When people issues carry organizational, reputational, or legal risk.
Workplace investigations rarely arrive neatly. They surface during conflict, uncertainty, and pressure, often when timelines are tight and scrutiny is high. When the outcome matters, you need more than answers. You need a process that is fair, independent, and able to stand up to review.
What this service is (and is not)
Our HR / Workplace investigations are:
- Independent and investigation‑first, not advocacy‑driven
- Structured to ensure fairness, clarity, and defensibility at the level the situation requires
- Proportionate to the actual risk, not over‑ or under‑scoped
- Led by senior investigators with built‑in quality assurance and oversight
They are not:
- Litigation exercises disguised as investigations
- Volume‑based or rushed processes that create downstream risk
- Delegated to junior staff without oversight
- Designed to produce a preferred outcome
When Organizations Call Veritas
Organizations call us when:
- Allegations involve senior leaders or roles with heightened organizational, safety, or reputational risk
- Internal HR teams face capacity, independence, or perceived conflict constraints
- Heightened scrutiny from internal stakeholders or formal review processes is expected
- Legal counsel requires an investigation that preserves independence and procedural integrity
- The outcome must be defensible to senior leadership, boards, regulators, or the public
How Our Workplace Investigations Work
We do not take a one-size-fits-all approach to workplace investigations. We help clients choose an investigative process that matches the nature of the concern, the level of risk and complexity, and the reporting required to support a fair, objective, and defensible outcome.
Lower-risk or early-stage concerns often require a focused process, while higher-risk matters may require a more comprehensive investigation, detailed credibility and evidence analysis, additional quality assurance, and reporting that can withstand legal, regulatory, board, grievance, media, or public scrutiny.
Three Levels. One consistent high standard.
Preliminary Report | Investigation Report | Investigation Report | |
|---|---|---|---|
Fact Finding | Moderate Risk or Complexity | Higher Risk or Complexity | |
Best for | Threshold assessments, focused fact-finding, or early-stage concerns | Narrow scope, lower-level misconduct, risk or complexity | High-risk or complex matters |
Main objective | Establish facts and next steps | Supports informed internal decision making | Produce a fully defensible investigative record |
Typical outcome | Brief summary and recommendations | Focused Investigation report | Comprehensive investigation report |
Designed to withstand | Fact-Based Assessment and Decision | Objective finding and internal decision-making | Legal, regulatory, grievance, media, board, tribunal, or public scrutiny |
Every Engagement Follows the Same Core Process
Regardless of the level of engagement selected, every workplace investigation follows the same core process:
- Scope and independence checks – Clear mandate and independence confirmed before work begins.
- Respectful, structured interviews – Interviews conducted with care, impartiality, and attention to dignity, fairness, and psychological safety.
- Evidence analysis – Disciplined review of information with documented reasoning.
- Findings and quality assurance – Findings reviewed through quality assurance before finalization.
This structure exists to protect complainants, respondents, decision-makers, and the organization as a whole.
A Flexible Tool for Early-Stage Concerns
In some situations, organizations do not yet know whether a formal investigation is required. A Preliminary Review can be adapted to the circumstances and may involve complaint screening, threshold assessments, focused fact-finding, documentation review, or an assessment of whether another workplace intervention may be more appropriate.
Important note
The structure, level of detail, and reporting approach are tailored to the scope, risk, and complexity of the matter. This ensures the work matches the seriousness of the situation, with the appropriate level of rigor and documentation.
Not sure which level applies?
You don’t need to decide this alone.
Together on an intake call we will assess the nature of the concerns, the risk exposure, and the organizational context, and recommend the appropriate approach.
Built to Stand Up When Decisions Are Tested
Our workplace investigations are built for organizations where decisions may be tested:
- Collective agreements and academic freedom matter
- Decisions may be tested through grievance, arbitration, or appeal
- External review, disclosure, or regulatory attention is a real possibility
- Organizational credibility and trust are at stake
We design our work so you can explain both the outcome and the process with confidence.
What Happens in the First 24-48 Hours
Once you start an intake:
- We confirm scope, independence, urgency and any conflicts
- We provide a clear written proposal, including scope, timeline, and fees
- We confirm rates and proceed only once you approve and give direction
- We clarify roles, decision points, and what happens next
- We identify any immediate risks requiring stabilization
You know what to expect, what it will cost, and who is accountable.
No ambiguity. No waiting in the dark.
Start an Intake
If you are facing a workplace issue where fairness, clarity, and defensibility matter, start an intake. We will help you confirm whether an independent workplace investigation is the right next step and what a proportionate scope looks like.
Client Feedback:

Jennifer Mazer, M.Ed, CPHR, CCP
Licensed Investigator
Director, Workplace Investigations
Jennifer Mazer specializes in complex workplace investigations, workplace culture assessments, and harassment and violence risk management. She brings more than 20 years of experience across federally and provincially regulated environments, leading high‑risk investigations involving harassment, violence, discrimination, human rights, whistleblower complaints, and serious misconduct in unionized and non unionized settings. Her expertise includes trauma‑informed and procedurally fair investigations, credibility assessment, evidence analysis, and the development of clear, defensible reports that withstand grievance, appeal, and regulatory scrutiny. She has built and led investigation programs, mentored investigators and HR leaders, and designed investigation frameworks, policies, and quality assurance standards to strengthen organizational response to complex people risk. Jennifer is also listed on the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS) Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Registry of Investigators, supporting federally regulated employers.
