Upcoming Webinar: February 10, 2026 @ 12:30 P.M. (ET) | “The Top 10 Workplace Investigation Cases of 2025” | Register Today!
One of our core responsibilities as workplace investigators is to be impartial. The reasons for this are probably obvious: if we were to conduct an investigation with a predetermined idea of the outcome, or if we were to favour one party over the other, our investigation would not be fair, and participants would have no reason to trust in the integrity of the investigation process.
There is no question that internal investigations are resource intensive. They need to be done fast, but thoroughly. They need to be done by people who have an appropriate skill level. Parties to an investigation need to be treated fairly and in a manner that is trauma informed.
In my last blog, I wrote about different types of employee misconduct, other than harassment and discrimination, that may warrant an investigation; for example, conflicts of interest, time theft, fraud, and the disclosure of confidential information.
Employers and workplace investigators face a continually-evolving understanding of “discrimination” under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”). In recent years, the case law has recognized that discrimination can occur in a wide variety of forms, often subtle and indirect.
La jurisprudence québécoise regorge de décisions particulièrement intéressantes pour les personnes menant des enquêtes en milieu de travail et pour les employeurs.
Québec’s legal landscape is rich with cases that are particularly interesting for workplace investigators and employers, although many remain overlooked due to the lack of English translations.
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.”
I recently wrote a blog discussing a case adjudicated by the Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission, which involved allegations of sexual harassment at a small local restaurant and the cost consequences of that employer failing to have a sexual harassment policy in place.
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2026
