B.C. requires an employer to make meaningful investigation of an apparent human rights violation. In Bertrend v Golder Associates, the employer’s decision to terminate the probationary employment of the complainant was found to be a Code violation because it failed to take steps to investigate her behaviour which reflected an emotional issue. The company had also committed to do by its harassment policy:

Ms. Bertrend’s depression does not insulate her from termination. However, once she disclosed her depression and raised an allegation of discriminatory conduct in the context of an employment offer, Golder had a responsibility to investigate Ms. Bertrend’s complaint. It had communicated that commitment to its employees under its harassment policy.

In addition, in British Columbia, an immediate and effective investigation taken by the employer, followed by appropriate remedial steps may result in the dismissal of the complaint. This approach is designed to reward employers for acting decisively.

A good example of this conduct is the case of McLuckie v London Drugs.  The complainant had alleged that a representative of the company made inappropriate comments about her sexual preference, made other alleged comments which she considered sexual and also inappropriately touched her.

The company investigated the complaint and ordered that the alleged offender be assigned into a different department to avoid direct contact. This action was found to be fair and the complaint was dismissed.

The Tribunal stated the reasons for dismissing the case for these reasons:

1. Where the employer has addressed the alleged unfair conduct, it may not further the purposes of the Code to continue; ¹
2. Such may result in a duplication of resources; ²;
3. The parties should be encouraged to show compliance with Code issues without the necessity of appearing before the Tribunal;
4. A settlement or other unilateral affirmative action to resolve the offensive behaviour will cause a hearing to be unnecessary.

Such reasoning makes perfect logic. It also emphasizes the impact of a fair and effective investigation. The employer is rewarded by acting fairly and quickly and in effect, implementing the Wall test. Such actions will very much assist all parties reach a prompt and effective resolution and avoid unnecessary proceedings.

Such an investigation will also assist the employer in making a submission that the case should be dismissed at an early stage as the facts do not support a liability finding. ³

See also this review.