In a recent blog, my colleague Dana J. Campbell-Stevens highlighted that workplace investigations involving allegations of systemic discrimination can be particularly complex. She noted challenges such as understanding what the complainant is truly alleging and determining whether the concern lies in a discrete action or in how an entire process operates.
Dans un récent billet, ma collègue Dana J. Campbell-Stevens soulignait la complexité particulière des enquêtes portant sur des allégations de discrimination systémique. Elle relevait les défis liés à l’identification de ce que la personne plaignante allègue réellement, ainsi que la difficulté de déterminer si la situation dénoncée découle d’un geste ponctuel ou du fonctionnement global d’un processus organisationnel.
Si vous travaillez dans le domaine des relations de travail ou du droit du travail pour un employeur de compétence fédérale, vous savez déjà que, dans certains cas, vous avez l’obligation d’enclencher un processus formel en matière de harcèlement, ce qui implique parfois de mener une enquête
You receive an anonymous complaint through your whistleblowing portal that your CFO is having an affair with a subordinate. Your board receives a complaint that your CEO is creating a toxic work environment. Some of the most challenging complaints for organizations to address are complaints against C-level employees and other members of senior leadership.
The Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”) made headlines last year when they fired two executives, over allegations of an undisclosed relationship between them that led to preferential treatment. One executive was junior to the other and had received significant promotions and pay increases, allegedly with the other’s influence.
In my previous blog post, You Ought to Know? Rethinking the ‘Reasonable Person’ Standard When Disability Is a Factor, I shared my experiences applying the reasonable person standard in investigations where the respondents identified as having cognitive, intellectual, or psychological disabilities that may have affected their ability to understand that their behaviour may be unwelcome.
There may be more pressing news right now, but the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni lawsuit caught my eye. If you haven’t read about it — in a nutshell, Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni acted as a couple in a recent movie, “It Ends with Us.”
As a workplace investigator, maintaining neutrality and avoiding bias is always top of mind. I found a recent Federal Court case, Whitelaw v. Canada (Attorney General), to be helpful, because it provides a great summary of the case law in this area, and insight into what the Court evaluates when dealing with allegations of procedural unfairness in investigations.
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2026
