File a Prosecutor Complaint

Use this form to report conduct by a current or former Canadian prosecutor that may affect the fairness of a proceeding, the completeness of disclosure, the integrity of government evidence, or the prosecutor’s credibility, candour, impartiality, or professional judgment.

The Stinchcombe List documents potential disclosure and impeachment material concerning participants in the Canadian justice system. Prosecutors exercise substantial authority over disclosure, charging decisions, plea negotiations, witness presentation, evidentiary positions, sentencing submissions, and the continuation or termination of proceedings. Conduct affecting those functions may warrant preservation and public review.

A complaint may be submitted before a prosecution service, law society, court, attorney general, disciplinary body, or other authority has issued a final decision. The procedural status of the matter must be accurately identified.

Who May Be the Subject of a Prosecutor Complaint

A complaint may concern a current or former:

• Provincial or territorial Crown prosecutor;
• Federal prosecutor;
• Public Prosecution Service of Canada counsel;
• Assistant Crown attorney;
• Senior Crown attorney;
• Crown counsel;
• Special prosecutor;
• Municipal prosecutor;
• Regulatory prosecutor;
• Military prosecutor;
• Government lawyer acting in a prosecutorial capacity;
• Supervising or managing prosecutor;
• Prosecutorial investigator or legal adviser;
• Contract counsel exercising delegated prosecutorial authority;
• Other government counsel responsible for commencing, conducting, supervising, or resolving a prosecution.

The complaint should identify the prosecutor as precisely as possible. Include the prosecutor’s full name, title, prosecution office, province or territory, employing authority, law-society jurisdiction, and related court or file numbers when available.

Conduct That May Be Reported

A complaint may address any documented act or omission that could reasonably affect an assessment of the prosecutor’s fairness, candour, credibility, judgment, impartiality, professional integrity, or compliance with disclosure obligations.

Potentially relevant conduct includes:

• Suppression, withholding, delay, fragmentation, or incomplete production of relevant disclosure;
• Failure to obtain relevant information from police or another government agency;
• Failure to disclose information favourable to the accused;
• Mischaracterization of evidence or the disclosure record;
• False, misleading, incomplete, or materially inconsistent statements to a court, defence counsel, witness, victim, investigator, or tribunal;
• Presentation of testimony or evidence known, or reasonably suspected, to be false or misleading;
• Failure to correct false or materially inaccurate evidence;
• Improper coaching, influencing, pressuring, intimidating, or rewarding of witnesses;
• Concealment of agreements, inducements, benefits, immigration assistance, sentence considerations, or other advantages provided to a witness;
• Failure to disclose credibility concerns involving a police officer, expert, informant, or other government witness;
• Selective, discriminatory, retaliatory, vindictive, or bad-faith prosecution;
• Continuing a prosecution without a proper evidentiary or public-interest basis;
• Laying, maintaining, increasing, or threatening charges for an improper purpose;
• Abuse of process;
• Improper interference with an investigation;
• Improper direction to police concerning evidence, reporting, disclosure, or witness treatment;
• Conflict of interest or undisclosed personal, professional, political, or institutional relationship;
• Improper communication with a judge, juror, witness, represented person, or opposing party;
• Misleading conduct during plea negotiations;
• Failure to honour a plea agreement, undertaking, representation, or material commitment;
• Improper argument, inflammatory submissions, or reliance on facts not supported by the evidentiary record;
• Misrepresentation of law, precedent, procedural history, or the contents of a document;
• Failure to advise the court of controlling or materially relevant authority;
• Improper use of sealed, privileged, protected, or confidential information;
• Retaliation against an accused person, defence lawyer, witness, journalist, complainant, whistleblower, or public official;
• Obstruction or discouragement of a complaint, appeal, disclosure request, or access-to-information process;
• Failure to preserve relevant evidence or litigation records;
• Failure to recuse from a matter involving a material conflict;
• Improper public statements capable of prejudicing a proceeding;
• Conduct resulting in a stay, mistrial, overturned conviction, excluded evidence, judicial rebuke, professional discipline, civil liability, or wrongful conviction;
• Supervisory approval, concealment, ratification, or failure to correct known misconduct.

The list is not exhaustive. Conduct may be relevant even when it does not result in professional discipline, a criminal charge, an overturned conviction, or an express judicial finding.

Disclosure and Fair-Trial Relevance

The Supreme Court of Canada established in R. v. Stinchcombe that the Crown has a duty to disclose relevant information in its possession, subject to recognized exceptions. The duty exists to protect the accused’s constitutional right to make full answer and defence.

A prosecutor’s disclosure obligations are not limited to material the Crown intends to use. Relevant information may include inculpatory, exculpatory, credibility-related, investigative, disciplinary, scientific, digital, documentary, or witness-related material.

A prosecutor complaint should explain how the reported conduct may relate to one or more of the following:

• Completeness of disclosure;
• Timeliness of disclosure;
• Accuracy of representations to the court;
• Candour with defence counsel;
• Reliability of government evidence;
• Credibility of a Crown witness;
• Fairness of charging decisions;
• Abuse of process;
• Conflict of interest;
• Improper motive;
• Selective or retaliatory prosecution;
• Witness inducements;
• Evidentiary preservation;
• Plea negotiation integrity;
• Sentencing accuracy;
• Compliance with court orders;
• Professional honesty;
• Prosecutorial independence;
• Public confidence in the administration of justice.

The submitter is not required to prove that a court or law society has already found professional misconduct. The submission should identify why the information may reasonably warrant preservation, investigation, correction, disclosure, or public consideration.

A Complaint Is Not an Official Finding

The Stinchcombe List distinguishes between:

• An allegation;
• A citizen report;
• A filed complaint;
• A complaint acknowledged by a prosecution service;
• A law-society complaint;
• A pending investigation;
• A prosecutorial review;
• A judicial criticism;
• A professional-conduct charge;
• A disciplinary finding;
• A finding of abuse of process;
• A disclosure violation;
• A constitutional remedy;
• A civil allegation;
• A civil judgment or settlement;
• A criminal charge;
• A criminal conviction;
• An admission;
• A disputed public record;
• An overturned or withdrawn finding.

Filing this form does not establish that the prosecutor committed misconduct. It creates a record of the allegation and supporting material for review.

A pending or unresolved complaint must not be represented as a final finding. Any published profile should identify the source and procedural status of the material.

Official Complaints and Stinchcombe List Complaints

A complaint submitted through this page is made to the Stinchcombe List. It is not automatically transmitted to:

• The prosecutor’s office;
• A provincial or territorial prosecution service;
• The Public Prosecution Service of Canada;
• A provincial or territorial attorney general;
• The federal minister of justice;
• A law society;
• A court;
• A judicial council;
• A police service;
• A civilian oversight body;
• An ombudsperson;
• A human-rights commission;
• Any other government or professional authority.

A person seeking discipline, disqualification, disclosure, judicial relief, a stay of proceedings, compensation, appeal remedies, or professional sanctions may need to file separately with the appropriate body.

Submitting an official complaint elsewhere does not prevent submission to the Stinchcombe List. Include the complaint number, receiving authority, date filed, and current status whenever available.

Information Required

Provide as much of the following information as possible.

Prosecutor Identification

• Full name;
• Title or position;
• Prosecution office;
• Employing authority;
• Province or territory;
• Municipality or judicial district;
• Law-society jurisdiction;
• Former prosecution offices or positions;
• Known aliases or alternate spellings.

Proceeding Information

• Court name;
• Court location;
• Case style or title;
• Court file number;
• Police occurrence or investigation number;
• Date or approximate date of the relevant conduct;
• Nature of the proceeding;
• Charges involved;
• Whether the matter is ongoing, concluded, stayed, withdrawn, appealed, or under review;
• Names or roles of other relevant prosecutors, officers, witnesses, or officials.

Complaint Description

State specifically:

• What the prosecutor did or failed to do;
• What information was withheld, misstated, delayed, concealed, or improperly used;
• What representation was false, misleading, incomplete, or inconsistent;
• Which court order, disclosure obligation, professional duty, undertaking, or policy may have been affected;
• Why the conduct may affect fairness, credibility, candour, integrity, or disclosure;
• What evidence supports the complaint;
• Whether the conduct was isolated or part of a pattern;
• Whether another authority has reviewed the matter;
• Whether the allegation remains pending, disputed, substantiated, dismissed, appealed, or otherwise resolved.

Use factual language. Avoid relying solely on labels such as “corrupt,” “malicious,” “dishonest,” or “unethical.” Describe the specific acts, omissions, statements, records, and consequences.

Supporting Documentation

Attach or link the strongest available supporting records.

Useful materials may include:

• Court decisions;
• Judicial endorsements;
• Hearing or trial transcripts;
• Disclosure correspondence;
• Disclosure indexes;
• Letters or emails from Crown counsel;
• Applications alleging nondisclosure or abuse of process;
• Court orders;
• Plea agreements;
• Sentencing submissions;
• Affidavits;
• Police reports;
• Witness statements;
• Expert reports;
• Professional-conduct complaints;
• Law-society decisions;
• Government review reports;
• Civil pleadings, judgments, or settlement records;
• Access-to-information records;
• News reports from identifiable publications;
• Audio or video recordings;
• Sworn declarations;
• Proof that a prosecution office or regulator received the complaint.

Original and complete records are preferred. Identify any document that has been excerpted, edited, redacted, translated, summarized, or reconstructed.

Do not deceptively alter documents, recordings, screenshots, metadata, or images.

Disclosure-Related Complaints

Where the complaint concerns disclosure, identify the material as precisely as possible.

Include:

• What information or evidence existed;
• Who possessed or controlled it;
• When the Crown became aware of it;
• When disclosure was requested;
• What response was provided;
• When the information was ultimately disclosed, if ever;
• Whether the delay affected a hearing, trial, plea, detention review, sentence, or appeal;
• Whether a court made findings concerning the disclosure failure;
• Whether the material was lost, destroyed, overwritten, withheld, redacted, or claimed to be privileged;
• Whether the prosecutor sought the information from police or another agency;
• Whether the prosecutor corrected the disclosure record after receiving notice.

A mere disagreement over litigation strategy is not necessarily prosecutorial misconduct. The complaint should explain why the conduct exceeded ordinary advocacy or procedural dispute and became materially relevant to fairness, candour, disclosure, or integrity.

False or Misleading Evidence

Where the complaint concerns allegedly false or misleading evidence, identify:

• The witness or source;
• The disputed statement;
• The evidence contradicting it;
• When the prosecutor knew or should reasonably have known of the contradiction;
• Whether the prosecutor relied on the statement;
• Whether the prosecutor corrected the record;
• Whether the issue was raised in court;
• Whether the court made a credibility or evidentiary finding;
• Whether the evidence affected charging, detention, plea, trial, sentence, or appeal.

The complaint should distinguish between a witness inconsistency, an honest mistake, a disputed interpretation, and evidence alleged to be knowingly false or materially misleading.

Witness Benefits and Inducements

Where the complaint concerns a witness benefit or inducement, identify:

• The witness;
• The nature of the benefit;
• Who offered or authorized it;
• Whether the benefit was disclosed;
• When it was disclosed;
• Whether the witness’s evidence changed;
• Whether the benefit affected credibility;
• Whether the prosecutor made representations about the benefit;
• Whether the court or defence was misled or left uninformed.

Potential benefits may include charge reductions, immunity, sentence recommendations, financial assistance, relocation, immigration assistance, housing, protection, favourable treatment, employment assistance, or other consideration.

Charging and Abuse-of-Process Complaints

Where the complaint concerns charging decisions, retaliation, or abuse of process, identify:

• The charges laid or maintained;
• The available evidence;
• The stated prosecutorial basis;
• The alleged improper purpose;
• Any threats, demands, or conditions;
• Comparators showing selective treatment;
• The chronology of the decision;
• Any relationship between the prosecution and a complaint, lawsuit, public statement, refusal to cooperate, or exercise of a legal right;
• Any judicial findings concerning improper motive, delay, prejudice, or abuse.

The Stinchcombe List does not evaluate every disagreement over charging discretion. The submission should identify evidence supporting a claim of bad faith, improper purpose, discrimination, retaliation, dishonesty, or serious procedural unfairness.

Supervisory and Institutional Conduct

A complaint may also identify supervisory or institutional prosecutorial conduct, including:

• Directing the withholding of disclosure;
• Approving a false or incomplete representation;
• Failing to correct known misconduct;
• Permitting repeated disclosure violations;
• Concealing complaints or judicial findings;
• Retaliating against a prosecutor who raised ethical concerns;
• Failing to notify defence counsel of known witness credibility issues;
• Assigning a conflicted prosecutor;
• Maintaining policies that obstruct constitutionally required disclosure;
• Ratifying misconduct after receiving notice;
• Failing to train, supervise, audit, or discipline prosecutors concerning recurring disclosure failures.

A supervisor should not be named solely because of title or hierarchy. The complaint should describe the supervisor’s acts, omissions, knowledge, instructions, approval, or responsibility.

Evidence Preservation

Where relevant records may be deleted, overwritten, or lost, consider making a timely written preservation request to the organization that controls them.

Potentially relevant records may include:

• Crown emails;
• Internal memoranda;
• Disclosure logs;
• Case-management records;
• Draft submissions;
• Notes of witness meetings;
• Police-Crown correspondence;
• Digital audit logs;
• Plea-negotiation records;
• Charging memoranda;
• Screening documents;
• Expert communications;
• Records of witness benefits;
• Supervisory-review records;
• Conflict-check records;
• Complaint and discipline files.

The Stinchcombe List cannot compel preservation or disclosure. Submission to the website does not replace a court application, disclosure motion, subpoena, access-to-information request, professional complaint, or preservation demand.

Complaints Based on Personal Knowledge

A person may submit a complaint based on direct personal knowledge.

The complaint should explain:

• The submitter’s role in the proceeding;
• What the submitter personally observed;
• What information came from another person;
• What information came from a document, recording, transcript, or public source;
• Whether the submitter was an accused person, lawyer, witness, victim, investigator, journalist, court participant, or other observer;
• Whether any part of the account is based on inference or belief.

Personal knowledge may support a complaint, but observed facts should be distinguished from conclusions, argument, and hearsay.

Anonymous and Confidential Submissions

Anonymous submissions may be reviewed. However, anonymity can limit verification, clarification, and assessment of authenticity.

Submitters may provide contact information for verification while requesting that it not be published. Contact information will not ordinarily appear publicly unless the submitter authorizes publication or it is already part of a public record.

The Stinchcombe List cannot guarantee confidentiality against every legal demand, court order, statutory duty, or security incident. Do not submit information that would identify a protected complainant, young person, confidential informant, juror, sealed witness, or other legally protected person.

Prohibited Material

Do not submit:

• Knowingly false information;
• Fabricated evidence;
• Materially altered documents presented as originals;
• Threats or encouragement of harassment;
• Home addresses or unrelated private family information;
• Personal telephone numbers unrelated to the complaint;
• Financial account or identity-theft information;
• Information prohibited by a publication ban;
• Sealed or unlawfully obtained records;
• Privileged material that the submitter is not legally entitled to publish;
• Information identifying a protected complainant, young person, witness, juror, or confidential informant;
• Material obtained through unauthorized access to a restricted system;
• Content whose publication would violate a court order;
• Unrelated personal attacks or discriminatory content.

Sensitive information should be lawfully redacted before submission.

Review Process

After submission, the Stinchcombe List may:

1. Review the complaint for completeness;
2. Verify the prosecutor’s identity and position;
3. Determine whether an existing profile concerns the same person;
4. Review the supporting records;
5. Search for corroborating public information;
6. Request additional information from the submitter;
7. Contact the prosecutor, prosecution office, or other authority for comment;
8. Categorize the complaint by source and procedural status;
9. Redact protected or irrelevant information;
10. Publish, defer, consolidate, archive, or reject the submission.

Publication is not guaranteed.

The Stinchcombe List may decline material that is unverifiable, legally restricted, unrelated to prosecutorial conduct or disclosure, excessively speculative, duplicative, or unsupported by sufficient factual detail.

Prosecutor Response and Corrections

A prosecutor or authorized representative may submit:

• A response;
• A correction;
• An official disposition;
• A judicial ruling;
• A law-society decision;
• An acquittal or exculpatory record;
• An appeal decision;
• Contextual information;
• Proof of mistaken identity;
• Evidence that a statement, allegation, or document has been materially mischaracterized.

A supported response may be added to the public record. Providing a response does not necessarily require removal of the original complaint, particularly where the complaint and its disposition remain relevant to public accountability or disclosure.

Requesting Removal

A prosecutor may separately request removal or modification of published information.

Removal is not automatic merely because:

• The prosecutor disputes the complaint;
• A law society declined to investigate;
• A prosecution office found no policy violation;
• No court granted a remedy;
• No criminal charge was filed;
• The prosecutor changed offices, retired, resigned, or left practice;
• An internal record was administratively closed;
• The underlying matter is old.

The review will consider accuracy, source reliability, procedural status, continuing public-interest value, disclosure relevance, legal restrictions, mistaken identity, and material error.

Not an Official Government or Professional Determination

The Stinchcombe List is an independent public-interest platform.

Publication does not mean that a court, prosecution service, attorney general, law society, police service, regulator, or government authority has formally designated the prosecutor as dishonest, unethical, unreliable, or subject to discipline.

The platform records potential disclosure and impeachment material so that the information may be located, evaluated, challenged, corrected, supplemented, and considered by appropriate participants in the justice system.

Submitter Certification

By submitting this complaint, the submitter affirms that:

• The complaint is made in good faith;
• The factual statements are believed to be accurate;
• Allegations, inferences, and opinions are identified as such;
• The correct prosecutor has been identified to the best of the submitter’s knowledge;
• Supporting records have not been deceptively altered;
• Known contrary information has not been intentionally concealed;
• Any material conflict of interest has been disclosed;
• Publication is not known to be prohibited by law or court order;
• Protected personal information has been removed where required;
• The submission is intended to document a matter of legitimate legal, institutional, or public concern.

Before You Submit

Confirm that you have:

• Identified the correct prosecutor;
• Identified the prosecution office and jurisdiction;
• Included the relevant court and file numbers;
• Described specific conduct rather than relying on conclusions;
• Explained the potential disclosure, fairness, candour, or credibility relevance;
• Attached or linked available supporting evidence;
• Identified any official complaint number;
• Stated the current procedural status;
• Distinguished allegations from findings;
• Disclosed any known dismissal, reversal, correction, or contrary ruling;
• Removed protected personal information;
• Preserved copies of the original records.

Submission places the complaint into the Stinchcombe List review process. It does not commence an official criminal, civil, professional, disciplinary, appellate, or judicial proceeding.