CRA Harassment Workplace Investigation Overturned: What HR Professionals Need to Learn About Procedural Fairness
A Federal Court Ruling with Major Lessons for Workplace Investigations
For HR teams, a flawed investigation can undo all the hard work that came before. That’s exactly what the Federal Court found in
Qi v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1783 (CanLII) (“Qi v. Canada”), ruling that Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) investigation process breached procedural fairness and therefore was invalid.
Following policies alone is not enough if the workplace investigation process does not give employees a fair chance to be heard. The Court emphasized that neutrality, transparency, and ongoing communication are not optional in harassment investigations—they are legal expectations that protect both employees and the organization. See Qi v. Canada (at para. 49), where the Court relied on Cardinal v. Director of Kent Institution, 1985 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1985] 2 SCR 643 (“Cardinal”), at para. 23, which held that unfairness generally makes a decision invalid.
What Led to the Complaint
Qi joined the CRA in 2017 as a CS-01 developer and was promoted the following year. Her concerns arose while working in the Strategic Engineering and Technology Integration (SETI) team between March and July 2021.
On November 9, 2021, she filed two formal notices of occurrence under CRA’s Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations, naming her former team leader and mentor as respondents.
Her allegations, which the Court summarized as four broad themes, included:
- Inconsistent evaluations and degrading comments leading to a negative performance review
- Improper and offensive comments in workplace settings
- A poisoned work environment where she felt set up to fail
- Misuse of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) to intimidate her
She also reported specific incidents supporting these allegations, such as being told she “was not a qualified CS-02,” being assigned work designed to fail without adequate support, blame for errors that were not hers, and warnings she could be fired or demoted.
The CRA’s Investigation
The CRA appointed a workplace investigator on March 15, 2022. The investigation involved only four interviews: Qi, the two responding parties, and one witness. Significantly to the Court, Qi’s union representative was not interviewed.
During her interview on April 26, 2022, Qi provided substantial documentation to support her allegations, including:
- A detailed Excel spreadsheet outlining specific incidents
- Verbal explanations during the interview
- A same-day follow-up email summarizing key points
Despite this detailed evidence, Qi was not allowed to review or reply to the statements the other parties made to the investigator, notably:
- The statements provided by the respondents and witness
- Any preliminary or draft findings—even though these were shared with others
This lack of access became a central procedural fairness issue for the Court.
How Fairness Broke Down
When Qi later asked whether there were disputed facts or whether she would be able to review a draft report, her questions went largely unanswered.
Throughout June and July 2022, she repeatedly sought clarity on the evidence and the process, and even offered to participate in another interview if needed. Her messages either received no response or she was simply told she would see the final report, not a preliminary version.
On August 23, 2022, the workplace investigator issued the final report. Only one allegation of harassment—a poisoned work environment—was substantiated. The report explained that conclusion but provided no reasons for dismissing the other three allegations (harsh evaluations and criticism, improper and offensive comments, PIP misuse and intimidation), leaving significant aspects of her complaint unaddressed according to the Court.
Qi immediately objected that important incidents and evidence she had provided were ignored. She also reiterated that she was never allowed to rebut the statements given by others or comment on draft findings before the report was finalized.
CRA’s Response and the Grievance Process
For HR professionals, the key lesson is that fairness must be built into the investigation itself—it cannot be fixed after the fact. When the final investigation report was issued, the CRA moved directly to implementing a Preventive Measures Implementation Plan (PMIP) on September 1, 2022, mainly focused on additional training. However, these measures did not resolve the core concerns Qi raised about procedural fairness in the investigation process.
Recognizing that her fairness concerns had not been addressed, Qi filed an individual grievance on October 5, 2022, challenging both the findings and the investigation process. The grievance worked its way through the internal review system for nearly two years before being denied on September 18, 2024.
The Court found that the CRA wrongly concluded:
- The investigation was “complete” because the preventive measures had been implemented, and
- Qi could not use the grievance procedure due to section 208(2) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act
From an HR standpoint, this position highlights a common misstep: equating regulatory compliance with procedural fairness.
The CRA took the position during the grievance process that procedural fairness had been respected, even though Qi had not been allowed to see the evidence gathered from other parties or review any draft findings before the report was finalized—the very issue the Federal Court would later confirm as a fairness breach.
Why the Court Ordered a Full Redo
The CRA argued the investigation should simply be re-opened, allowing Qi to respond to the existing evidence while preserving the work already completed. In contrast, Qi maintained that the entire investigation needed to be redone, as the fairness errors affected the foundation of the process and could not be corrected retroactively. Justice Saint-Fleur agreed with Qi that the fairness issues were too serious to fix later.
The Court explained that breaches of procedural fairness normally invalidate a decision. The investigation in this case was relatively small, consisting of only four interviews and a few reports. Therefore, the Court reasoned that redoing the investigation would not cause the kind of delay or duplication seen in larger investigation cases.
The Court found that reopening the investigation would not correct the fundamental unfairness, as Qi had been denied the opportunity to respond at earlier stages. The Court relied on its own prior decisions confirming that when a complainant is not given access to evidence or preliminary findings, the proper remedy is a new investigation, not a partial correction.
As a result, the Court ordered that:
- The CRA’s September 18, 2024 grievance denial decision be set aside
- A new investigation be conducted, by either the same or a different investigator
- Qi must be allowed to see and respond to the evidence and any draft report
- The CRA must pay $1,200 in costs (at para. 52)
What HR Professionals Should Take From This Workplace Investigation Review Decision
This case highlights several essential principles for anyone responsible for workplace investigations.
- Employees must be able to see and respond to evidence.
If others see draft reports or provide statements, the complainant must be given the same opportunity. - Silence is not neutral.
When an employee repeatedly asks questions and receives no response, it undermines trust and fairness. - Final reports must explain all findings.
If an allegation is not substantiated, the workplace investigator must still provide a clear and reasoned explanation. In Qi’s case, only one allegation—a poisoned work environment—was substantiated, and the report did not explain why the other three were dismissed. - Fairness cannot be “fixed” after the fact.
If key steps are skipped, the entire workplace investigation may need to be redone. - Neutral third-party workplace investigators help ensure fairness.
Workplace investigation professionals such as Neil Hain Dispute Resolution understand federally regulated investigation requirements, how and when to respond promptly to workplace investigation participants, and how to maintain neutrality. This helps organizations avoid the oversights seen in this case.
At the time of drafting this article, two new cases along similar themes may be of interest to the reader. The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has overturned harassment findings and related remedial orders against two senior nephrologists, ruling that the Nova Scotia Health Authority (NSHA) failed to provide them with an adequate level of procedural fairness under its Respectful Workplace Policy: see Finkle v. Nova Scotia Health Authority, 2025 NSSC 373. And in another case, an Ontario tribunal found the Ford Motor Company of Canada liable for workplace reprisal after an employee relations manager conducted what the adjudicator characterized as a “patently deficient investigation” into allegations against a 28-year employee who had complained about his supervisor: see John Dean Snow v Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited, 2025 CanLII 122531 (ON LRB).
Conclusion
The Federal Court’s decision in Qi v. Canada shows how important it is to conduct fair, balanced, and transparent workplace investigations. When an employee is denied information, cannot respond to evidence, or receives no explanation for key findings, the process becomes unreliable.
By following clear fairness standards and using trained, neutral workplace investigators when needed, organizations can protect their people, their decisions, and their credibility—and prevent the costly and time-consuming consequences of a flawed investigation.
To ensure your workplace investigations are fair, transparent, and procedurally sound, contact Neil Hain Dispute Resolution for professional support.
