FAQs

An Affected Person, or AP, in an IIO investigation is the person who suffered serious harm or died in a police-involved incident. In cases where a person has died as a result of the incident, their family is offered support and updates.

Many of the individuals involved in an IIO investigation are “suspects” in police concurrent investigations. Rather than use the terms suspect or victim, the IIO uses ‘Affected Person’ to maintain a neutrality that is consistent with the IIO mandate to conduct fair and unbiased investigations.

While you would not be considered an Affected Person, you may be impacted by an incident and the IIO investigation. The IIO Affected Persons Liaison is available to speak with you and help you access services in your community. You can connect with the IIO using our contact form.

The Affected Persons Liaison (APL) provides support to those affected by incidents the IIO is investigating or their family if they have died.

The APL will:

• explain the role of the IIO and the investigative process;
• discuss how the various investigative agencies work together;
• facilitate access to support services in the community; and
• act as a liaison through the life of the file by providing updates and relaying questions to the investigative team.

An Affected Person is not compelled to cooperate with an IIO investigation. However, the Affected Person’s account of what took place is important to the IIO’s investigation. In addition, the Affected Person’s medical records are often required to confirm serious harm and that the IIO mandate to investigate is met.

An Affected Person may be the subject of a concurrent or parallel police investigation, and as a result, they may face jeopardy. When an IIO Investigator takes an Affected Person’s statement, the focus is on the Affected Person’s interaction with police, not the Affected Person’s possible criminal conduct. The Investigator will advise the Affected Person not to provide incriminating information in their IIO statement as IIO file material may be disclosed to the involved police agency.

If the Affected Person’s personal belongings are considered evidence, they will be seized. The IIO will process the items as efficiently as possible and return them as soon as they are no longer required.

Media outlets may contact Affected Persons or their families regarding an incident under IIO investigation and request comment. It is up to the Affected Person or their family if they wish to speak to the media, but they are not obligated to do so even if media ask. Please refer to the media page in the IIO’s Information for Affected Persons and Families booklet for more information. This resource is also available in Traditional Chinese and Punjabi.

In general, the IIO does not release the names of affected persons, as stated in the Canadian Civilian Oversight Agencies Joint Statement on the Release of Names. Only under exceptional circumstances will the IIO determine it necessary to release the name of an Affected Person, such as to secure essential evidence when there are no alternative means available to do so. If Crown Counsel approves a charge, the BC Prosecution Service will release the name of the Affected Person.

If an inquest is ordered into the death by the BC Coroners Service, they will release the name of an Affected Person.

The IIO recognizes that the wait for an investigation to conclude is challenging for Affected Persons and their families. The IIO places the highest importance on ensuring an unbiased, thorough investigation, and only information that does not jeopardize the integrity of the investigation will be provided until such a time as the investigation has concluded.

Updates provided to Affected Persons and families often include information regarding the status of the file and upcoming milestones. Upon conclusion, if an investigation is not being referred to Crown Counsel for consideration of charges, the IIO will provide as much information as possible to Affected Persons and families, while respecting relevant privacy laws.

Where an investigation is referred to Crown Counsel, the IIO is limited in what information that can be provided until a charge decision and any related court proceedings are concluded.

Sometimes the IIO provides an Affected Person and/or their families with information that is considered “embargoed”. Usually this information is related to a decision made by the Chief Civilian Director (CCD) that is shared with the Affected Person and/or their family, along with other involved parties, before it is made public. For example, where the CCD is referring the file to Crown Counsel or is about to issue a public report, the Affected Person or their family will be notified in advance. When this occurs, the IIO requires that the information be kept confidential until it is made public. The Affected Person and/or their family may contact the Affected Persons Liaison if they have any questions.

At any point during an investigation, Affected Persons are welcome to contact the IIO to obtain an update on their file. The Affected Persons Liaison will be the primary point of contact.

Once an investigation is complete, if it is forwarded to Crown Counsel with the BC Prosecution Service (BCPS) and Crown does not approve charges, they will issue a Clear Statement that provides a brief chronology of the evidence and the rationale for the decision. Clear Statements can be found on the BCPS website.

If the Chief Civilian Director does not refer the file to Crown Counsel, they may choose to publish a public report or media release explaining the decision on the IIO website where it is in the public interest to do so.

If, after discussing their concerns with the Affected Persons Liaison, an Affected Person and/or their family still has questions, they may request a meeting with the Chief Civilian Director.

The IIO does not have the authority to provide financial support to an Affected Person or their family during an IIO investigation. The Affected Persons Liaison may be able to assist an Affected Person with referrals to community resources and services.

The status ‘open – investigation in progress’ reflects that the IIO is actively investigating an incident. Investigative steps may include but are not limited to:

• Conducting witness and police interviews
• Securing and analyzing Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) footage
• Ballistics reports
• Gathering GPS data
• Pathology reports
• Medical information
• Toxicology reports
• Forensic examinations
• Digital forensic analysis
• Cell phone analysis
• DNA and fingerprint analysis
• Execution of judicial (search warrant) applications
• Subject matter expert reports
• And more

The amount of time it takes the IIO to conclude an investigation varies significantly depending on the complexity of the incident, location, number of witnesses and involved officers, and other factors.

When an IIO investigation concludes, if the Chief Civilian Director determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed, they may refer the matter to Crown Counsel (BC Prosecution Service) for consideration of charges.

This status confirms that the IIO investigation is being reviewed by Crown Counsel so they can make a charge decision. Once a charge decision has been made to approve charges or not, the status will be updated to reflect this decision (either ‘Closed – Charges Approved by Crown Counsel’ or ‘Closed – No Charges Approved by Crown Counsel’).

In deciding whether to approve charges, the BC Prosecution Service must be satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood of conviction based on the evidence gathered by the IIO, and that prosecution is required in the public interest.

IIO Investigators and other employees continue to support this process by clarifying evidence. The IIO’s Affected Persons Liaisons provide support and updates where available to Affected Persons and/or their families while a matter is pending charge assessment.

After an IIO investigation is referred to Crown Counsel for consideration of charges, if Crown Counsel is satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood of conviction based on the evidence gathered by the IIO, and that prosecution is required in the public interest, they may approve charges against the involved officer(s).

IIO Investigators and other employees continue to support this process by laying charges and testifying in court. The IIO’s Affected Persons Liaisons provide support and updates to Affected Persons and/or their families while a matter is before the courts.

When the IIO concludes an investigation, the Chief Civilian Director (CCD) will determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that any officer may have committed an offence. Where reasonable grounds do not exist, the IIO will conclude the investigation by releasing a public report, concluding media release, or without further public comment. Which option is most appropriate will depend on the level of public interest balanced against the privacy interests of the involved parties. Public reports are released on the IIO website in cases where the public interest is highest and outweighs the privacy interests of the involved parties, although their privacy is still protected by measures including removal of personal information from any reporting.

IIO public reports provide a detailed narrative of the incident, outline the evidence collected and examined during the IIO investigation, and describes the legal principles applied, and the rationale for the CCD’s decision. All public reports can be found on the public reports page of the IIO website.

When the IIO concludes an investigation, the Chief Civilian Director (CCD) will determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that any officer may have committed an offence. Where reasonable grounds do not exist, the IIO will conclude the investigation by releasing a public report, concluding media release, or without further public comment. Which option is most appropriate will depend on the level of public interest balanced against the privacy interests of the involved parties.

The IIO concludes an investigation without a public report where there are elevated privacy interests. In these cases, the IIO may issue a concluding media release, or conclude without further public comment. Concluding media releases include a brief description of the incident, a summary of the evidence, and the decision reached. Concluding media release can be found on the media page of the IIO website.

After an IIO investigation is referred to Crown Counsel for consideration of charges, Crown Counsel with the BC Prosecution Service (BCPS) must be satisfied that the below conditions are met to approve charges:

1. there is a substantial likelihood of conviction based on the evidence gathered by the IIO, and
2. that prosecution is required in the public interest.

In cases where Crown Counsel do not believe those two conditions have been met, charges will not be approved. In most cases, the BCPS will publish a clear statement in these cases. Like an IIO public report, a clear statement includes a detailed narrative of the event, the legal principles considered, and the rationale for the decision made.

If charges are approved following an IIO investigation, the matter will proceed to court. While the matter remains before the courts, the file’s status on the IIO website will remain “Closed – Charges Approved by Crown Counsel” with a link to the media statement by the BC Prosecution Service approving those charges. However, once the court process has concluded, the IIO will upload a summary of the result of those proceedings (e.g., guilty verdict, guilty plea, acquittal, etc.). (Note: stay of proceedings has its own category on the IIO website).

If charges are approved following an IIO investigation, the matter will proceed to court. While the matter remains before the courts, the file’s status on the IIO website will remain “Closed – Charges Approved by Crown Counsel” with a link to the media statement by the BC Prosecution Service approving those charges.

In some cases, Crown may decide to direct a stay of proceedings while a matter is before the courts if Crown determines that proceeding with the prosecution no longer meets the two-part test used to approve charges. The two-part test requires that:

1. there is a substantial likelihood of conviction based on the evidence gathered by the IIO, and
2. that prosecution is required in the public interest.

If a stay is directed, the IIO will upload a brief description of the incident and the date the court proceedings were stayed.

IIO Case Status Flowchart

The IIO officially became operational on September 10, 2012.

The IIO has a team of forensic experts who conduct forensic investigations for the IIO, as well as being responsible for engaging with, monitoring, and reviewing the work of police forensic personnel to ensure that scene processing and evidence collection is according to best practices and meets the expectations of Crown Counsel and the courts. IIO Investigators take possession of relevant evidence and secure it in IIO facilities.

There are some circumstances under which IIO Investigators will use police facilities in order to ensure a timely, competent investigation. The IIO will seek to interview civilian witnesses at a neutral location; however, if there is no objection by the witness, for the sake of convenience the interview may be conducted at a police facility. The IIO also makes regular use of provincial government offices when required.

The IIO is committed to a timely response to all incident scenes given the resources available to its investigators.  As such, the IIO, upon notification of an incident, will determine the means of transportation that will ensure the timeliest response possible.  If an incident takes place outside of the Lower Mainland, the IIO may use transportation available from the RCMP or another police agency, to include airplanes and boats that are readily available at no cost.

The IIO investigates incidents that occurred after the office became operational on September 10, 2012. Given the provisions of the Police Act, it is unlikely that incidents that occurred before this date will be investigated by the IIO.

All employment opportunities for the IIO are posted to the careers page. Please check back regularly.

The IIO is a civilian-led investigatory body mandated to investigate incidents where serious harm or death has occurred, and there is a connection to police action or inaction. Initial investigative steps will seek to confirm that the level of injury and connection are met, and if they are not, the IIO will usually discontinue its investigation. This occurs in approximately 75-85% of investigations.

Where both serious harm or death are confirmed to have occurred, and a connection to police action or inaction exists, the investigation will continue and culminate in a file review where all evidence is examined to determine if reasonable grounds to believe an officer may have committed an offence exist.

The Chief Civilian Director (CCD) considers all evidence collected during the investigation to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe any officers may have committed an offence. The IIO derives its authority from the Police Act.

The IIO was established in 2012 in response to recommendations arising from public inquiries led by Justices Braidwood and Davies. These inquiries highlighted the need for independent police oversight to increase public confidence, accountability and transparency in policing in British Columbia.

Serious harm, as defined in Part 11 of the Police Act, means injury that may result in death, may cause serious disfigurement, or may cause substantial loss or impairment of mobility of the body as a whole or of the function of any limb or organ.

The definition of serious harm is limited to physical injury and does not include emotional or psychological harm. The IIO mandate does not extend to investigating allegations of sexual offences at this time.

Serious harm is determined by reviewing an Affected Person’s medical records. An IIO Investigator or Affected Persons Liaison will usually request the Affected Person’s consent to the release of their medical records. This is an important aspect of the IIO investigation.

See our cases page for a full list of both ongoing and concluded investigations.

No. The IIO only has jurisdiction to investigate on- or off-duty police officers and on-duty Special Provincial Constables. Local police retain responsibility for any investigation into the alleged actions of the person who was injured during the incident with police. This individual is referred to as the Affected Person in the IIO investigation.

At the conclusion of an investigation, if the Chief Civilian Director (CCD) has reasonable grounds to believe that an officer may have committed an offence, the CCD may refer the matter to Crown Counsel with the BC Prosecution Service for consideration of charges. The IIO will then release an information bulletin stating that the IIO has filed a report to Crown Counsel, including a brief summary of the incident. If Crown Counsel does not approve charges. the BC Prosecution Service will issue a Clear Statement which includes a more detailed narrative of the incident, as well as their rationale for the decision not to approve charges. If Crown Counsel does approve charges, they will issue a brief statement indicating the offence(s) charged. The IIO will not comment on a case when it is with Crown.

If the CCD determines the evidence does not support a referral to Crown Counsel, they may issue a public report summarizing the investigation and explaining the decision where it is in the public interest to do so. Where the matter is the subject of a concurrent investigation or court case, the IIO may be unable to release a full report until that case is concluded. A concluding information bulletin may be published in lieu of a public report where the privacy interests of the involved parties outweighs the public interest. These releases contain less detailed information to protect the privacy of the parties involved while still providing the public some accounting of the event.

Personal information about an officer, an Affected Person, a witness, or any other person who may have been involved will not be included in any IIO-issued statements or reports, except in rare cases where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the person. For more information regarding the decision to anonymize IIO reporting, please refer to the Canadian Civilian Oversight Agencies Joint Statement on Release of Names.

The IIO’s referral standard is similar to the traditional referral standard for police agencies in British Columbia. The Chief Civilian Director may forward an investigation to Crown Counsel where reasonable grounds to believe an offence may have been committed exist. To lay charges, Crown Counsel must be satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood of conviction based on evidence gathered by the IIO, and that the prosecution is in the public interest.

Approximately 50 percent of IIO investigators are former police officers. Those without policing backgrounds have significant experience in a wide variety of investigative, regulatory and enforcement agencies.

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).

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

In the Memorandum of Understanding between BC police agencies and the IIO, the IIO has agreed that it will not require a Subject Officer to submit to an interview in accordance with constitutional principles. This is because a Subject Officer’s actions are connected to the serious harm or death of the Affected Person(s), and Subject Officers therefore potentially face criminal charges if their actions were not justified. While a Subject Officer is legally required to produce notes and reports about an incident, they are not required to make them available to the IIO, nor are they required to answer possible self-incriminating questions from investigators. A Subject Officer may choose to voluntarily provide their notes, reports, or a statement to the IIO.

The focus of an IIO investigation is the actions of police, and whether an officer may have committed an offence. The IIO will conduct any inquiries which are relevant and necessary for each investigation, including relevant activity of the Affected Person. While determining any criminal liability on the part of the Affected Person is not the focus of the IIO investigation, Affected Persons should be aware that information provided to the IIO may be disclosable to police. Affected Persons are therefore cautioned when they are interviewed that what they say may be disclosed to police in a concurrent police investigation.

IIO investigators are peace officers, with all the powers, duties and responsibilities that accompany that designation. For example, IIO investigators are authorized to seize property or other material at a scene as evidence, and to obtain search warrants and other judicial authorizations to enter private property to search for and seize evidence. Unlike police officers, however, IIO Investigators are only expected to exercise their powers in the course of their investigative duties.

All police officers are required by law (section 38.101 of the Police Act) to cooperate fully with an IIO investigation. The statutory duty on a Witness Officer to fully cooperate has been interpreted expansively by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, including the determination that a Witness Officer is duty-bound to attend IIO interviews as and when the IIO directs, that the attendance of a Witness Officer’s counsel and union representatives at IIO interviews is at the IIO’s discretion, and that the production of pre-interview disclosure to a Witness Officer is at the discretion of the IIO.

All media interview requests should be directed to the IIO’s Media and Communications Liaison via the media line 778 988 1041 or info@iiobc.ca. All requests will be responded to in as timely a manner as possible. Please indicate if your story has a deadline when requesting an interview or other information.

The IIO has both Twitter and Facebook accounts. All media releases and public reports are posted on both social media accounts at the same time as on the IIO website. Follow us at Twitter @iiobc and Facebook Independent Investigations Office

While the investigation is ongoing, IIO investigators are in the process of gathering and assessing evidence, including the interview of key witnesses. It is best practice to interview witnesses as soon as practicable to obtain an untainted statement. In order to avoid contaminating witness accounts, the IIO is careful not to release information that may influence a witness’s perception of an event. In addition, the IIO provides only minimal information at the outset of an investigation as the available details have not yet been subject to independent investigation. The IIO is committed to transparency to the public and conducting fair and unbiased investigations. We seek to balance these interests when deciding if and when a media release will be issued, and what information it will contain.

The IIO releases an annual report capturing statistical data for each fiscal year, which runs from April 1 to March 31 every year. The annual report provides information about the IIO’s investigative process, and discussion of our public education and outreach activities. We also release statistical information about caseload statistics, budgets and organizational developments. The IIO’s annual reports can be found on the publications page.

Many of the individuals involved in an IIO investigation are “suspects” in police concurrent investigations. Rather than use the terms suspect or victim, the IIO believes that more neutral language is consistent with its mandate to conduct fair and unbiased investigations.

Once an IIO investigation is complete and a decision has been made whether to forward the file to Crown Counsel, Affected Persons, Subject Officers, police agency command and other relevant stakeholders (for example, the BC Coroners Service, the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner and/or the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP) are notified in writing prior to the decision being made public. Subject Officers specifically are often notified via their counsel, agency command or liaison officer.

The IIO will use a similar protocol for communicating other important decisions such as when a public report is issued. If a file has been forwarded to Crown Counsel for charge assessment, Crown become the leading agency to notify the public; however, the IIO may assist in notifying parties.

Pursuant to section 38.09 of the Police Act, “officers at the scene must take any lawful measures that appear to the officers to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining and preserving evidence relating to the matter.” Officers are required to collect evidence that would otherwise be lost prior to the IIO’s arrival at the scene; this must be documented and communicated to the IIO at the earliest possible time.

If you are identified as a Subject Officer, you will be required to surrender any items in your possession at the time of the incident that may have evidentiary value. You may be asked to be photographed in order to establish your appearance at the time of and immediately subsequent to the incident.

As a Witness Officer, you are required to cooperate with the IIO and may also be required to surrender items in your possession at the time of the incident.

All property will be processed and returned as soon as practicable.

After the IIO asserts jurisdiction over an incident, the involved police service will designate an officer who was not involved in the incident to act as the Liaison Officer (LO). The LO becomes the Subject and Witness Officer’s point of contact with IIO Investigators. The LO is expected to be a supervisor who has immediate access to the scene and to all officers whose cooperation may be needed during the IIO investigation.

Whenever the IIO is notified of a critical incident, the IIO has jurisdiction. There are times when the IIO on-call Director may recommend the Chief Civilian Director (CCD) decide not to investigate based on the information received which would appear to suggest there is no serious harm or no connection to police action. In other circumstances, the IIO may conduct a preliminary investigation to confirm whether the incident meets the two-part test for sustaining jurisdiction: confirmed death or serious harm, as defined, and a nexus or relationship between the injury and an officer’s actions. If the preliminary investigation confirms death or serious harm and a nexus, the IIO will continue to investigate. If not, the CCD may decide to discontinue the investigation and will take no further action.

Subject officers may be asked is they will voluntarily participate in an interview with IIO investigators. The provisions of sections 8.7, 8.8 and 8.10 of the Guidelines and Expectations with Respect to the Conduct of IIO Investigations apply to any such interviews.

IIO investigators will communicate any requests to a Subject Officer either verbally or in writing, typically via the Liaison Officer. Where the Subject Officer is represented by legal counsel, the request will be directed to the lawyer.

Under the Police Act, a Witness Officer is compelled to cooperate with an IIO investigation. This will generally include participating in an interview and submitting materials, including notes and documents, for review by the IIO in the course of its investigation. A Witness Officer may also be required to assist in a reconstruction of the incident. Information provided by a Witness Officer cannot be used against that Officer in criminal or civil court.

If the CCD determines that a file must be referred to Crown Counsel, the IIO must obtain the birth dates of any Subject Officers to enter into the JUSTIN database.

The Appeals and Special Prosecutions Section of the BC Prosecution Service reviews all IIO files in order to determine whether charges should be laid.

At any point during an investigation, Subject Officers are welcome to contact the IIO to obtain an update on their file via their  Liaison Officer.

Once an investigation is complete, if it is forwarded to Crown Counsel with the BC Prosecution Service (BCPS) and Crown does not approve charges, they will issue a Clear Statement that provides a brief chronology of the evidence and the rationale for the decision. Clear statements can be found on the BCPS website.

If the Chief Civilian Director does not refer the file to Crown Counsel, they may choose to publish a public report or media release explaining the decision on the IIO website where it is in the public interest to do so.

Yes. A police agency may advise the media that an incident has occurred and that the IIO has been notified. Only the IIO may address the media about IIO investigations. Before issuing new media releases, it is protocol for IIO media relations and police agency media relations to consult and ensure neither agency’s release unduly prejudices any investigation underway.

A police officer’s name will not generally be released to the public, except:

•  if the police officer is criminally charged, Crown Counsel will release the name of the police officer;
•  if the police officer is involved in a fatality which is brought to a coroner’s inquest, the police officer’s name will be made public during that process; or
•  if the police officer’s name has been previously publicly released and if, after consultation with the Privacy Commissioner, it is determined that keeping the officer’s name confidential would serve no useful purpose.

A Subject Officer means an officer whose presence, action or decision, whether on or off duty, is reasonably believed to have been a significant contributing causal factor in the serious harm or death of any person.

A witness officer is an officer who an IIO investigator has reason to believe can provide material evidence with respect to an incident under investigation, and who is not a subject officer with respect to that investigation.

The statutory duty on a Witness Officer to fully cooperate has been interpreted expansively by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, including the duty of a Witness Officer to attend IIO interviews as and when the IIO directs, that the attendance of Witness Officer’s counsel and union representatives at IIO interviews is at the IIO’s discretion, and that the production of pre-interview disclosure to a Witness Officer is at the discretion of the IIO.

Information provided by a Witness Officer is inadmissible in evidence in court in a civil proceeding for remedies against that officer in relation to the matter under investigation.