Evidence Archives - Rubin Thomlinson

Trauma-informed approach to discrimination investigations

November 23, 2022 | By Dana J. Campbell-Stevens

In the world of workplace investigations, we often hear of adopting a trauma-informed approach in sexual harassment cases. We especially heard this during the #MeToo movement, and, indeed, it was necessary.

Innocent chatter or collusion? Addressing both in workplace investigations

September 13, 2022 | By Clara Matheson

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.

One-party workplace investigations: What to do when a party won’t participate

August 23, 2022 | By Liliane Gingras

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.

The why and how of incorporating visual aids into investigation reports

June 14, 2022 | By Clara Matheson

A lot of work goes into producing an investigation report that is well-written and well-reasoned. But the finished product is more than just a set of words—it is also a visual experience for the reader. While visual elements such as white space and word font certainly enhance readability, in this blog post I focus on the communicative power of visual aids (images, tables, charts, etc.) and provide some best practices for including them in investigation reports.

L’affaire Render ou l’histoire d’un cas de tolérance zéro en matière de harcèlement sexuel | The Render’s case or a story of zero tolerance in sexual harassment

June 7, 2022 | By Alexandra Djagba Oli

Si l’année 2022 nous a déjà fourni amples sujets de discussions tels que la gifle de Will Smith aux Oscars, ou encore le procès en diffamation de Johnny Depp, la récente décision de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario dans l’affaire Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited, 2022 ONCA 310 (CanLII), rejoint, à mon avis, aisément ce palmarès.

Two times a charm: Why we conduct follow-up interviews in our workplace investigations

May 25, 2022 | By Heather Shields

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.

Credibility Assessments in a “He Said- She Said”

May 17, 2022 | By Chantel Levy

If you’re conducting workplace investigations, it’s inevitable that at some point you’ll be faced with the dreaded “he said-she said” file. I think of a “he said-she said” scenario to be one where two parties have widely divergent versions of events and there are no eyewitnesses or other direct evidence.

Let’s talk about texts: How to deal with evidentiary challenges relating to electronic messages in workplace investigations

May 3, 2022 | By Liliane Gingras

I’m not a particularly prolific sender of text messages (perhaps a generational thing). I’ve learned through doing investigative work that it is not unusual for work colleagues to exchange many (thousands!) of text messages over a relatively short period.

Serious insight for serious situations.