Upcoming Webinar: June 12, 2025 @ 12:30 P.M. (ET) | Mental Health Considerations for Workplace Investigators | Register Today!
One of my favorite traditions this time of year is reviewing the annual top 10 lists. These lists are fun to read but also inspiring, filling me with the hope that I will somehow manage to watch all the top movies, read the best books, and binge the must-see TV series from 2024.
I recently presented a webinar with my colleagues, Janice Rubin and Elizabeth Bingham, called, “How to be a Good Second Reader.” The webinar was aimed at those who, like me, review investigation reports.
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.
Recently, while drafting an investigation report in French, I surprisingly struggled to find an appropriate way to translate “counter-complaint.” In the context of civil litigation, in French, a counterclaim is “une demande reconventionnelle,” but a quick internet search also suggests terms such as “contre-plainte” or “contre-recours.”
So, you found yourself dealing with what appears to be a counter-complaint in the investigation you are conducting. Before embarking on this bend in the road, the first step, and likely the most obvious, is to confirm what you are dealing with and whether it affects your mandate.
Ainsi, vous retrouvez face à ce qui semble être une plainte reconventionnelle (« a counter-complaint » en anglais) dans l’enquête que vous conduisez. Avant d’aborder ce nouveau virage, la première étape, et probablement la plus évidente, est de confirmer ce à quoi vous avez faire et si cela affecte votre mandat.
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.
I have been an adjudicator for four different administrative tribunals over the course of more than 20 years. This experience has served me well since I have found that many adjudicative skills are transferable to investigations.
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2025
