Knowledge Base
HR Services
What our service pillars are and when each fits — fractional/on-call HR, HR policy, workplace investigations, health & safety training, and executive search.
-
Adverse impact and the validity-diversity tradeoff
Cognitive-ability tests carry the largest subgroup score gaps (Black-White d ≈ 1.0) while structured interviews and work samples show smaller gaps at comparable or better validity — and because the 2022 reanalysis lowered cognitive ability's validity, dropping or de-weighting it now costs far less validity than the old tradeoff implied.
-
Discipline vs. performance management: culpable vs. non-culpable
Discipline is for culpable misconduct (the employee "won't"); performance management is for non-culpable incapacity (the employee "can't"), and running a misconduct ladder on a genuine capability problem is both unfair and legally risky.
-
Do reference checks and background checks add predictive value?
Reference checks predict job performance weakly — the most-cited meta-analytic estimate is a corrected ~.29 — so use references and background checks for verification and red-flag screening, not for forecasting who will perform best.
-
Do structured interviews predict performance better than unstructured ones — and what makes an interview "structured"?
Structured interviews substantially out-predict unstructured ones — McDaniel et al. (1994) put corrected validity at about .44 vs .33, and Sackett et al. (2022) at .42 vs .19 — and "structure" means job-analysis-based questions asked identically of every candidate, scored on anchored rating scales by trained raters.
-
Fractional vs. outsourced vs. in-house vs. interim HR — which is which, and when does each fit?
In-house HR is a permanent employee; outsourced HR (PEO/HRO) hands administrative/transactional HR to a third party; fractional HR provides ongoing part-time senior/strategic leadership; and interim HR is full-time but temporary coverage of a defined gap — the market routinely conflates these, but the cleanest distinctions are along two axes: time commitment (ongoing vs. fixed-end) and scope (strategic leadership vs. transactional execution).
-
How do workplace investigations go wrong — the common failure modes?
Investigations fail in predictable ways — pre-judging, vague allegations or mandate, delay, leading interviews, demeanour-based credibility findings, poor documentation, scope creep, and conflating fact-finding with discipline — each the mirror image of a procedural-fairness test.
-
How do you conduct investigation interviews: order, rights, and technique?
Interview in a defensible order (commonly complainant, then respondent, then witnesses), put the specific allegations to the respondent so they can answer, allow a support person, ask open non-leading questions, and keep contemporaneous notes.
-
How do you gather and weigh evidence — and assess credibility?
Weigh documentary and testimonial evidence for corroboration and relevance, and assess credibility against the preponderance of probabilities a practical person would accept (Faryna v. Chorny; Bradshaw v. Stenner) — not demeanour alone.
-
How do you make findings and write the investigation report?
Apply ONE civil standard — the balance of probabilities (F.H. v. McDougall) — make findings of fact (and policy breach where the mandate asks), and leave discipline to the employer; never import a criminal or heightened standard for serious allegations.
-
If I have just cause, do I still owe termination pay?
Common-law just cause does not automatically defeat statutory notice and severance, because the ESA "wilful misconduct" standard is higher, so a lawfully for-cause employee may still be owed statutory termination and severance pay.
-
What actually predicts job performance: the selection-method validity hierarchy (post-2022)
Structured interviews, job-knowledge tests, empirically-keyed biodata, and work samples now predict job performance at or above general mental ability, whose operational validity was revised down from ~.51 to ~.31 in 2022 — so any ranking that still puts cognitive ability on top is outdated.
-
What happens after the investigation — outcomes, communication, and closure?
After findings, communicate the outcome to each party (in Ontario, the results and any corrective action in writing within 10 days), hand the discipline decision to the employer, keep secure records, maintain confidentiality, and guard against reprisal after the file closes.
-
What is a workplace investigation, and when is one needed?
A workplace investigation is an impartial, structured fact-finding process an employer uses to determine what happened when there are contested allegations of policy, ethics, or legal violations — most commonly harassment, violence, discrimination, or serious misconduct (theft, fraud) — and in Ontario the trigger can be a formal complaint, an informal verbal report, or the employer simply becoming aware of a possible incident.
-
What is executive search, and how is retained different from contingency (and from using a recruiter or hiring internally)?
Executive search is the recruitment of senior leadership and board-level talent through a consultative, research-driven process; the defining split is the fee/engagement model — retained search is an exclusive, paid-upfront partnership that proactively targets passive candidates for high-stakes roles, whereas contingency recruiting is non-exclusive, paid only on placement, and best suited to filling more accessible mid-level roles quickly.
-
What is fractional HR (and on-call / on-demand HR)?
Fractional HR is an arrangement in which an organization buys ongoing, part-time access to senior HR expertise — typically a few days per week or month — without making a full-time hire; "on-call/on-demand" is the advice-led variant, while "embedded" and "project" describe how deeply the practitioner is integrated and whether the work is open-ended or scoped.
-
What is HR policy development / an employee handbook, and what does it cover?
HR policy development is the structured process of creating, consulting on, implementing, and maintaining an organization's written workplace rules; the employee handbook is the consolidated artifact that communicates those policies and serves as evidence employees were informed of them — and while no Canadian law requires a handbook per se, several individual policies inside it are legally mandated.
-
What is progressive discipline, and is it legally required in Ontario?
Progressive discipline is a management best practice and an evidentiary strategy, not a legal requirement in Ontario, and there is no "three written warnings" rule.
-
What makes a workplace investigation defensible and procedurally fair?
A defensible workplace investigation is one that satisfies procedural fairness (natural justice): an impartial, unbiased investigator; notice to the respondent of the allegations against them; a genuine opportunity for both sides to be heard and respond; a thorough, timely, well-documented process; and an appropriately scoped inquiry — with an external investigator preferred where impartiality, seniority of the respondent, complexity, or litigation risk are in play.
-
What makes disciplinary documentation actually hold up?
Defensible disciplinary documentation is contemporaneous, specific and factual, tied to a known expectation, gives the employee a chance to respond, is acknowledged, and is applied consistently across employees.
-
What workplace health & safety training do Ontario employers need, and why does it matter?
Ontario workplace health & safety training falls into a small number of recognizable categories — universal awareness training (worker and supervisor), hazard- and equipment-specific training (e.g., WHMIS, working at heights, forklift), workplace violence & harassment training, and JHSC/representative certification — and it matters because delivering and documenting it is how an employer demonstrates the due diligence that the duty of care requires.
-
When does misconduct become just cause for dismissal?
Just cause is decided by a contextual proportionality analysis, it is a high and fact-specific bar, no category of conduct is automatic cause, and there is no "near cause" in Canada.
-
Which hiring / selection methods actually predict job performance?
On the best current peer-reviewed evidence (Sackett, Zhang, Berry & Lievens, 2022), structured interviews are the single strongest predictor of job performance (operational validity ≈ .42), ahead of job-knowledge tests (.40), empirically-keyed biodata (.38), work samples (.33), and general mental ability/cognitive tests (.31) — a major reordering from Schmidt & Hunter's widely-cited 1998 ranking, which over-stated cognitive ability at .51 due to range-restriction overcorrection.
-
Why combine selection methods? Incremental validity and the cost of the interview-only hire
No single method predicts performance well enough on its own, but methods that tap different things add incremental validity — a structured interview plus a cognitive or work-sample measure pushed composite validity above .60 in the classic data — which is why hiring on one unstructured interview is the weakest defensible basis for a decision.
-
Work-sample, ability, and job-knowledge tests: how well they predict and when to use them
Job-knowledge tests (.40) and work samples (.33) are strong, job-specific predictors and now sit at or above cognitive ability (.31) — but work-sample validity was revised down sharply in 2022, work samples and knowledge tests only work for candidates who already have the skills, and cognitive tests carry the largest adverse-impact risk.