Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association

When a toxic leader leaves, it can seem the workplace problem has been resolved. In practice, however, the effects of that leadership often persist long after the departure. For employers, the departure may mark not the end of the problem, but the beginning of workplace restoration. Getting that process right will be critical to the organization’s long-term success.

Understanding the Workplace Post-Departure

A foundational step in any restoration process is understanding the current state of the workplace and how employees are functioning within it. The issues will vary from one workplace to another, and the response should be tailored accordingly. Relevant questions include:

• Do employees feel safe raising concerns?
• Is there ongoing distrust of HR or senior leadership?
• Do divisions or silos remain among employees?
• Have unhealthy behaviours become normalized?

How an employer gathers this information should reflect the scale of the problem. Targeted conversations with employees and managers may be sufficient in one team, while broader concerns may call for facilitated focus groups or a workplace or culture assessment.

The assessment should also examine whether and how broader, systemic conditions (such as unclear reporting relationships, ineffective escalation mechanisms, or too much authority concentrated in one position) contributed to the dysfunction. Those conditions can outlast the leader, and addressing them is key to reducing the risk of recurrence.

Addressing Outstanding Complaints

The departure of a toxic leader also does not automatically resolve outstanding legal obligations. In Ontario, employers have an obligation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to ensure that incidents and complaints of workplace harassment are investigated as appropriate in the circumstances. An investigation may therefore remain necessary even when discipline is no longer a practical outcome.

Beyond meeting legal obligations, factual findings can provide an important foundation for restoration. Where disputed events or alleged misconduct need to be addressed, those questions should be resolved through the investigation rather than the restoration process. Findings can clarify what occurred, identify who was affected, and inform appropriate restorative measures. Employers should assess outstanding complaints individually, considering the seriousness of the allegations, their effect on current employees, possible reprisal concerns (including through employees loyal to the former leader) and applicable workplace policies.

Municipal and unionized workplaces may involve additional layers of complexity. Unionized environments will likely require consideration of collective agreement provisions governing complaint processes, investigations, and discipline. Where the conduct concerns an elected or appointed official, the municipality may need to address both its obligations as an employer and separate governance requirements, including applicable codes of conduct, by-laws, or Integrity Commissioner processes. A complaint involving a councillor’s treatment of municipal staff, for example, may engage both workplace and governance processes, and one may not fully address the issues raised by the other.

Restoring Trust

Equally important is dedicated attention to interpersonal divisions and strained relationships that may persist after the leader’s departure.

Where those issues persist, a facilitated process can help employees address the impact of what occurred, hear different perspectives, and identify practical ways to work together effectively. The facilitator should be experienced in managing conflict and setting appropriate boundaries, including ensuring that the process does not become a forum for deciding disputed allegations. Its focus should remain on the impact on employees and the relationships that now require attention.

Facilitation is not appropriate in every case. A group process may be ineffective or harmful where there is a significant power imbalance, unresolved allegations, trauma, active reprisal concerns, or unwilling participants. Employers should assess suitability and participant readiness before proceeding.

Setting Up the Next Leader to Succeed

Conventional onboarding may be inadequate where previous leadership contributed to serious workplace dysfunction. Restoration should therefore also be designed to set the incoming leader up for success. The incoming leader should not, however, carry that process alone; senior leadership and HR should continue to own the broader plan and ensure the leader has the resources and support needed to implement change.

Targeted onboarding can give the new leader enough context to understand relevant issues while respecting confidentiality. That context should translate into clear expectations and objectives. For example, if middle managers felt unable to exercise authority under the former leader, rebuilding decision-making capacity should be identified as an early priority. Regular check-ins and structured employee feedback can help assess whether those changes are taking hold and identify emerging issues before they become entrenched.

The period following a toxic leader’s departure is pivotal. It is an opportunity to address remaining harm, remedy the conditions that allowed dysfunction to take hold, and equip the incoming leader with a clear mandate and support for change. Handled well, restoration can stabilize the workplace and mark a genuine turning point for organizational culture and reputation.

Written by: Inggrid Wibowo and Devin Landry, Lawyers & Workplace Investigators, Williams HR Law LLP