Add an Individual

The Stinchcombe List accepts documented submissions concerning individuals whose conduct, findings, records, or professional history may have a material bearing on the fairness of a criminal proceeding, the reliability of government evidence, or the credibility of a justice-system participant.

The purpose of this form is to identify an individual for review and possible creation of a public profile. It is not necessary for the individual to have been criminally convicted, professionally disciplined, dismissed, or formally designated by a Crown office before a submission may be made. However, the submission must describe conduct or information that is potentially relevant to credibility, reliability, bias, integrity, disclosure, abuse of authority, or the administration of justice.

Who May Be Submitted

An individual may be submitted when that person serves, or formerly served, in a position capable of affecting a criminal investigation, prosecution, adjudication, custodial decision, regulatory proceeding, or government evidentiary process.

Eligible individuals may include:

• Police officers and other peace officers;
• RCMP members;
• Municipal, provincial, regional, Indigenous, railway, transit, campus, or specialized police personnel;
• Crown prosecutors and other prosecuting counsel;
• Judges, justices of the peace, adjudicators, and tribunal officials;
• Correctional officers and institutional investigators;
• Regulatory, compliance, licensing, inspection, or enforcement personnel;
• Government investigators, analysts, experts, and witnesses;
• Civilian employees who collect, manage, preserve, analyze, transmit, or disclose evidence;
• Former officials whose prior conduct remains relevant to a current or historical proceeding.

A submission should identify the person as precisely as possible. Include the individual’s full name, employing organization, position, jurisdiction, badge or employee number when lawfully available, and any former agencies or offices known to the submitter.

What Information May Support a Profile

The Stinchcombe List evaluates potential disclosure and impeachment material broadly. Relevant information may include documented conduct that could reasonably affect how a court, accused person, defence counsel, prosecutor, oversight body, or member of the public assesses an individual’s credibility, reliability, impartiality, or professional integrity.

Examples include:

• Dishonesty, deception, false statements, misleading testimony, or lack of candour;
• Fabrication, alteration, concealment, destruction, loss, or mishandling of evidence;
• Failure to disclose relevant information;
• Improper influence over a witness, complainant, investigator, prosecutor, or adjudicator;
• Bias, discrimination, retaliation, vindictiveness, or selective enforcement;
• Abuse of authority, abuse of process, or misuse of public office;
• Unlawful searches, seizures, arrests, detentions, surveillance, or information access;
• Findings of professional, disciplinary, ethical, judicial, or administrative misconduct;
• Criminal charges, convictions, admissions, or judicial findings;
• Credibility findings made by a court or tribunal;
• Conflicts of interest or undisclosed relationships;
• Repeated complaints demonstrating a potentially relevant pattern;
• Failure to preserve notes, recordings, reports, exhibits, or digital records;
• Noncompliance with a court order, disclosure obligation, policy, or evidentiary requirement;
• Conduct affecting the reliability of an investigation, prosecution, expert opinion, or official record.

Under R. v. Stinchcombe, the Crown’s disclosure obligation extends to relevant information in its possession, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, subject to recognized exceptions such as privilege and clearly irrelevant material. The disclosure right supports an accused person’s ability to make full answer and defence.

In R. v. McNeil, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that police have a duty to provide the prosecuting Crown with relevant information concerning serious misconduct by officers involved in an investigation. This may include disciplinary and criminal-investigation material bearing on an officer’s credibility or reliability.

In Edmonton (Police Service) v. McKee, 2026 SCC 24, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that police must meaningfully participate in disclosure by identifying and transmitting relevant investigative and disciplinary information. The Court further held that administrative removal or expungement of a misconduct record cannot defeat constitutional criminal-disclosure obligations.

Formal Findings Are Not Always Required

The Stinchcombe List distinguishes among allegations, complaints, investigations, official findings, judicial findings, disciplinary outcomes, criminal proceedings, and other documented events.

A profile may therefore contain information at different levels of verification. The absence of a final disciplinary ruling or criminal conviction does not necessarily make information irrelevant. A pending complaint, documented contradiction, sworn allegation, civil pleading, judicial observation, internal investigation, public record, or corroborated citizen report may still constitute potential disclosure or impeachment material.

The status and source of each item should be clearly identified so that readers can distinguish:

• A citizen or third-party allegation;
• A filed complaint;
• A pending investigation;
• An administrative or disciplinary finding;
• A judicial credibility finding;
• A civil allegation or adjudicated fact;
• A criminal charge;
• A conviction;
• An admission;
• A publicly disputed claim;
• A confirmed official record.

The Stinchcombe List does not treat every submission as proven fact. It preserves the distinction between an allegation and an adjudicated finding while recognizing that potential disclosure material can exist before a final institutional determination is made.

Supporting Documentation

Submissions should include the strongest available documentation. Suitable supporting materials may include:

• Court decisions, reasons for judgment, endorsements, or transcripts;
• Disclosure rulings or judicial findings concerning credibility;
• Criminal informations, indictments, charge sheets, or sentencing records;
• Police disciplinary decisions;
• Professional-regulator decisions;
• Judicial-conduct or ethics decisions;
• Government investigation or oversight reports;
• Access-to-information or freedom-of-information records;
• Internal correspondence or official memoranda;
• Publicly filed civil pleadings;
• Settlement agreements or admissions;
• News reporting from identifiable publications;
• Audio, video, photographs, or recordings with sufficient context;
• Sworn affidavits or declarations;
• Complaint confirmations and file numbers;
• Agency policies relevant to the reported conduct;
• Direct links to publicly accessible source material.

Whenever possible, provide original records rather than summaries, screenshots, commentary, or social-media reposts. Documents should be complete enough to establish context and should not be altered except for lawful redaction of sensitive personal information.

Information Required

Please provide as much of the following information as is available:

Individual’s identity

• Full legal name;
• Known aliases or alternate spellings;
• Current title or rank;
• Current employing organization;
• Former employing organizations;
• Province or territory;
• Municipality or operational jurisdiction;
• Badge, regimental, licence, employee, or professional number, when publicly available.

Basis for submission

• A concise description of the conduct;
• Date or approximate date of each incident;
• Location;
• Related court, investigation, complaint, or disciplinary file numbers;
• Role of the individual;
• Explanation of why the information may affect credibility, reliability, integrity, bias, or disclosure;
• Current status of any complaint, investigation, charge, proceeding, appeal, or review.

Supporting sources

• Public links;
• Documents;
• Images;
• Video or audio;
• Names of courts, agencies, oversight bodies, or publications;
• Any prior public profile concerning the same person.

Submission Standards

A useful submission is specific, factual, and supported.

Avoid generalized accusations such as “corrupt,” “dishonest,” or “unethical” without explaining the acts, statements, omissions, findings, or records supporting that characterization.

Where a fact is disputed, identify it as disputed. Where the submission relies on personal knowledge, explain how the submitter obtained that knowledge. Where a document has been redacted, edited, excerpted, or translated, disclose that fact.

Do not submit:

• Knowingly false information;
• Fabricated or materially altered evidence;
• Threats or calls for harassment;
• Unrelated private information;
• Home addresses, personal telephone numbers, financial account information, or family information;
• Information subject to a publication ban or sealing order;
• Information that would unlawfully identify a protected complainant, victim, witness, confidential informant, or young person;
• Material obtained through unlawful access to a restricted system;
• Content whose publication would violate a court order.

Review Process

Submitting an individual does not guarantee publication.

The Stinchcombe List may:

1. Review the submission for completeness;
2. Compare the identifying information against existing profiles;
3. Examine the cited records and supporting materials;
4. Seek corroboration from additional public sources;
5. Contact the submitter for clarification;
6. Contact the named individual or employing organization for comment;
7. Categorize each item according to its source and verification status;
8. Publish, defer, consolidate, reject, redact, or archive the submission.

The review concerns whether the material is sufficiently connected to the Stinchcombe List’s public-record and disclosure purpose. It is not a substitute for a criminal trial, disciplinary hearing, judicial-conduct proceeding, grievance, appeal, or professional-regulatory process.

Publication and Fairness

Published profiles should identify the source and procedural status of material wherever practicable. A complaint should not be presented as a conviction, and an allegation should not be described as an official finding unless an authorized body has made that finding.

Individuals may provide corrections, responsive records, contextual information, dispositions, acquittals, overturned findings, expungements, pardons, record suspensions, or other relevant updates. Such information may be appended to or incorporated into the profile when adequately supported.

Administrative expungement or removal from an internal employment record does not necessarily eliminate the possible relevance of the underlying conduct to criminal disclosure. In McKee, the Supreme Court held that an administrative mechanism could not override constitutional disclosure principles where the misconduct had a realistic bearing on credibility.

Not an Official Government Designation

The Stinchcombe List is an independent public-interest information platform. Submission or publication does not mean that a court, Crown office, police service, law society, judicial council, professional regulator, or government agency has formally designated the individual as unreliable or subject to disclosure.

The platform documents potential disclosure and impeachment material from identifiable sources so that the information can be located, evaluated, challenged, supplemented, or used by appropriate persons and institutions.

Submitter Information

Submitters may be asked to provide their name and contact information for verification purposes. Contact information will not ordinarily be displayed publicly unless the submitter expressly authorizes publication or the information is already part of the public record.

Anonymous submissions may be reviewed, but the inability to verify the source may affect whether or how the material is published.

By submitting information, the submitter affirms that:

• The submission is made in good faith;
• The factual statements are believed to be accurate;
• Allegations and opinions are identified as such;
• The submitter has disclosed any material conflict of interest;
• The supporting materials have not been deceptively altered;
• Publication is not prohibited by a court order or applicable law;
• The submission is intended to document a matter of public, legal, or institutional relevance.

Before You Submit

Confirm that you have:

• Identified the correct individual;
• Described the specific conduct;
• Explained its potential disclosure or credibility relevance;
• Included dates, agencies, and file numbers where available;
• Attached or linked supporting records;
• Distinguished allegations from findings;
• Removed protected personal information;
• Disclosed any pending appeal, review, acquittal, reversal, or correction known to you.

Once the form is submitted, the information will enter the Stinchcombe List review process.