Upcoming Webinar: September 18, 2025 @ 12:30 P.M. (ET) | Mental Health & Workplace Investigations – Part 2: Applied Lessons from the Field | Register Today!
You receive an anonymous complaint through your whistleblowing portal that your CFO is having an affair with a subordinate. Your board receives a complaint that your CEO is creating a toxic work environment. Some of the most challenging complaints for organizations to address are complaints against C-level employees and other members of senior leadership.
The Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”) made headlines last year when they fired two executives, over allegations of an undisclosed relationship between them that led to preferential treatment. One executive was junior to the other and had received significant promotions and pay increases, allegedly with the other’s influence.
Being trauma-informed is something that we are hearing quite a lot about in the space of workplace investigations, and rightly so. There is a lot of good conversation happening as employers, investigators, lawyers, human resource personnel, etc., are all starting to understand and appreciate the value and importance of conducting trauma-informed workplace investigations.
By the time you read this blog, we will be entering week five of the federal investigation and legal proceedings involving Sean “Diddy” Combs. Side note: Combs faces charges of racketeering, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. For some, this trial may feel like a blockbuster movie—complete with shocking allegations involving guns, drive-by shootings, explosives, and even kidnapping.
As workplace investigators, we always think about the possibility of our work being legally scrutinized: either before a court, tribunal, or arbitrator. While we know that some cases carry greater risks than others, we know that the possibility of a legal challenge exists in every case.
Conducting workplace investigations can be tough on investigators. Staying physically and mentally healthy is crucial. I sometimes need help from others. Recently, I visited my athletic therapist, Natasha, for help with a stubborn knot in my shoulder and neck.
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.
Under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Ontario Human Rights Code, harassment is defined as engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2025
