Upcoming Webinar: March 4, 2026 @ 12:30 P.M. (ET) | “The Top 10 Workplace Investigation Cases of 2025” | Register Today!
Those who manage internal investigations generally want workplace investigations to feel fair. That usually means making sure people feel heard, allowing input, and trying to keep the process collaborative. However, there can also be an urge to treat investigation reports as collaborative documents that can be substantively refined before they are treated as truly final.
In a recent blog, my colleague Dana J. Campbell-Stevens highlighted that workplace investigations involving allegations of systemic discrimination can be particularly complex. She noted challenges such as understanding what the complainant is truly alleging and determining whether the concern lies in a discrete action or in how an entire process operates.
Dans un récent billet, ma collègue Dana J. Campbell-Stevens soulignait la complexité particulière des enquêtes portant sur des allégations de discrimination systémique. Elle relevait les défis liés à l’identification de ce que la personne plaignante allègue réellement, ainsi que la difficulté de déterminer si la situation dénoncée découle d’un geste ponctuel ou du fonctionnement global d’un processus organisationnel.
A question that has come up in my work as an investigator, which prompted me to research the issue (and now blog about it), is: whether it is racist to not want to talk about race? And, what if someone takes it a step further, and judges or penalizes an employee for wanting to talk about race?
I attended the “HR Leaders Summit Canada” conference last week, and participated in a panel where we discussed how human resources can lead organizations for “clarity, capacity, and care.” My co-panelists (Mark Edgar, Rawan El-Komos, and Momina Javaid, moderated by Donna Gray) had much insight and excellent ideas for HR professionals.
In a previous blog, I wrote about the unique challenges of conducting “C-suite investigations” — in other words, investigations into a member or members of an organization’s senior leadership. It is not unusual that these types of investigations are prompted by a complaint made directly (and sometimes anonymously) to an organization’s Board of Directors.
Si vous travaillez dans le domaine des relations de travail ou du droit du travail pour un employeur de compétence fédérale, vous savez déjà que, dans certains cas, vous avez l’obligation d’enclencher un processus formel en matière de harcèlement, ce qui implique parfois de mener une enquête
Despite the ongoing political debate regarding DEI initiatives and the decision by some organizations to de-prioritize or even dismantle them, systemic discrimination continues to be a known pervasive issue within organizational structures in Canada.
Our firm sometimes acts as a third-party service provider to do the intake of complaints or whistleblower reports on behalf of clients. Clients retain our intake services for a variety of reasons – for example, if there are insufficient resources internally to handle the volume of complaints, or as a good governance measure to encourage those in the organization to come forward.
Dans ce billet, nous vous présentons notre équipe actuelle d’enquêteurs bilingues, composée de Frédérick J. Doucet et de Frédérik Forget. Tous deux mènent leurs enquêtes en anglais et en français, une compétence essentielle chez Rubin Thomlinson puisque nous prenons des dossiers de partout au pays. Nous voulions donc vous donner un aperçu de ce qu’implique le fait de mener des enquêtes bilingues et de la façon dont ces deux professionnels ont développé les compétences linguistiques qui leur permettent de s’épanouir dans leur rôle.
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2026
