The Stinchcombe List is Canada’s definitive public-facing platform of record for police-accountability information and potential disclosure records involving law enforcement officers, law enforcement organizations, investigators, Crown prosecutors, and other government agents whose conduct may affect the fairness or integrity of a criminal proceeding.

The platform documents misconduct findings, criminal and disciplinary proceedings, credibility concerns, appointment revocations, Crown non-call decisions, police conduct complaints, public reports, and failures to disclose relevant information. Its purpose is to preserve information that may bear upon the credibility or reliability of a witness, the integrity of an investigation, or an accused person’s constitutional right to make full answer and defense.

A Canadian Platform of Record

The Brady List established the public-facing platform-of-record model for potential impeachment disclosures and criminal-justice accountability information in the United States. The Stinchcombe List applies that model exclusively to Canada.

The Stinchcombe List is governed by Canadian constitutional principles, Canadian legislation, and Canadian jurisprudence, principally: R. v. Stinchcombe; R. v. McNeil; and, Edmonton (Police Service) v. McKee.

The Stinchcombe List does not import American legal standards into Canadian proceedings. It provides Canadian terminology, Canadian classifications, and Canadian records for federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, regional, Indigenous, and specialized law enforcement organizations operating within Canada.

The Legal Foundation

In R. v. Stinchcombe, 3 S.C.R. 326, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown must disclose all relevant, non-privileged information within its possession or control. The obligation includes information favourable or unfavourable to the accused and applies whether or not the Crown intends to introduce the information at trial.

The disclosure obligation arises from the accused person’s constitutional right to make full answer and defense under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Disclosure must occur in time for the accused to make informed decisions concerning plea, election, investigation, defense strategy, and trial. The obligation continues throughout the proceeding.

Stinchcombe establishes that relevant investigative information is not the property of the police or the prosecution. It is held for the administration of justice and must be disclosed subject only to relevance, privilege, and lawful protective restrictions.

R. v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3, applied the Stinchcombe disclosure framework directly to police misconduct information. The Supreme Court held that police and investigating agencies must provide the prosecuting Crown with relevant misconduct information concerning officers involved in an investigation.

This obligation includes misconduct connected to the investigation and other misconduct that could reasonably affect the case against the accused, including information bearing upon an officer’s credibility, reliability, investigative conduct, or anticipated testimony. Relevant information may include criminal charges, findings of guilt, disciplinary charges, misconduct findings, related complaints and investigations, and other records capable of assisting the defense.

Police must provide qualifying information to the Crown without waiting for a defense request. The Crown must then conduct a case-specific review and determine what information must be disclosed to the accused. When the Crown is put on notice that another person or organization possesses potentially relevant information, McNeil may also require reasonable inquiry.

In Edmonton (Police Service) v. McKee, 2026 SCC 24, the Supreme Court reaffirmed and strengthened the Stinchcombe–McNeil disclosure framework. The Court held that the administrative removal or expungement of a police disciplinary finding does not remove the underlying misconduct information from the criminal-disclosure system.

McKee confirms that relevance is a low, functional threshold and that substance governs over administrative labels. Police services must meaningfully identify, preserve, assess, and transmit potentially relevant misconduct information. When police withhold a record as irrelevant, they must notify the Crown of the nature of the withheld information and the reason for withholding it.

The Crown—not the police service—is the institutional decision-maker responsible for determining relevance and disclosure. Privacy concerns, administrative expungement, record classification, or the passage of time cannot independently authorize police to conceal information that may assist the defense.

What the Stinchcombe List Documents

The Stinchcombe List organizes Canadian accountability information into the following principal record types:

  • Appointment Revocation: Revocation, cancellation, suspension, or termination of an officer’s statutory appointment, including dismissal for misconduct.
  • Crown Non-Call Decision: A documented decision by Crown counsel not to call or rely upon an officer because of credibility, reliability, integrity, or evidentiary concerns.
  • McNeil Misconduct Finding: A criminal conviction, finding of guilt, disciplinary finding, or other substantiated misconduct record potentially relevant under McNeil.
  • Police Conduct Complaint: A complaint or allegation submitted to a police service, professional-standards unit, civilian oversight organization, police commission, or other authorized body.
  • Public Misconduct Report: Information submitted by a member of the public, journalist, accused person, witness, lawyer, or other source that has not necessarily been adjudicated by an official body.

Each record identifies its procedural status whenever that status can be established. Allegations, investigations, findings, convictions, withdrawn matters, overturned decisions, and administratively expunged records are not treated as equivalent.

Our Purpose

The Stinchcombe List exists to:

  • preserve Canadian police-misconduct and disclosure information in a searchable public record;
  • connect individual officers and government agents with their employing organizations and jurisdictions;
  • distinguish allegations from substantiated or adjudicated findings;
  • identify information that may require inquiry under Stinchcombe, McNeil, or McKee;
  • assist accused persons, defense counsel, Crown counsel, courts, journalists, researchers, and oversight organizations;
  • prevent relevant records from disappearing through administrative fragmentation, employment changes, retention practices, or disciplinary expungement; and
  • strengthen transparency, fair trials, and public confidence in the administration of justice.

A searchable public record does not replace the constitutional duties of police or Crown counsel. It helps identify information that may require preservation, investigation, transmission, or case-specific disclosure.

Inclusion and Fair Classification

Inclusion in the Stinchcombe List identifies the existence of information that may warrant disclosure consideration. It does not, by itself, establish criminal guilt, civil liability, professional misconduct, inadmissibility, or a legal requirement that the information be disclosed in every proceeding.

Complaints and public reports remain allegations unless supported by an official finding or other sufficient evidence. Every listing should identify its sources and distinguish confirmed facts from allegations, disputed claims, and reasoned conclusions.

The ultimate disclosure decision remains case-specific. Crown counsel must assess relevance, privilege, privacy, and the relationship between the information and the prosecution. That determination remains subject to review by the courts.