Independent, impartial fact-finding into harassment, discrimination, bullying, and executive misconduct. Retained by employers, boards, and legal counsel across Canada and the US.
If you are dealing with a live complaint right now, the fastest path is the intake form below or a direct email. I run a conflicts check and a scoping call within one business day.
Most complaints do not require one. Bringing in an external investigator for every issue is neither practical nor necessary. These are the situations where an internal process is compromised before it starts.
HR reports to leadership. When the respondent is a manager, director, VP, or executive, even a genuinely impartial internal process will face credibility challenges from the complainant, from employees watching, and from any adjudicator who later reviews the file.
A prior relationship with either party, previous advice given on a related matter, or a complaint about HR's own handling of an earlier situation. Recognizing the conflict is the professional obligation. Handing the file to someone who does not share it is the answer.
Counsel has been retained, the conduct could constitute a human rights violation, or the organization is already in litigation involving the same parties. The documentation needs to be airtight and the credibility assessments explicit and grounded in evidence.
In a 20-person company everyone knows everyone, and HR may be one person who works closely with both parties. Independence is not a matter of professional commitment here. It is structurally impossible.
An explicit request for an outside process usually signals that the complainant does not trust the internal one. Proceeding internally anyway sends a clear message about whose interests the process is designed to serve.
Multiple complainants, competing accounts, long timelines, or allegations spanning different types of conduct. The risk is not bad faith. It is an under-resourced process that produces a report that does not hold up.
You get a written terms of reference before anything starts, so everyone knows the scope, the questions being answered, and what the deliverable is.
A confidential call to understand the allegations, the parties, and the jurisdiction. I check for conflicts before hearing any detail that would create one. If I am not the right fit, I will say so and point you elsewhere.
Scope, allegations to be investigated, standard of proof, confidentiality, reporting structure, timeline, and fee estimate, all in writing. Signed engagement and retainer before work begins.
Policies, employment agreements, prior complaints, communications, and any records relevant to the allegations. Interview plan built from what the documents show.
Complainant, respondent, and witnesses. Trauma-informed practice: participants get time and psychological space to explain themselves fully, and are treated with respect regardless of the allegations. That produces better evidence, not just a more comfortable interview.
Credibility assessed against the evidence, not against organizational knowledge. Findings on a balance of probabilities, stated plainly, with what the evidence supports and what it does not.
A written report structured for legal and board review, plus a debrief call. Recommendations on request. The findings should be something you can act on without the findings themselves becoming the next controversy.
Typical timeline. A single-complainant matter with three to five witnesses runs three to five weeks from engagement to final report. Multi-party matters, historical allegations, and heavy document review take longer. Where there is an active safety concern, interviews start sooner.
The difference between a report that survives review and one that becomes the next problem is almost entirely in how it is documented.
The allegations investigated, the questions answered, and the limits of the mandate, stated up front.
Who was interviewed, when, what they were told about the process, and what steps were taken to ensure fairness to both parties.
What each party and witness said, what the documents show, and where accounts conflict.
Explicit reasoning, grounded in the evidence: consistency, corroboration, plausibility, motive to fabricate.
On a balance of probabilities, with the reasoning shown, including allegations that were not substantiated.
Some organizations want findings only, particularly where counsel is advising on the response. Either is fine and is settled at scoping.
Investigations are billed hourly at $250 per hour against a written estimate provided after scoping. A retainer is required before work begins, and you are told immediately if the matter is trending outside the estimate.
There is no separate charge for report writing, and no travel charge within Metro Vancouver. Remote investigations across Canada and the US are conducted by secure video.
What drives the number: the number of parties and witnesses, the volume of documents, whether allegations are historical, and whether the matter is likely to be reviewed by a tribunal or court. Those are established at scoping, before you commit to anything.
Reduced rates are available for registered non-profits and charities.
If you advise employers and need a third-party investigator you can hand a file to, I would be glad to be on your list. Ask for the one-page investigator profile and keep it on file until you need it.
Investigations are frequently retained directly by counsel so the work can be conducted under privilege, with the report delivered to counsel rather than to the organization. Reports are written to be usable in that posture.
I am comfortable being cross-examined on process, and the file is documented on that assumption from the first interview.
Keep it brief and do not include names or identifying detail at this stage. I run a conflicts check first, then we talk.
Urgent? Email rachel@maxcyinvestigations.com directly, or book a call.
Conflicts check and scoping call within one business day of your first contact. Most investigations begin within three to five business days of a signed engagement, sooner where there is an active safety concern.
Yes, and a significant share of this work comes that way. Counsel often retains me directly so the investigation can be conducted under privilege. Reports are written to be usable in that context.
A private investigator licence application is in progress under BC's Security Services Act. Workplace investigations conducted through interviews and document review are undertaken in compliance with the Act. Anything requiring an unrestricted licence is scoped accordingly or referred out.
That is a common and reasonable place to be. A short consultation at $250 per hour will usually tell you whether the situation warrants a formal investigation, a lighter process, or a different intervention entirely. Sometimes the answer is that you do not need me.
Yes. Remote investigations run across BC, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia, and in California, Washington, Texas, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, and New York. Interviews are conducted by secure video.
That is the standard the file is built to from the first interview: documented process, explicit credibility reasoning, and findings tied to evidence. No one can guarantee an outcome, but a properly documented process is what gives the organization something defensible to stand on.
A brief, confidential call to understand the situation and confirm whether an independent investigation is the right response. Reaching out does not create a record or an obligation.