I was 22 years old and very early in my career when I ran one of the most memorable investigations I've ever been part of. 

One employee filed a complaint against three colleagues, alleging harassment. We investigated. What we uncovered was that none of it was true. That led to a second investigation into why the complaint was made in the first place, and ultimately to the complainant's termination, because we could prove the allegations had been fabricated.

She challenged it. About two years later.

I remember turning to a colleague and saying, "I’m thankful we documented everything". Every meeting summarized. Every note dated. Every decision written down. Because my memory sure wasn't going to carry us through that review. An early mentor of mine had drilled one habit into me: after every meeting, write a summary, because our memories are terrible. She was right then, and she's even more right now.

I was reminded of that story during the latest episode of the Unmuted Podcast, where I sat down with Samantha Carter, Founder of trACT Software. Samantha is a CHRL, a CIPP/C, a licensed private investigator, and has spent more than 20 years doing this work. The episode was called "When Your Investigation Gets Investigated", and the central idea is one every HR leader needs to sit with: Nobody reviewing your investigation later is asking whether you got the right answer. They're asking whether you got there the right way.‍

‍Defensible Doesn't Mean Right

This is where a lot of HR teams get tripped up. We tend to think a "good" investigation reaches the correct conclusion. Samantha defines it differently.

A defensible investigation is one where someone else could pick up your file, read it from complaint intake through to the final outcome letter, follow your logic, and reasonably arrive at similar decisions based on the evidence you documented.

That includes the decisions you made not to do something. If a complainant hands you a witness name and you choose not to interview that person, the file needs to say why. Maybe the witness is a close friend with an obvious motive. Maybe what they'd offer is hearsay. Fine. Write it down.

‍Undocumented decisions are defensibility gaps. And opposing counsel, a Ministry of Labour inspector, or an adjudicator will find them.

‍The Process Is What Gets Examined

In Ontario, the Occupational Health and Safety Act requires employers to conduct an investigation that is "appropriate in the circumstances". The province's guidance says that means an investigation that is prompt, objective, confidential, and thorough, run by someone who understands the legislation and the employer's policy.

Notice what's missing from that list: getting the outcome "right”.

Samantha made the point that when an investigation lands in front of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, that's precisely the lens. Was the process followed? Was it thorough? Was it neutral? Was it appropriate in the circumstances? The board isn't relitigating who was telling the truth. It's auditing how you went about finding out.

And the rules aren't uniform. Every province has its own nuances; Samantha noted that some are moving toward requiring a third-party neutral investigator in certain circumstances, and other jurisdictions are tightening up too. In the UK, the Employment Rights Act 2025 is raising the bar significantly, including a duty to take "all reasonable steps" to prevent sexual harassment and a much shorter qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims. If your workforce is spread across provinces, states, or countries, "we followed our policy" isn't enough. You need to know which rules govern which file.

‍Scrutiny Is Rising, and AI Is Part of the Reason

Here's something I hadn't fully thought through until Samantha raised it. Someone unhappy with an investigation outcome can now paste the outcome letter into an AI tool and get a detailed critique of every gap in the process within minutes. Samantha is seeing more return correspondence poking holes in investigations, which can spin up a second investigation on its own, often about retaliation.

The audience for your investigation file used to be a lawyer, eventually, maybe. Now it's anyone with a chatbot and a grievance.

‍You Can't Build the Investigation After the Decision

This was the part of the conversation that hit hardest for me, because I've seen it happen more than once. Leadership wants someone gone. They don't want to pay them out. They're willing to "take the risk”. So the termination happens first, and the investigation gets assembled afterward to justify it.

Samantha pointed to recent Canadian cases, including a long-term care home and a large Canadian bank, where terminations were scrutinized after the fact and the underlying investigations didn't hold up. The lesson is blunt: you cannot create the investigation after the action. Reinstatement two years later is a real possibility. Can you imagine?

The fix starts at the very beginning, with the threshold assessment. Samantha frames it as a simple question: If this allegation were true, what would we need to do to uncover the evidence? If the answer means a full investigation, then you do a full investigation. Not a version of one shaped around a conclusion someone already reached.

‍Fair Is Slower. That's the Point.

Twenty years ago, Samantha said, the prevailing view was that an investigator's job was to get people to confess. Surprise the respondent with the allegations in the meeting and watch for the tell. That approach is not just outdated. It actively undermines procedural fairness. Here's what she says good looks like today:

• Set expectations at the outset. Tell every party what the process involves and what your role is. Don't promise an outcome, or a level of confidentiality you can't maintain.
• Give respondents the allegations in writing, in advance, with enough detail that they can respond meaningfully. Not remembering something on the spot isn't the same as lying.
• Treat every party the same way. Same demeanour, same courtesy, same access to appropriate information.
• Go back with contradictory evidence. If the respondent's account contradicts the complainant's, return to the complainant and let them respond before you assess credibility.

That last one is where internal HR people get frustrated, because it means more back and forth on top of a full-time job. I get it. When I was doing these, the pressure was always to get through it fairly but quickly, so the black cloud stops hanging over the team. But speed was never worth compromising the integrity of the file. It still isn't.

‍Where Small and Mid-Sized Organizations Get Stuck

Most HR teams at growing companies don't investigate every week. A complaint shows up, you drop everything, and you're working from memory, a template from three jobs ago, and a folder of disconnected documents and spreadsheets. By the end, there's self-doubt. Was that defensible? Did I miss something?

That gap is exactly why Samantha built trACT Software, a workplace investigation case management platform that centralizes evidence, manages interviews, and keeps documentation audit-ready, so the process itself does some of the heavy lifting. trACT is currently running a beta program for HR professionals and investigators who want to help shape it.

‍A Final Thought

When I asked Samantha for the one thing she wanted listeners to take away, her answer was simple. It takes time to be thorough, and how well you plan determines how well you finish. Plan who you need to interview. Know your process. Follow it. Document your decisions along the way.

That's exactly what saved my 22-year-old self two years after the fact. Not my judgment. Not my memory. The file.

The outcome is what people remember. The process is what gets examined. The file is what holds up.

‍The full Unmuted Podcast episode with Samantha Carter can be viewed below -- or, go to https://www.goscalehr.com/ or https://wrkdefined.com/podcast/unmuted.

‍