The Importance Of An Effective Threshold Assessment Process

I’ve been reflecting this week on my experience at the 2026 Workplace Investigations in Canada Conference. It was such a great opportunity to connect with peers in the workplace investigations space, and to learn from others in the field through a number of stellar presentations. One that has really stayed with me was Ros Salvador’s presentation, A Deeper Dive: Supporting multifaceted analyses in the investigation of anti-Black racism. Referencing a report by Dr. Rachel Zellars, Ros commented on the impact on Black employees of being respondents in workplace investigations, the potential for the disproportionate investigation of Black employees, and that investigations can arise as a targeted or systemic form of discrimination. They suggested a relationship between these concerns and investigations that proceed without passing a fulsome threshold assessment, and raised the possibility of a staged approach in some circumstances.

This had me thinking about the importance of an effective threshold assessment process within a broader process to address workplace complaints.

When delivering investigation training, we typically start by discussing the importance of an organization asking itself the “threshold question” when in receipt of employee concerns: if this information we have received is true, would it indicate a breach of an organizational policy or applicable legislation. We often note that asking this question differently – for example, “Is this information likely to be true?” and then only investigating if the answer is yes – is a great way for bias to creep into a complaint response process before an investigation even starts. Given the consequences of inaction in the face of a complaint that meets the threshold, organizations are often encouraged to err on the side of investigating when allegations exist in the gray area of a threshold analysis.

While I am not suggesting that we move the pendulum so far that we err on the side of not investigating, it is good to be reminded that over-investigating is not without impacts beyond just high costs and/or stretched internal resources. In light of that, an organization might:

• Engage in a robust intake process, such that circumstances in which a complainant cannot provide particulars in support of the allegations do not trigger full investigations.
• Maximize available supports to investigation parties and ensure that their processes are trauma-informed for both complainants AND respondents.
• Consider resolution processes, where appropriate, to mitigate against the personal and organizational impacts of an investigation process.
• Track threshold decisions to ensure that complaints against racialized respondents (or any other groups) are not being disproportionately screened in.

Fairness in a workplace investigation (including at the threshold assessment stage) is a two-way expectation for both complainants and respondents. An organization’s choices, even if seemingly neutral, can adversely or disproportionately impact respondents based on race, gender, or other personal characteristics. Accordingly, it’s important to take these initial decisions about what process to follow as seriously as any other decisions that an investigator makes once an investigation process has commenced.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.