While the investigation found that Sarah Thomson actually did believe she had been propositioned - despite no credible evidence - I find this conclusion, as quoted in the article, especially troubling:

"The investigator learned that Thomson was contacting potential witnesses in what appeared to be either a fishing expedition to secure other potential complainants against Paikin or to garner support for her recollection. Thomson also demonstrated a tendency to suggest to witnesses a version of events (in line with her own perspective) prior to their interviews with the investigator."

I'm not sure what the legal implications of this may be, but it sounds like she was allegedly trying to influence would-be witnesses to either make stuff up or else get others to support what the probers found to be her completely unbelievable version of events. 

I'm no lawyer, so I wonder - given this interference into what should have been an unbiased investigation, would Paikin then have grounds to go after her, perhaps for trying to get others to lie for her? It's not a court case, per se, but to me this smacks dangerously of attempted witness tampering. 

Having said that, Paikin was lucky. He's one of the few accused with no evidence to keep his job. I have no problem with #MeToo and in fact, it's about time this harassment of women stopped. But as Christie Blatchford frequently points out on CFRB, you can't just fire someone or destroy their entire career simply on the basis of an allegation without any proof or substantiating evidence. 

This whole sordid episode should serve as a red flag against a rush to judgement. Unfortunately, I doubt it will.