The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) recently reaffirmed the central importance of the duty to investigate in the workplace. In Dabbagui v. AV Terrace Bay, 2026 HRTO 784, the Tribunal found that an employer’s failure to meaningfully investigate allegations of workplace discrimination before terminating a probationary employee resulted in a breach of the Human Rights Code (the “Code”).
This decision serves as a cautionary reminder that even where employers have legitimate concerns regarding an employee’s performance or conduct, a failure to properly address discrimination complaints may undermine or “taint” a termination decision.
What happened?
The applicant was employed as a power systems and electrical engineer and was subject to a six-month probationary period.
During his employment, he alleged that he was subjected to racist comments and harassing behaviour by colleagues and his direct manager, including being called a “terrorist” and other derogatory remarks related to his race and creed.
Approximately one month before his termination, the applicant submitted a written complaint to management requesting an investigation into what he described as a discriminatory workplace environment. He later sent a follow-up communication raising additional concerns.
The employer did not initiate a formal investigation. The applicant was not interviewed, no witnesses were canvassed, and no investigation report was produced. Shortly thereafter, the applicant’s employment was terminated during the probationary period based on performance and behavioural concerns.
What did the Tribunal decide?
The Tribunal allowed the application in part, finding that the employer breached its duty to ensure a workplace free from discrimination by failing to investigate the applicant’s complaints.
In its reasons, the Tribunal emphasized that the duty to investigate is a key mechanism through which employers meet their obligation to maintain a discrimination-free workplace under the Code. This duty requires more than a cursory review. Employers must take reasonable steps to understand the allegations, obtain relevant information, and assess whether discrimination may have occurred.
On the facts, the Tribunal found significant deficiencies at each stage of the established framework for evaluating whether a reasonable investigation has been conducted. While the employer was clearly aware of the applicant’s allegations, it did not take timely or meaningful steps in response. There was no formal acknowledgement of the complaint, no explanation of any investigative process, and no evidence that the employer attempted to gather information beyond speaking with one manager.
The Tribunal was particularly critical of the employer’s reliance on the perspective of a manager who was himself implicated in the allegations. No effort was made to obtain the applicant’s detailed account, to interview other potential witnesses, or to document any findings. The absence of records or an investigation report further undermined the employer’s position, as there was no evidence to demonstrate how the allegations were assessed or resolved.
Importantly, the Tribunal accepted that the employer had concerns about the applicant’s performance and attitude, and it did not accept all of the applicant’s broader allegations. However, this did not assist the employer. In the absence of a reasonable investigation, the Tribunal found that the discrimination allegations remained unresolved at the time of the applicant’s termination. As a result, the employer could not demonstrate that race and creed were not factors in the decision. The Tribunal therefore concluded that discrimination remained an identifiable factor linking the termination to protected grounds under the Code.
On this basis, the Tribunal found that it was more probable than not that discrimination was a factor in the termination. The failure to investigate was not treated as a mere procedural issue, but as a substantive failure that contributed directly to the finding of liability.
The applicant was awarded $10,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.
Takeaways
This decision underscores that the duty to investigate must be taken seriously once an employer becomes aware of allegations of discrimination. Employers are expected to respond with reasonable and timely steps, and informal or limited efforts may be insufficient. The Tribunal also reinforced that a failure to investigate is not merely a procedural issue. Where allegations are left unaddressed, the absence of an investigation may support an inference that discrimination was a factor in the outcome.
The case further confirms that probationary status does not diminish an employer’s human rights obligations. Employees on probation remain fully protected under the Code, and employers cannot rely on the flexibility of probation to bypass investigation requirements.
Finally, the decision highlights that even legitimate performance concerns will not cure a flawed process. Employers must ensure that discrimination complaints are properly addressed before making termination decisions, as failing to do so may undermine the validity of those decisions and expose the employer to liability.
