While legislation and policies vary slightly, regulators and courts expect a procedurally fair, reasonable, and timely process. From HR’s perspective, the process generally unfolds as follows:

Step 1: Receipt of Complaint
Complaint may be written or verbal.

HR documents:
-Who is involved
-Nature of allegations
-Date(s), location(s)
-Desired outcome (if stated)
-Immediate assessment of risk (e.g., violence, harassment, reprisal).

Step 2: Initial Assessment / Triage
HR determines:
-Does this fall under policy (harassment, discrimination, misconduct)?
-Is a formal investigation required, or could informal resolution be appropriate?
-Are interim measures required?
(e.g., schedule changes, temporary reporting changes — not disciplinary)

Step 3: Decision to Proceed with a Formal Investigation
-Confirm investigator (internal or external).
-Define scope and allegations.
-Create an investigation plan.

Step 4: Notify the Respondent (Accused)

This should occur before the respondent interview. Best practice is to notify them:
-That a complaint has been made
-The general nature of the allegations
-That an investigation is underway
-That they will have an opportunity to respond
-Expectations around confidentiality and non-retaliation

This notice does not need to include every detail, but must be sufficient for the respondent to understand the case against them and prepare a response.

Step 5: Interview the Complainant
-Clarify allegations.
-Gather details, witnesses, documents.
-Explain investigation process and expectations.

Step 6: Interview the Respondent
-Provide full opportunity to respond.
-Ask open-ended questions.
-Allow them to identify witnesses and evidence.
-Maintain neutrality.

Step 7: Interview Witnesses
Make sure interviews are based on information gathered and maintain confidentiality to the fullest and most necessary extent possible.

Step 8: Evidence Review and Findings
Assess credibility using accepted factors (consistency, plausibility, corroboration). Make findings on a balance of probabilities.

Step 9: Investigation Report

This typically includes:
-Allegations
-Methodology
-Evidence summary
-Findings
-Conclusion (policy breach or not)

Step 10: Outcome & Communication
HR or leadership determines corrective action (if any).

Communicate outcomes:
Complainant: whether allegations were substantiated (limited detail)
Respondent: findings and consequences (if applicable)

Is HR Required to Notify the Accused Before Meeting With Them?
Yes — as a matter of procedural fairness and best practice.

While most Canadian statutes do not prescribe exact sequencing, natural justice principles require that the respondent:
-Is informed of the allegations before being asked to respond
-Has a meaningful opportunity to prepare
-Is not ambushed or misled

Calling someone into a meeting without prior notice of allegations creates risk, particularly if:
-The matter could lead to discipline
-Notes are taken
-The meeting is later characterized as an “investigation interview”

Written vs. Verbal Notice

Written notice is strongly recommended, especially for:
-Harassment
-Discrimination
-Serious misconduct

Verbal notice may be acceptable for lower-risk matters, but should always be documented afterward.

If HR Failed to Notify First — How to Rectify (While Investigation Is Ongoing)

This is recoverable if addressed promptly and transparently.

Immediate Corrective Steps
1. Pause the Investigation Process
Do not rely on statements obtained under flawed process as final evidence.

2. Issue a Formal Written Notice to the Respondent
Include:
-Acknowledgement that a complaint has been made
-Clear outline of allegations (dates, nature, policy area)
-Confirmation that no conclusions have been reached
-Explanation of their right to respond fully
-Confidentiality and anti-reprisal reminder

You do not need to admit fault, but you should clarify the process.

3. Re-Interview the Respondent
Clearly state:
“This meeting is part of the formal investigation. You are being given a full opportunity to respond to the allegations.”

Allow them to:
-Amend or clarify prior statements
-Provide new information
-Identify witnesses or evidence

If notes were taken previously:
-Treat the earlier meeting as informational, not determinative.
-Document that procedural fairness has now been restored.

4. Document the Correction

Internally note:
-What occurred
-How fairness was restored
-That the investigation remains open and unbiased

This documentation is critical if:
-The matter is challenged
-There is a grievance, complaint to a regulator, or legal review

4. Key HR Risk Considerations

Failing to notify the respondent first can expose the organization to:
-Allegations of bias or predetermined outcome
-Breach of procedural fairness
-Findings being overturned by tribunals or courts
-Damaged credibility of the investigation
Rectifying the issue before conclusions are reached significantly reduces risk.

5. Do’s and Don’ts

Do:
Notify respondents before interviewing them
Provide sufficient detail to allow response
Use written notice
Correct process errors immediately

Avoid:
Surprise investigation meetings
Treating early conversations as “off the record”
Relying on flawed interviews without remediation

I hope this helps!
-HRInsider Staff

Yes — your understanding aligns with typical practice in British Columbia, with some important context and nuance:

In BC, employers are expected to share a written outcome summary with both the complainant and the respondent after a workplace investigation (especially for harassment, bullying, discrimination, or other serious misconduct). This summary typically:
-Communicates whether the allegations were substantiated
-Outlines corrective or remedial actions (if any)
-Provides enough information for both parties to understand the outcome without exposing private details about other individuals or evidence sources.

This reflects best practice rather than a specific statutory requirement — BC’s system is less prescriptive than, for example, Ontario’s explicitly mandated summary-sharing rules. BC’s approach is enforced through WorkSafeBC’s bullying/harassment policies and general obligations under the Workers Compensation Act and related OHS policies to investigate complaints promptly, fairly, and confidentially.

Confidentiality of the Full Report
The full investigation report (with detailed evidence, interview notes, witness statements, and investigator analysis) is generally treated as confidential internal documentation. Employers typically do not automatically provide the full report to the complainant or respondent because:
-It often includes personal information about others (witnesses, third parties).
-BC employers must balance transparency with privacy obligations under common law and privacy principles.
-Releasing full reports can risk damaging confidentiality and discourage candid witness participation.

Rather, employers usually:
-Retain the full report internally
-Provide redacted versions only if legally required (e.g., in litigation, tribunal proceedings, or as ordered by a court/regulator)
-Share pertinent parts of the report with external counsel when necessary for legal defense.

Legal/Privacy Considerations
BC courts have recognized the privacy interests of witnesses and third parties in workplace investigation reports and may restrict disclosure in civil proceedings where privacy outweighs probative value.
Employers are also expected to protect confidential information and not disclose details that are not necessary for the parties’ understanding of outcomes.

When Full Reports May Be Shared
There are limited circumstances where a full or more detailed report may be disclosed:
Litigation or tribunal proceedings — a court or adjudicator may order production after balancing privacy and relevance.
Union/collective agreement rights — where the collective agreement entitles the union or the employee to more detailed documentation.
Regulatory requests — if a regulator (WorkSafeBC, BC Human Rights Tribunal) specifically requires it.

I hope that helps!
-HRInsider Staff