TMU provides lesson in what not to do with independent investigations

Skip to Content News Archives Economy Energy Oil & Gas Renewables Electric Vehicles Mining Commodities Agriculture Real Estate Mortgages Mortgage Rates Finance Banking Insurance Fintech Cryptocurrency Work Wealth Smart Money Wealth Management Investor Personal Finance Family Finance Retirement Taxes High Net Worth FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials More Innovation Information Technology FP500 Podcasts Small Business Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Financial Post Store Obituaries Place a Notice Advertising Advertising With Us Advertising Solutions Postmedia Ad Manager Sponsorship Requests Classifieds Place a Classifieds ad Working Profile Settings My Subscriptions My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ News Economy Energy Mining Real Estate Finance Work Wealth Investor FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.HomeLegal PostWorkTMU provides lesson in what not to do with independent investigationsHoward Levitt: A report that could have restored confidence risks becoming another reason to distrust the institutionLast updated 12 minutes ago When an investigation concerns discrimination against a particular community, that community should have a voice in fixing the problem. TMU has done the opposite. Photo by Peter J. Thompson/PostmediaEvery employer that commissions an independent investigation should study how Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) is responding to Justice Mary Lou Benotto’s report.THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLYSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman, and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESCreate an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountNot as a model, but as a warning of what never to do.An independent investigation has a purpose. An organization brings in an outsider to determine what happened, where it failed and what should be done. The value lies in the investigator’s independence.Once the report arrives, management has a responsibility. It can accept the recommendations. It can reject them. It can modify them. But if it does not simply accept and implement them, it should explain what it is doing instead and, more importantly, why.FP Work touches on HR strategy, labour economics, office culture, technology and more.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Work will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againWhat it should never do is effectively investigate the investigation.That is what makes TMU’s response so troubling.Benotto found that the university had policies capable of addressing much of the conduct she examined but failed to apply them consistently and decisively.Among other things, she recommended TMU recognize that discrimination against Jews can manifest through opposition to Zionism and that it adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) working definition of antisemitism as an educational and policy framework — a definition supported by the Canadian government and virtually all provincial governments.Instead, TMU created an Implementation Task Force that will review and respond to the recommendations and produce an implementation blueprint by March 2027.In other words, another decision-making process. Seven more months during which the toxic environment will continue and not a single one of Benotto’s recommendations are acted upon.Imagine an employer doing that. An employee alleges discrimination. The employer hires an independent investigator. The investigator concludes that management failed to enforce its own policies and recommends immediate corrective action.Management responds: “We have created a committee to consider the recommendations. We will report back in seven months.”That would not inspire confidence. It would obviously look like avoidance and delay.What makes TMU’s response even more troubling is that the university has demonstrated that it knows how to handle an independent investigation.When retired Nova Scotia Chief Justice J. Michael MacDonald completed his external review of the Lincoln Alexander School of Law, TMU’s law school, it said: “The university accepts all recommendations as outlined in the report.”No second committee was required. No further debate was necessary. No delay. TMU accepted the recommendations and could get on with implementing them.This advertisement has not loaded yet.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.So why was Benotto’s report different?The obvious concern is that institutions are more comfortable accepting independent reports when they are comfortable with the recommendations, and more inclined to create another layer of process when they are not prepared to implement them.Even if that is not TMU’s intention, it is the appearance its conduct creates.There is another problem.Most members of the task force are TMU faculty or administrators. There is nothing inherently wrong with insiders implementing institutional changes. But Benotto was investigating TMU itself. She examined its policies, practices and handling of protests and identified institutional shortcomings.Now, the institution criticized in the report has largely selected its own people to determine how those shortcomings should be remedied.That is not independent deliberation.And then comes perhaps the most extraordinary omission.The community found to have been discriminated against was not even consulted.Benotto’s report addresses discrimination against Jews and describes the profound alienation from campus life reported by Jewish members of the university community.Yet Hillel TMU and TMU Jews, the principal Jewish organizations at the school, were not included on the implementation task force. Indeed, their representatives say they were not even consulted before the task force was created.TMU has effectively decided that what happens to the Jewish community can be discussed without the Jewish community.If there is a compelling reason for excluding and not consulting Hillel and TMU Jews, the university should explain it.Then, to make matters worse still, consider who TMU did appoint.Has a single member of the task force publicly endorsed even one of Benotto’s recommendations?I have found no such public endorsement.The record does, however, establish that three of its members, James Turk, Jeffrey Wilkinson and Sameh Al Natour, took a public position incompatible with one of Benotto’s primary recommendations, by signing a petition opposing the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism.If the task force is supposed to implement a course of action laid out in the investigator’s report, why appoint people who have publicly opposed one of the primary findings?The university also cannot ignore a larger reality. Many people, particularly within the Jewish community, regard TMU as an institution that has been hostile to Jews and unresponsive to antisemitism.Benotto’s report gave TMU an extraordinary opportunity to confront that perception.An independent justice investigated. She heard from Jewish members of the community. She identified institutional failures. She provided a roadmap.TMU could have said: We heard you. We accept the findings. Here is what we are doing to fix the problem and implement the recommendations.Instead, it created another committee, largely from within the institution, did not even consult the principal Jewish organizations and included members whose public positions oppose one of the report’s central recommendations.That may not prove antisemitism but it certainly does little to dispel the perception. Instead, it reinforces it.There is yet another problem. TMU repeatedly undertook to make the report public upon its completion, but that view suddenly changed once it was received. TMU redacted large portions of the report and its recommendations.This is why TMU has become a case study on how not to handle an independent investigation.An employer should not commission an independent investigation and then treat the recommendations as a draft for another round of institutional politics. If it disagrees, say so openly and explain why. If it accepts the recommendations, implement them.If implementation somehow requires a working group, fine. But the group should get to work fulfilling the accepted recommendations, not spend months deciding whether management wants to accept them.And when an investigation concerns discrimination against a particular community, that community should have a meaningful voice in fixing the problem.TMU has done the opposite.This task force is not implementation. It is a second layer of institutional decision making.An investigator’s job is to find out what went wrong. Management’s job is to decide what to do about it, not to turn the recommendations into a referendum on whether it likes the answers.Otherwise, a report that could have restored some confidence risks becoming another reason for the institution to be distrusted.That is what occurred here. And TMU must know that.Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, leading his teams of labour lawyers in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. Howard has appeared in more Supreme Court employment law cases and provincial appeals than any lawyer in Canadian history. A bestselling author, he discusses current workplace issues on the podcast, At Work with Howard Levitt.We apologize, but this video has failed to load.Notice for the Postmedia NetworkThis website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.