application by the Chief Administrator of the Courts Administration Service (CAS), who sought to overturn a harassment investigation’s findings about her own handling of a serious employee complaint.

This case provides important guidance for federally regulated employers managing workplace investigations, leadership accountability, and procedural fairness obligations.

The Case at a Glance: What Happened?

An experienced CAS employee, Lucia Fevrier-President (LFP), raised concerns in 2022 about her new director’s conduct, alleging escalating pressure, unreasonable expectations, and deteriorating health as a result.

In 2023, LFP filed a second complaint, this time against three senior executives, including Chief Administrator Darlene Carreau. She alleged that CAS leadership failed to intervene, delayed addressing the situation, and left her to manage a harmful workplace environment without adequate support. She claimed this inaction amounted to workplace harassment under federal law.

A third-party investigator was appointed as required under the Regulations. After interviewing parties and witnesses, reviewing documents, and allowing all responding parties to correct factual summaries, the investigator issued a final report in May 2024. She concluded that the allegation against Ms. Carreau met the legal threshold for harassment and violence under the Canada Labour Code.

The report also included general recommendations aimed at improving CAS’s workplace safety processes and early risk intervention.

The Procedural Dispute

CAS initially treated the report as final, but later attempted to treat it as a “preliminary report” to permit additional submissions. This led to months of conflict between CAS, the investigator, and legal counsel about whether the investigator could be required to revise her findings. The investigator refused, emphasizing that the report was complete and final.

In January 2025, CAS informed Ms. Carreau that it would implement the report’s recommendations despite concerns about procedural fairness. Ms. Carreau then brought an application to the Federal Court seeking to quash the report and CAS’s decision, arguing she was denied the opportunity to comment and that the findings were unreasonable.

As Christopher Achkar, employment lawyer and founder of Achkar Law, explains:

“Harassment investigations involving senior leadership carry significant legal, reputational, and operational risk, and courts will closely examine whether the process was fair, thorough, and compliant. Before concluding or responding to an investigation, employers should speak with an employment lawyer to protect their organization and ensure the process can withstand scrutiny.”

What the Federal Court Decided

The Federal Court dismissed the application. It held that there was no basis to interfere with the investigation or with CAS’s decision to rely on the investigator’s report.

Key Findings

1. No Denial of Procedural Fairness

The Court concluded that the investigator followed all required fairness steps under the federal legislative scheme:

Ms. Carreau knew the allegations and evidence.
She participated fully in the process and provided extensive records.
She was allowed to correct factual information before the report was finalized.

The Regulations do not require investigators to solicit comments on their conclusions or provide draft reports. Allowing such steps would compromise the independence and integrity of federally mandated workplace investigations.

2. The Investigator’s Conclusions Were Reasonable

The Court rejected the argument that leadership “delay” cannot constitute harassment.
Under the Canada Labour Code, employers must take timely, proactive steps to prevent and address workplace harassment and violence. Senior leaders have heightened responsibilities to ensure a safe work environment.

The investigator reasonably determined that CAS leadership did not respond promptly to concerns that posed foreseeable risks to LFP’s well-being.

3. No Prejudice and No Legitimate Expectation

Although CAS briefly suggested the report might be “preliminary,” the Court found:

The investigator never agreed to revise the report.
CAS had no authority to require changes to a completed investigation.
Any misunderstanding could not create new procedural rights.

4. Mandamus Remedy Not Available

The Court declined to order CAS to appoint a new investigator. The Regulations do not allow employers to reject or redo completed findings solely because they disagree with the outcome.

Outcome

The application for judicial review was dismissed, and Ms. Carreau was ordered to pay $2,500 in costs to LFP.

Why This Case Matters for Federally Regulated Employers

This decision highlights several key principles for employers governed by the Canada Labour Code, including banks, telecommunications companies, transportation companies, and federal agencies.

Independent Investigations Must Be Respected

Third-party investigators operate independently. Employers cannot:

Demand revisions to final reports
Reopen investigations to influence conclusions
Require draft or interim findings

Respecting investigator independence is essential for legal compliance.

Leadership Accountability Is Real

The Court confirmed that inaction by senior leaders can meet the legal definition of harassment and violence when it exposes employees to foreseeable harm.

Employers should act promptly, document each step, and ensure leadership follows established procedures.

Procedural Fairness Has Defined Limits

Responding parties are entitled to:

Understand the allegations
Respond to the evidence
Correct factual inaccuracies

They are not entitled to challenge or negotiate the investigator’s reasoning or conclusions.

Documentation and Early Action Protect Organizations

Comprehensive records of complaint intake, risk assessments, corrective steps, and follow-up actions are critical. Delay or poor documentation significantly increases legal and operational risk.

How Achkar Law Helps Federally Regulated Employers and Employees

Workplace harassment investigations under federal legislation are complex, and missteps can result in costly litigation, workplace disruption, and employee harm.

Our team assists with:

Conducting or overseeing investigations
Advising on compliance with the Canada Labour Code and Regulations
Representing employers and employees responding to complaints
Judicial review of investigation outcomes
Developing compliant workplace policies and leadership training

Whether your organization is addressing a complaint or strengthening its compliance framework, Achkar Law helps ensure your workplace is safe, legally compliant, and well-protected.

Facing a workplace harassment complaint under the Canada Labour Code?

Delays, missteps, or improperly handled investigations can expose your organization to serious legal risk, especially at the leadership level. Speak with an employment lawyer to protect your organization, ensure compliance, and respond strategically before liability escalates.

Toll-free: 1-800-771-7882

The article in this client update provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Achkar Law Professional Corporation and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Achkar Law Professional Corporation. ©

Share This!