As a workplace investigator, maintaining neutrality and avoiding bias is always top of mind. I found a recent Federal Court case, Whitelaw v. Canada (Attorney General), to be helpful, because it provides a great summary of the case law in this area, and insight into what the Court evaluates when dealing with allegations of procedural unfairness in investigations.
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.
Most Canadian jurisdictions require employers to have policies that address issues like workplace harassment, discrimination, and violence. In our investigation practice, we read many of these “respect at work” policies, and the overwhelming majority of them are clearly written to specifically comply with legislative requirements.
La jurisprudence québécoise regorge de décisions particulièrement intéressantes pour les personnes menant des enquêtes en milieu de travail et pour les employeurs.
Québec’s legal landscape is rich with cases that are particularly interesting for workplace investigators and employers, although many remain overlooked due to the lack of English translations.
Janice Rubin and I recently completed a two-part webinar series on workplace restoration. During the sessions, we received several interesting questions, all of which we did not get the opportunity to answer. The questions were excellent and thought provoking and represent some of the questions that we are frequently asked when engaging in this work.
In workplace restoration processes, when engaging with the respective parties, it often becomes apparent to me that the root of their conflict may be due to differences in their respective personalities. That is because those differences impact how they communicate, how they approach their work, their expectations of others, their expectations of themselves and so much more.
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.
Follow us:
Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Tel: (416) 847-1814 | Fax: (416) 847-1815
Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2026
