Upcoming Webinar: November 27, 2025 @ 12:30 P.M. (ET) | “Deep Fakes” and Other New Technological Challenges in Workplace Investigations | Register Today!
Ainsi, vous retrouvez face à ce qui semble être une plainte reconventionnelle (« a counter-complaint » en anglais) dans l’enquête que vous conduisez. Avant d’aborder ce nouveau virage, la première étape, et probablement la plus évidente, est de confirmer ce à quoi vous avez faire et si cela affecte votre mandat.
In 2017, Rubin Thomlinson conducted the Workplace Bystander Survey to gather insight into workplace bystanders (individuals who personally witnessed, heard of, or heard about harassment and discrimination in their workplaces).
I recently had the privilege of being a speaker at an webinar event hosted by the Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators (SOAR), to deliver training on fairness issues in investigations.
Most organizations allow employees to use some degree of discretion (i.e., use their own judgement) when making hiring, promotional, and pay decisions. I have noticed a trend in several of my recent investigations, which is that the exercise of managerial discretion became a source of friction and …
Holiday season is almost here, and as workplace investigators, we know that during office holiday parties, some employees, managers, or directors who may have had one or two too many drinks sometimes engage in different types of misconduct – including vexatious comments or jokes, and unwelcome sexual advances or physical contact – that negatively impact individuals and that can even poison the work environment. This is borne out by the case law.
In a workplace investigation, a corroborating witness is a person whose evidence supports or confirms the evidence of another witness, including a complainant or respondent. Given that people’s memories naturally fade over time, minor inconsistencies between witness accounts are often not significant and, in many cases, to be expected.
An investigation usually involves a complainant and a respondent. The basic premise is that as workplace investigators, we hear what each party has to say, collect other relevant evidence, and then weigh the evidence to decide whether, on a balance of probabilities, the allegations are substantiated.
I recently conducted a workplace investigation that included an allegation that an internal workplace investigation was unfair. Several witnesses who were interviewed as part of the internal investigation had provided evidence that was favourable to the complainant, but neither party to the internal investigation was provided with an opportunity to respond to this witness evidence in a follow-up interview.
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2025
