Investigator Chronicles is here! Episode 1 features Cory Boyd | Watch Now
In the first episode of our new Investigator Chronicles series, Cory traces his path into investigation work through the Ontario Human Rights Commission, where reading the reports from investigators first piqued his interest, and reflects honestly on what the work really involves.
In this case involving Queen’s University, two individuals brought a motion in court to put an immediate stop to an ongoing harassment investigation being conducted by an external investigator.
I’ve been reflecting this week on my experience at the 2026 Workplace Investigations in Canada Conference. It was such a great opportunity to connect with peers in the workplace investigations space, and to learn from others in the field through a number of stellar presentations.
When it comes to anonymity in workplace investigations, there are various facets. One of our partners, Liliane Gingras, recently wrote a blog about the risks of promising complainants a guarantee of anonymity throughout the investigative process. However, I would like to talk about situations where complaints are made by individuals who are completely unknown to the employer.
“If you can’t write out your mandate in a short and simple paragraph, don’t start.”
When delivering our Workplace Investigation Fundamentals sessions, this is how I start the discussion on mandate. Simply put, an investigator’s mandate is the thing (or things) that they are being asked to do, the decision (or decisions) that they are being asked to make.
We speak (and blog and train) often about how to conduct a workplace investigation. However, it’s important to remember that employers need to be aware of their legal obligations relating to when to start one and how to finish it. Two recent decisions provide important information about these investigation bookends.
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)…
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.
