Investigations of misconduct within schools, sports organizations, churches, and community or recreational organizations or programs can involve children as parties and/or witnesses. Any investigation that involves children presents a challenge for investigators for a variety of reasons. On a human level, the vulnerability of a possible child victim of misconduct is taxing to deal with emotionally and psychologically. And the investigator bears the added burden of trying to ensure that no additional harm is visited on the child through the investigation process. In considering the role of an investigator as someone who must collect evidence from a child, the challenge for the investigator is to find an approach that will enable the child to provide the best evidence they can. The additional challenge here is that there are limited resources available to guide investigations that involve child parties or witnesses.
In a recent decision, T.A. v Manitoba (Justice), 2019 MBHR 12 (CanLII), the Manitoba Human Rights Board of Adjudication (the “Board”) took a major step by ordering the Government of Manitoba to revise the criteria for changing sex designation to include recognition of non-binary sex designations on Manitoba birth certificates. This was the first adjudication in Manitoba on gender identity since its inclusion in the Manitoba Human Rights Code (the “Code”) in 2012.
2020 will see important shifts in how employers in federally-regulated industries prevent and address workplace harassment and violence. New rules will soon come into effect that will increase employers’ responsibilities to respond to incidents of harassment and violence, and also prevent any such incidents from occurring. I will be writing a series of blogs about these requirements so that employers and investigators can better prepare for what’s coming.
Workplace investigators all do the same thing when they conduct an investigation: they tell participants to keep the investigation and its subject-matter confidential. This instruction helps protect participants’ privacy and maintain the integrity of their evidence. But what happens to this confidentiality requirement when the investigation is over? How does an employer respond when a participant in an investigation says that they want to tell their story, in their own words, to an audience beyond the painstakingly neutral and objective investigator?