Upcoming Webinar: May 7, 2024 @ 12:00 P.M. (ET) | Cultural Initiatives in Policing: Part 2 – Calgary Police Service | Register Today!
As external investigators, our investigation ends with the delivery of a written report to our client. These reports always include findings of fact, and an analysis of those findings to determine whether there has been a breach of a policy and/or legislation. Sometimes, our clients will also ask that a report include recommendations for next steps.
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.
In a recent blog post, I discussed a case where the Ontario Superior Court found an investigation to be inadequate and unfair because it was based on rumour, gossip, and hearsay, and ultimately resulted in the employer making an unjustified and costly decision to terminate an employee’s position.
Like many of you, over the last couple of years, I have been hearing the buzz around the ban of the now controversial critical race theory (CRT) from some of our neighbours south of the border.
A lot of work goes into producing an investigation report that is well-written and well-reasoned. But the finished product is more than just a set of words—it is also a visual experience for the reader. While visual elements such as white space and word font certainly enhance readability, in this blog post I focus on the communicative power of visual aids (images, tables, charts, etc.) and provide some best practices for including them in investigation reports.
I recently conducted a workplace investigation that included an allegation that an internal workplace investigation was unfair. Several witnesses who were interviewed as part of the internal investigation had provided evidence that was favourable to the complainant, but neither party to the internal investigation was provided with an opportunity to respond to this witness evidence in a follow-up interview.
I’m not a particularly prolific sender of text messages (perhaps a generational thing). I’ve learned through doing investigative work that it is not unusual for work colleagues to exchange many (thousands!) of text messages over a relatively short period.
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2024
