Public dedication is an option, but it runs counter to your royalty-free or token-royalty license. Once a patent is dedicated to the public, the license is effectively null and void. The U.S. Supreme Court recently affirmed (within the last 3 months) that royalties cannot go beyond the expiration of the patent. If your plan is to license it on a token basis, public dedication will not help you achieve your end goals, as you cannot demand subsequent licensees to pay once you have disclaimed and dedicated the patent to the public. If you generally prefer a more controlled environment where you hold the license and have the ability to negotiate with all subsequent licensees (e.g., in exchange for their licenses of similar inventions), public dedication is a less desired option.
If your ultimate concern is to avoid the risk of getting sued based on the same technology that your company has designed and implemented, any defensive disclosures should amply protect you, whether it is in the form of a publish patent application, a white paper, or even a user guide. Such disclosures, once published, are effective as prior art against all subsequent patent applications claiming the same invention (or obvious variant thereof).
If your company is indeed sued based on the same technology (e.g., by copying exactly the same invention) and you are found liable, such disclosures serve as your defensive tool to invalidate the patent asserted against you. This is because one cannot infringe on an invalid patent. This maxim is strictly adhered by courts, although some justices would say that you can infringe an invalid patent; but there's no legal liability.
You should also consider who the plaintiff will likely be. If the plaintiff is one of your competitors, the better strategy should be to patent first followed by royalty-free license (or license on FRAND terms). If the plaintiff is a patent troll, your license could potentially set the baseline for minimal or no damages because it's royalty free. This will force the troll to drop the suit quickly knowing they likely cannot recover more than what you receive through said license.
I'm not as familiar with Canadian patent law, so I'll defer such issues relating to licensing in Canada to Erin.