Upcoming Webinar: September 18, 2025 @ 12:30 P.M. (ET) | Mental Health & Workplace Investigations – Part 2: Applied Lessons from the Field | Register Today!
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.
We speak (and blog and train) often about how to conduct a workplace investigation. However, it’s important to remember that employers need to be aware of their legal obligations relating to when to start one and how to finish it. Two recent decisions provide important information about these investigation bookends.
Under Ontario’s human rights jurisprudence, when an employee raises a complaint of discrimination, the employer has a duty to address that complaint. The employer’s response to a complaint, including the investigation it undertakes, must meet a standard of “reasonableness.”
A challenging question that employers may face is how to respond to historical complaints of harmful behaviour when such complaints arise and cause conflict in the workplace. It is not unusual for complaints to not be brought forward immediately. At times we see complaints of incidents dating back a few years, sometimes even over a decade.
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2025
