Upcoming Webinar: June 12, 2025 @ 12:30 P.M. (ET) | Mental Health Considerations for Workplace Investigators | Register Today!
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.
L’une de nos responsabilités premières en tant qu’enquêteur(e)s en milieu de travail est d’être impartial. Les raisons de cette exigence sont assurément évidentes : si nous menions une enquête avec une idée préconçue de nos conclusions finales ou si nous favorisions une partie à l’enquête au détriment de l’autre, notre enquête ne serait pas équitable, et les participant(e)s n’auraient aucune raison de croire à l’intégrité de celle-ci.
At some point in their careers, most investigators will be asked to investigate a matter involving a workplace romantic relationship. I have certainly seen my fair share of these cases over the years. In this blog, I provide an overview of the circumstances that may lead to an investigation into a workplace romantic relationship, and tips on how to conduct such an investigation.
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.
For many years prior to joining Rubin Thomlinson LLP, my work involved the investigation of matters that did not relate to harassment or discrimination. I held in-house roles in the private and public sectors that involved the oversight of whistleblower programs.
By now, you’ve probably heard about deepfakes. Maybe you followed the story of Taylor Swift, who was targeted by deepfakes that appeared to show her endorsing Donald Trump, or maybe you’ve seen concerns raised about how deepfakes of politicians could impact our next election here in Canada.
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2025
