Upcoming Webinar: November 27, 2025 @ 12:30 P.M. (ET) | “Deep Fakes” and Other New Technological Challenges in Workplace Investigations | Register Today!
Janice Rubin and I recently completed a two-part webinar series on workplace restoration. During the sessions, we received several interesting questions, all of which we did not get the opportunity to answer. The questions were excellent and thought provoking and represent some of the questions that we are frequently asked when engaging in this work.
I remember it like it happened yesterday. My colleague and I were packing our briefcases at the end of a long day. Another colleague approached and offered to carry my colleague’s briefcase. She declined his offer, and he offered again. She refused again, and he said, “But you’re such a little thing.” I remember this incident so clearly, even though it happened several years ago. It was disorienting and awkward.
This is the third and final post in a series of blog posts that I wrote on data and investigations.
To recap, workplace investigations are also an invaluable source of data that organizations can use in a variety of ways – outside of the investigation process – to help their workplaces get into the zone – the optimal workplace that is characterized by respect, civility, tolerance, inclusivity, and no, or few, employment-related legal problems.
In most of our workplace investigations, the organization that retains us asks us to measure our findings of fact against one or more of their policies. This means that, once we have made findings of fact, we must decide whether the respondent’s conduct has breached a policy or policies that the organization has asked us to apply.
We often hear horror stories about workplace complaints being handled poorly — instances where employers don’t act, investigators miss the mark, and so on and so forth. I’ll now be the bearer of good news and share what the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (“Tribunal”) recently found to be reasonable handling of a complaint in Salanguit v. Parq Vancouver and another.
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.”
Over the past several years, high profile allegations, investigations, and findings of sexualized violence in sports have garnered significant media attention, both within Canada and around the world. As a workplace investigator who focuses on investigations and assessments in the education sector, these incidents have gotten me thinking about the intersection between secondary and post-secondary institutions, athletes, and misconduct.
La plainte est généralement l’acte originel de toute enquête en milieu de travail. Elle est autrement dit le signal d’alerte qui active une série de mécanismes depuis l’évaluation de son sérieux par l’employeur jusqu’à l’ultime décision sur la manière de l’adresser.
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2025
