FAQ Group: General FAQs about the IIO

If the number of investigations referred for consideration of charges were a measure of the IIO’s success as a police oversight and accountability body, that would assume that all police actions or inactions are wrong and are never legally justifiable. Since this is not the case, it would not be logical to consider the total number of referrals as a measure of success. Instead, completing thorough, unbiased investigations that result in the appropriate outcome based on the evidence available (either finding there are or are not reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed) is the true goal of the IIO.

In Canada, police have powers and responsibilities that may include the justified use of lethal force. Deaths are tragic. However, if lethal force is used to protect others or themselves from grievous bodily harm or death, police are justified in Canadian law to use that force, and this therefore should not be referred for consideration of charges.

However, when lethal or excessive force is used unjustly, the IIO investigation will collect evidence that supports the existence of reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed. Based on this evidence, the Chief Civilian Director may submit a referral to Crown Counsel (BC Prosecution Service) for consideration of charges.

It is essential that the IIO avoid releasing information shortly after an incident occurs that may prejudice an IIO investigation.

In many cases, the public interest in incidents subject to IIO investigation requires a media release shortly after an incident occurs. This is typically before IIO Investigators have had opportunity to complete any investigative tasks and confirm facts. However, releasing key details about an incident before an independent investigation has taken place has the potential to unduly influence public perception.

This is particularly true in cases where a non-police weapon may have been involved in an incident. Identifying a particular type of weapon might be seen by some to suggest a conclusion to the question surrounding whether the police action was justified.  To avoid that perception, important details are held back until a full and complete investigation has been conducted. In some cases, it may be important to note that a weapon may have been present to give the public an accurate snapshot of the incident, but where possible, the IIO does not specify the weapon type until the role it may have played in an incident has been investigated.

Further, the IIO must ensure the integrity of the IIO investigation is preserved by avoiding statements that may contaminate witnesses. For example, if the IIO media release stated that a person attacked someone with a knife, Investigators cannot be certain if witnesses interviewed after this information was made public got that information from their memories or if they read the media release and what was previously thought of as simply an object in a hand now becomes a knife.[1]

[1] Howe, M. L., & Knott, L. M. (2015). The fallibility of memory in judicial processes: lessons from the past and their modern consequences. Memory (Hove, England), 23(5), 633–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1010709

The IIO has a responsibility to use neutral language when reporting on incidents and to avoid releasing any information that could prejudice an investigation, contaminate witness memories, or unduly infringe on the privacy rights of an Affected Person. This requires careful balancing of several competing interest, such as:

• Preserving the integrity of the IIO investigation by avoiding statements that may contaminate witnesses. For example, if the IIO media release stated that a person attacked someone with a knife, Investigators cannot be certain if witnesses interviewed after this information was made public got that information from their true memories of the incident, or if they read the media release and used that information to ‘fill in the blanks’ in their memory.[1]
• Protecting the identity of the Affected Person
• Transparency/public interest

First and foremost, the IIO’s vision is to be the leading oversight agency enhancing the public’s faith in police accountability. This requires we conduct fair, impartial investigations as transparently as practicable for Affected Persons, involved officers, and the communities we serve.

In addition, in the initial phases of an IIO investigation, the IIO has typically been notified by the involved police agency, and therefore all information available at that point was provided by police. Until the IIO has had an opportunity to independently verify the facts, it is necessary to avoid influencing public perceptions about the incident.

[1] Howe, M. L., & Knott, L. M. (2015). The fallibility of memory in judicial processes: lessons from the past and their modern consequences. Memory (Hove, England), 23(5), 633–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1010709

The IIO has no authority over the assignment status of officers. Each police department continues to be responsible for the assignment of their officers during an IIO investigation.

Each incident is unique and the amount of time it will take to complete an investigation will depend on many factors including the size and location of the scene, the number of involved officers, the number of civilian witnesses, and the need for and dependence on specialized reports, including third party expert opinions.

Under section 38.11 of the Police Act, the Chief Civilian Director (CCD) may refer a matter to Crown Counsel if, after an investigation, the CCD finds there are reasonable grounds to believe that an officer may have committed an offence.

Crown Counsel has jurisdiction over the charge assessment and charge approval process. In making this assessment, Crown Counsel will apply a two-part test:

•  there must be a substantial likelihood of conviction based on the evidence gathered by the investigating agency; and,
•  a prosecution must be required in the public interest.

Crown Counsel with the BC Prosecution Service makes charge approval decisions in British Columbia. The IIO refers investigations where the Chief Civilian Director finds that there may be reasonable grounds to believe an officer may have committed an offence to Crown Counsel for consideration of charges.

The IIO is committed to ensuring fair, unbiased investigations and to being as transparent as practicable. If it is in the public interest to do so, the IIO may make basic, preliminary information regarding the incident public with a media release at the outset of an investigation, as well as information regarding the outcomes of investigations. The level of detail provided regarding the outcome depends on the circumstances of each file, but at a minimum the status of each investigation and basic facts such as date, location, and status, is provided on the IIO’s cases page. If the Chief Civilian Director (CCD) finds there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any officer has committed an offence, the IIO may issue a media release with a brief summary of the investigation findings or a public report which provides greater detail regarding the incident and rationale behind the CCD’s decision not to refer a file to Crown Counsel for consideration of charges.

If the CCD determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe an officer may have committed an offence and has determined that the matter should be referred to the Crown, the IIO will publish a media release to advise the public that the investigation has been referred for consideration of charges.

Where required, IIO Investigators will travel anywhere within BC to conduct an investigation, operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Witnesses are interviewed directly by IIO Investigators wherever possible, and experts are engaged where necessary.

At scenes where the IIO is the only or primary investigative body, the IIO sets priorities to ensure evidential opportunities are maximized. Where there are concurrent or parallel investigations, such as a police or BC Coroners Service investigation, all agencies work together to achieve maximum effectiveness.

The IIO conducts investigations into on- and off- duty police-related incidents of serious harm and death. The IIO does not investigate complaints of misconduct. Investigation and review of complaints made against the conduct of municipal police officers remain the responsibility of the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner (OPCC). Complaints made against the conduct of members of the RCMP are the responsibility of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (CRCC).