At the outset of an investigation, a complainant may ask whether their identity will be disclosed to the person who is the subject of the complaint (the “respondent”). Investigators need to be careful about how they answer that question.
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.
Le gouvernement de l’Ontario a récemment annoncé le dépôt du projet de loi 190 (également connu sous le nom de Loi de 2024 visant à œuvrer pour les travailleurs, cinq). Le projet de loi propose des modifications à divers textes législatifs liés à l’emploi. L’un de ces changements est l’élargissement des définitions du harcèlement au travail et du harcèlement sexuel au travail en vertu de la Loi sur la Santé et la Sécurité au Travail (« LSST ») pour y inclure certaines activités virtuelles.
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.
The Ontario government recently announced its introduction of Bill 190 (also known as the Working for Workers Five Act, 2024). The bill proposes changes to various pieces of employment-related legislation. One of these changes is the expansion of the definitions of workplace harassment and workplace sexual harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) to include certain virtual activities.
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.
We speak (and blog and train) often about how to conduct a workplace investigation. However, it’s important to remember that employers need to be aware of their legal obligations relating to when to start one and how to finish it. Two recent decisions provide important information about these investigation bookends.
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.”
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2026
