Missing interviews, ignored contradictions lead to employer liability for reprisal
An Ontario tribunal has found Ford Motor Company of Canada liable for workplace reprisal after an employee relations manager conducted what vice-chair Derek Rogers called a "patently deficient investigation" into allegations against a 28-year employee who had complained about his supervisor.
John Dean Snow, a stock keeper at Ford's Casselman Parts Distribution Centre, filed a workplace harassment complaint on April 2, 2024, about superintendent Mark Southon. The next day, Southon accused Snow of attempting to run him over twice with a reach truck and filed a conduct report that could have led to criminal charges and termination.
Dawn Casas, the employee relations manager handling the case, never interviewed Snow's direct supervisor, to whom the original harassment complaint was made. She also failed to interview the warehouse manager, who had spoken with both men about the incident. Most critically, she never investigated Southon's motive for filing his complaint against Snow, according to the Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dated Nov. 13, 2025.
Internal inconsistencies with investigation
Snow told Casas he had complained to his supervisor about Southon "sneaking around racks and hiding behind posts watching me and others while walking in non walkway areas." He then reported the same concerns to the warehouse manager, who said he would speak to Southon about his behaviour.
Within hours, Southon confronted Snow in the cafeteria. According to Snow's account, Southon said: "So Dean I heard u have a H/S issue with me."
Later that evening, Southon filed a conduct report alleging Snow had twice attempted to run him over with a reach truck. However, Southon's own report contained contradictions that should have raised red flags. He wrote that Snow was "stopping with the forks approximately 6 inches from my feet" and described how Snow "slammed the brakes and came to a stop directly beside my feet."
The Board noted these internal inconsistencies made the allegations unsustainable without further investigation into timing and motive.
Incomplete conclusion by Ford manager
Casas concluded on April 30, 2024, that "the facts gathered during the investigation did not on a balance of probabilities, substantiate the allegation" that Snow had attempted to run over Southon.
However, the Board found her investigation fundamentally flawed. Rogers wrote: "Ford Canada produced no evidence of any investigation into the complaint made by Mr. Snow on April 2, 2024 and no evidence of any investigation as referred to in the Ministry's Field Visit Reports."
Casas acknowledged in her statement: "During my interview with Mr. Snow, he did not indicate that he thought Mr. Southon had raised the complaint against Mr. Snow as health and safety reprisal. As a result, I did not investigate Mr. Southon's motive for raising these allegations as against Mr. Snow."
The Board found this reasoning inadequate, noting that once the Ministry of Labour became involved on April 16, 2024, investigating Southon's motive became essential to addressing the reprisal complaint.
Weak investigation and no defence
Under Section 50(5) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, employers must prove disciplinary action was not retaliatory. The Board found Ford Canada failed to meet this burden.
Rogers concluded: "There is no explanation whatsoever for Mr. Southon's accusing Mr. Snow of attempting to run him over when all of his evidence speaks to Mr. Snow's not having done so. Moreover, there is no explanation whatsoever for the failure of Dawn Casas—and therefore the failure of Ford Canada—to discern the critical inadequacy and failures of Mr. Southon's accounts and allegations."
The decision emphasized that Snow experienced "severe anxiety due to fear of reprisal" while waiting more than four weeks to learn whether the unsubstantiated allegations would end his 28-year career.
