Requirement of Notice of Investigation: Advisement of Concerns of Inquiry to Prior to Questioning

Question: What are the rights of individuals under investigation by regulatory bodies in Canada?

Answer: Individuals under investigation must receive reasonable notice of the allegations and evidence against them before interviews, ensuring their right to procedural fairness is upheld. This critical protection helps prevent abuses in the investigative process, as highlighted in Samatar v. Canada, 2012 FC 1263. For peace of mind and to safeguard your rights, contact Olson Craig Legal today.

The Requirement to Provide Reasonable Notice of Suspicions to Persons Undergoing Direct Investigation

When a person is under investigation by a regulatory body, such as when a licensing board is contemplating a discipline proceeding and is conducting an interview following conduct complaints, the regulatory body is required to inform or otherwise provide notice to the person being investigated before interviewing such a person.  The requirement to provide notice of investigation to a person being interviewed as the target of the investigation is a critical element of the right to procedural fairness.  Without providing notice to the person being interviewed that such person is the target of the investigation, an abuse of process by lack of procedural fairness may arise.

The Law

Persons being interviewed as part of a regulatory investigation are entitled to know that an investigation is underway, to know what the allegations are, to know what evidence is already collected, and to review that evidence prior to answering questions at an interview.  This requirement was clearly stated in the case of Samatar v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FC 1263, wherein it was stated:

The Samatar case involved breaches of procedural fairness within an administrative investigation for fraud conducted by the Public Service Commission following applications for certain positions within the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General.  During the investigation, Ms. Samatar was interviewed and questioned without being advised that the purpose of the interview and questioning related to a fraud investigation in which Ms. Samatar was the suspect.  Accordingly, without being advised of the investigation, and therefore being without knowledge of the investigation, Ms. Samatar was also without an opportunity to know of the specific allegations or the evidence already collected.  Instead, the investigation and interview was improperly conducted in an ambush fashion.

Interestingly, and as emphasized by the court in Samatar, where an administrative body suspects wrongdoing and is conducting an investigation, especially when investigating issues that could relate to, and possibly lead to, criminal allegations, the failure to provide notice of the purpose of an interview potentially presents as a constitutional rights violation.

Conclusion

The rules of procedural fairness that apply to matters of administrative law, such as investigations by a regulatory authority, require that witnesses under suspicion of misconduct be provided reasonable notice of the purpose of interviews.  A witness under suspicion of misconduct must, generally, receive notice of complaints, notice of the alleged facts and gathered evidence, and notice of whom is the complainant.