Upcoming Webinar: December 7, 2023 @ 12:30 P.M. (EST) | The Strengthening Post-secondary Institutions and Students Act, 2022: What Does it Mean for Workplace Investigators? Register Today!
Reflections and news direct from Rubin Thomlinson.
Subscribe to receive updates of interest to you.
Filtered By:
Québec case law often goes unnoticed in the rest of Canada and remains inaccessible to most workplace investigators across the country, primarily due to linguistic reasons. This situation is quite unfortunate since Québec courts, tribunals, and adjudicators render interesting and innovative decisions every year in various areas of interest, including human rights and labour law.
La jurisprudence québécoise passe souvent inaperçue dans les autres provinces canadiennes et demeure inaccessible pour la grande majorité des enquêteurs et enquêteuses en milieu de travail du pays, et ce, pour des raisons principalement linguistiques. Cette situation est malheureuse, puisque chaque année, les tribunaux québécois rendent des décisions intéressantes et innovatrices dans plusieurs domaines d’intérêt, dont en droits de la personne et en droit du travail.
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.
En raison de lacunes dans les processus d’embauche, de nombreux employeurs se privent d’excellents candidats et s’exposent à des poursuites. Dans certains cas, ces lacunes découlent du choix des critères utilisés pour évaluer les qualifications des candidats.
Many employers miss out on excellent candidates and expose themselves to lawsuits because of flaws in their hiring processes. One example can be the choice of criteria they use to assess candidates’ qualifications.
In 2017, Rubin Thomlinson conducted the Workplace Bystander Survey to gather insight into workplace bystanders (individuals who personally witnessed, heard of, or heard about harassment and discrimination in their workplaces).
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2023
