Investigator Chronicles Episode 4 is live! – Watch Now
In August 2020, my colleague Veronica Howard and I published a blog on conducting workplace assessments under Bill C-65. At that time, Bill C-65 and the related Regulations set out the requirements that federally regulated employers were required to meet in order to satisfy their obligations under the Canada Labour Code (CLC)…
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently considered this question in a case involving an appeal from a conviction of sexual assault.[1] The decision is an important one for any workplace investigator faced with assessing someone’s credibility.
At Rubin Thomlinson we deliver a lot of training on conducting workplace investigations and often the discussion turns to the costs of conducting an investigation, whether it be the monetary costs of an external investigation or the time costs of an internal investigation. These costs are typically balanced with the benefits of conducting an effective investigation, such as allowing employees to be heard, demonstrating a commitment to a respective workplace culture by “walking the talk” of policies, clarifying what actually occurred, and implementing targeted outcomes.
In February of this year, the federal government launched a survey open to all Canadians asking them about their opinions and experiences relating to harassment and sexual violence in the workplace. Participants were also encouraged to offer suggestions on how to improve workplaces in relation to these issues. The stated goals of the process were
Peter Merrifield commenced his service with the RCMP in 1998 and in June of 2007 commenced a civil action against the force, claiming damages for, among other things, the tort of harassment. On February 28, 2017, Madam Justice Vallée issued a 174 page judgment, finding in favour of Mr. Merrifield and awarding him damages in
