File a Government Agent Complaint

Use this form to report conduct by a current or former Canadian government agent whose actions may affect the integrity of an investigation, the reliability of government evidence, the fairness of a proceeding, or the agent’s credibility, candour, impartiality, or professional judgment.

The Stinchcombe List documents potential disclosure and impeachment material concerning participants in the Canadian justice system. Government agents frequently collect evidence, conduct interviews, prepare reports, inspect property, access protected databases, provide expert or technical opinions, make regulatory findings, recommend enforcement action, and testify in court or administrative proceedings.

When such an agent provides information to police, prosecutors, tribunals, courts, or other decision-makers, documented concerns about the agent’s honesty, reliability, bias, methods, recordkeeping, or use of authority may become relevant to the evaluation of government evidence.

A complaint may be submitted before the agent’s department, professional regulator, tribunal, court, ombudsperson, integrity commissioner, privacy commissioner, law-enforcement agency, or other authority has issued a final decision. The procedural status of the complaint must be accurately identified.

Who May Be the Subject of a Government Agent Complaint

A complaint may concern a current or former public employee, contractor, appointee, investigator, expert, or other person exercising government authority.

Potential subjects include:

• Government investigators;
• Regulatory investigators;
• Inspectors and compliance officers;
• Licensing and enforcement officers;
• Correctional officers and institutional investigators;
• Probation and parole officers;
• Border-services officers;
• Immigration and refugee-enforcement personnel;
• Customs officers;
• Tax investigators and auditors;
• Securities investigators;
• Competition, consumer-protection, or financial-regulation personnel;
• Environmental, fisheries, forestry, wildlife, or natural-resources officers;
• Occupational health and safety inspectors;
• Transportation and commercial-vehicle inspectors;
• Building, fire, housing, or public-health inspectors;
• Child-protection and family-services workers;
• Social-services investigators;
• Benefits, disability, pension, or employment-insurance investigators;
• Human-rights investigators;
• Privacy, access-to-information, or records officers;
• Forensic scientists and laboratory personnel;
• Medical examiners, coroners, and government medical experts;
• Digital-forensics personnel;
• Government analysts, intelligence personnel, and expert witnesses;
• Tribunal investigators and hearing officers;
• Ethics, integrity, or professional-standards personnel;
• Indigenous, municipal, provincial, territorial, or federal enforcement agents;
• Government contractors exercising delegated investigative or enforcement authority;
• Civilian employees who create, preserve, analyze, transmit, summarize, or disclose government evidence.

Police officers, prosecutors, and judges should ordinarily be reported through the separate forms created for those roles.

The complaint should identify the government agent as precisely as possible. Include the person’s full name, title, department or agency, province or territory, office or branch, employee or licence number when lawfully available, and the proceeding or investigation connected to the complaint.

Conduct That May Be Reported

A complaint may address any documented act or omission that could reasonably affect an assessment of the agent’s honesty, reliability, objectivity, methods, professional integrity, bias, evidentiary practices, or lawful use of public authority.

Potentially relevant conduct includes:

• False, misleading, incomplete, or materially inconsistent statements;
• Dishonesty in reports, notes, affidavits, testimony, interviews, applications, certifications, or official correspondence;
• Fabrication, alteration, concealment, destruction, loss, contamination, substitution, or mishandling of evidence;
• Failure to preserve notes, recordings, samples, exhibits, digital files, correspondence, or source data;
• Failure to disclose relevant or exculpatory information;
• Omission of information that materially qualifies or contradicts an official conclusion;
• Misrepresentation of observations, testing, calculations, qualifications, methods, or results;
• Improper editing, filtering, summarizing, or characterization of evidence;
• Use of unsupported assumptions, unreliable methods, or undisclosed limitations;
• Failure to follow required investigative, scientific, regulatory, or evidentiary procedures;
• Improper influence over a witness, complainant, investigator, expert, prosecutor, tribunal member, or decision-maker;
• Witness intimidation, coaching, coercion, retaliation, or interference;
• Bias, discrimination, selective enforcement, or improper profiling;
• Abuse of authority or abuse of public office;
• Unlawful inspection, search, seizure, surveillance, detention, or data access;
• Misuse of government databases, surveillance systems, confidential records, artificial-intelligence tools, or investigative technology;
• Unauthorized collection, use, disclosure, or retention of personal information;
• Conflict of interest or undisclosed personal, professional, political, financial, or institutional relationship;
• Retaliation against a complainant, witness, whistleblower, journalist, regulated person, accused person, lawyer, or public employee;
• Failure or refusal to receive, record, investigate, preserve, or forward a complaint;
• Obstruction of an access-to-information, privacy, disclosure, grievance, appeal, or review process;
• Improper communication with police, prosecutors, judges, adjudicators, or opposing parties;
• Misleading a court, tribunal, regulator, government department, or member of the public;
• Breach of a court order, statutory duty, undertaking, policy, professional standard, or evidentiary requirement;
• Improper use of government position, resources, credentials, information, or influence;
• Criminal conduct, regulatory misconduct, professional misconduct, or serious policy violations;
• Conduct resulting in stayed proceedings, withdrawn charges, overturned decisions, excluded evidence, professional discipline, civil liability, or judicial criticism;
• Repeated complaints demonstrating a potentially relevant pattern;
• Supervisory approval, concealment, ratification, or failure to correct known misconduct.

This list is not exhaustive. Conduct may be relevant even when it has not resulted in a criminal charge, professional sanction, employment discipline, civil judgment, or formal finding.

Disclosure and Evidentiary Relevance

In R. v. Stinchcombe, the Supreme Court of Canada established that the Crown must disclose relevant information in its possession or control, subject to recognized exceptions such as privilege and plainly irrelevant material. The disclosure right protects an accused person’s ability to make full answer and defence. The relevance threshold is broad and generally includes information having a reasonable possibility of assisting the accused.

Government-agent records may enter the criminal-disclosure process when an agent:

• Participates in an investigation;
• Provides information to police or prosecutors;
• Conducts testing or forensic analysis;
• Creates an official report;
• Supplies an expert opinion;
• Maintains evidence or source records;
• Makes a referral for criminal prosecution;
• Appears as a government witness;
• Provides evidence relevant to credibility, reliability, motive, bias, or investigative integrity.

In R. v. McNeil, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed misconduct records concerning a police officer whose credibility was central to a prosecution. The decision confirms that misconduct information may be subject to disclosure when it has a realistic bearing on a witness’s credibility or reliability. Although McNeil concerned police records, the underlying disclosure analysis may also be relevant when another government witness or investigator possesses comparable credibility-related material.

In Edmonton (Police Service) v. McKee, 2026 SCC 24, the Supreme Court held that administrative expungement could not defeat the disclosure framework where past misconduct had a realistic bearing on an investigator’s credibility. The decision reinforces the principle that internal recordkeeping classifications do not necessarily determine constitutional disclosure relevance.

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

• Credibility;
• Honesty;
• Reliability;
• Bias;
• Motive;
• Professional competence;
• Investigative integrity;
• Scientific or technical reliability;
• Evidence preservation;
• Record accuracy;
• Disclosure compliance;
• Abuse of authority;
• Conflict of interest;
• Witness treatment;
• Data integrity;
• Chain of custody;
• Compliance with legal or professional standards;
• Fairness of a criminal, civil, regulatory, or administrative proceeding.

The submitter is not required to prove that a prosecutor or court has already classified the information as disclosable. The submission should explain why the material may reasonably warrant preservation, review, 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 an agency;
• A pending investigation;
• An internal administrative review;
• A professional-regulatory investigation;
• A substantiated complaint;
• An unsubstantiated complaint;
• A policy finding;
• A disciplinary charge;
• A disciplinary finding;
• A judicial or tribunal finding;
• A civil allegation;
• A civil judgment or settlement;
• A criminal charge;
• A criminal conviction;
• An admission;
• A disputed public record;
• An overturned, withdrawn, expunged, or superseded finding.

Filing this form does not establish that the government agent 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, evidentiary basis, 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 agent’s department or agency;
• An internal professional-standards unit;
• A provincial or territorial ombudsperson;
• A federal ombudsperson;
• A privacy commissioner;
• An access-to-information commissioner;
• An integrity commissioner;
• An ethics commissioner;
• A human-rights commission;
• A professional regulator;
• A labour-relations authority;
• A police service;
• A prosecution service;
• A court or tribunal;
• An inspector general or auditor general;
• An attorney general;
• Any other government authority.

A person seeking discipline, compensation, criminal investigation, judicial review, disclosure, injunctive relief, professional sanctions, or correction of an official record may need to file separately with the appropriate body.

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

Information Required

Provide as much of the following information as possible.

Government Agent Identification

• Full name;
• Position or title;
• Department, ministry, agency, board, commission, tribunal, or Crown corporation;
• Branch, office, unit, laboratory, or institution;
• Province or territory;
• Municipality or operational jurisdiction;
• Professional designation or licence;
• Employee, inspector, investigator, or licence number when publicly available;
• Former agencies or positions;
• Known aliases or alternate spellings.

Incident or Proceeding Information

• Date and approximate time;
• Location;
• Type of investigation, inspection, proceeding, or government action;
• File, case, occurrence, complaint, or reference number;
• Court or tribunal information;
• Statute, regulation, programme, or government function involved;
• Agent’s role;
• Names or roles of other government personnel;
• Whether the matter remains pending or has concluded;
• Whether a criminal, civil, regulatory, professional, or administrative proceeding followed.

Complaint Description

State specifically:

• What the government agent did or failed to do;
• What the agent said, represented, recorded, certified, omitted, or concluded;
• Which statement, report, test, record, action, or omission is disputed;
• Why the conduct may affect credibility, reliability, integrity, bias, competence, or disclosure;
• What evidence contradicts or qualifies the government record;
• Whether the conduct was isolated or part of a pattern;
• What harm or procedural consequence resulted;
• Whether another authority has reviewed the matter;
• Whether the allegation remains pending, disputed, substantiated, dismissed, appealed, corrected, or otherwise resolved.

Use factual language. Avoid relying solely on labels such as “corrupt,” “dishonest,” “incompetent,” or “abusive.” Describe the acts, omissions, statements, methods, records, and consequences supporting the complaint.

False or Misleading Government Records

Where the complaint concerns a report, affidavit, certificate, assessment, inspection record, or other government document, identify:

• The document;
• Its author;
• The date it was created;
• The disputed statement or omission;
• The evidence contradicting it;
• Whether the error was reported;
• Whether the agent corrected the record;
• Whether another official relied on it;
• Whether it affected a charge, detention, licence, benefit, prosecution, adjudication, custody decision, sanction, or court proceeding.

The complaint should distinguish among:

• A disputed interpretation;
• An incomplete record;
• A negligent error;
• A methodological disagreement;
• A reckless statement;
• A knowingly false representation;
• A deliberate omission;
• An altered or fabricated record.

Investigative Misconduct

Where the complaint concerns an investigation, identify:

• The legal or administrative authority for the investigation;
• The agent’s assigned role;
• The evidence collected;
• The evidence ignored or excluded;
• The persons interviewed;
• Any relevant person the agent failed to interview;
• Whether interviews were accurately recorded;
• Whether the agent disclosed contradictory information;
• Whether the agent followed applicable policy or professional standards;
• Whether the agent had a conflict of interest;
• Whether the investigation was independent;
• Whether the report fairly represented the available evidence.

Potential concerns may include:

• Predetermined conclusions;
• Selective evidence gathering;
• Suppression of contradictory evidence;
• Improper witness influence;
• Retaliatory investigation;
• Collusion with an interested party;
• Failure to preserve records;
• Misrepresentation of investigative steps;
• Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information;
• Improper referral for prosecution or sanctions.

Scientific, Forensic, and Expert Complaints

Where the complaint concerns a government scientist, forensic examiner, medical expert, analyst, or technical witness, identify:

• The expert’s qualifications;
• The laboratory or agency;
• The test, examination, model, or method used;
• The underlying data;
• Applicable standards or protocols;
• Any quality-control concern;
• Any contamination or chain-of-custody issue;
• Any known error rate or limitation;
• Any omitted contradictory result;
• Whether another expert reviewed the work;
• Whether the expert testified;
• Whether the opinion exceeded the expert’s field of competence;
• Whether the expert disclosed all material assumptions and limitations.

Potentially relevant conduct includes:

• Fabricated or altered results;
• Unsupported conclusions;
• Selective reporting;
• Concealed errors;
• Misstated qualifications;
• Failure to disclose limitations;
• Use of invalidated methods;
• Failure to follow accreditation standards;
• Improper destruction of samples or data;
• Testimony materially inconsistent with laboratory records.

A good-faith professional disagreement is not necessarily misconduct. The complaint should explain why the issue concerns integrity, candour, reliability, competence, or disclosure rather than a mere difference of expert opinion.

Misuse of Government Databases or Surveillance

Where the complaint concerns improper information access or surveillance, identify:

• The database, system, device, or programme used;
• The agent’s authorized purpose;
• The actual purpose of the access;
• The date and scope of the search;
• The person or property targeted;
• Whether a warrant, consent, statutory authority, or policy permitted the access;
• Whether audit logs exist;
• Whether information was disclosed to another person;
• Whether the access was personal, retaliatory, political, discriminatory, or otherwise unauthorized.

Potential systems may include:

• Criminal-justice databases;
• Immigration and border systems;
• Tax and benefits records;
• Health or social-services databases;
• Motor-vehicle records;
• Licence-plate-reader systems;
• Biometric systems;
• Facial-recognition tools;
• Location data;
• Government email or messaging archives;
• Artificial-intelligence or risk-assessment systems;
• Inspection and regulatory databases.

Retaliation and Abuse of Authority

Where the complaint concerns retaliation or coercive use of government power, identify:

• The protected or lawful activity preceding the alleged retaliation;
• The complaint, report, testimony, request, refusal, appeal, publication, or criticism involved;
• The agent’s knowledge of that activity;
• The adverse action taken;
• The chronology connecting the events;
• Any threats, warnings, demands, or conditions;
• Any comparator showing unequal treatment;
• Any official explanation;
• Any evidence of improper motive.

Potential retaliatory actions may include:

• Initiating an investigation;
• Referring a person for prosecution;
• Increasing regulatory scrutiny;
• Denying or delaying a benefit, permit, licence, service, or approval;
• Altering a government record;
• Disclosing confidential information;
• Contacting an employer or professional regulator;
• Restricting access to records;
• Threatening enforcement action;
• Interfering with a complaint or appeal.

Child-Protection and Social-Services Complaints

Where the complaint concerns a child-protection, family-services, or social-services agent, identify:

• The agent’s role;
• The statutory or programme authority involved;
• The family, benefit, placement, or service decision at issue;
• The disputed statement or record;
• The evidence provided to the agent;
• Any omitted or mischaracterized information;
• Whether the agent testified or submitted an affidavit;
• Whether records were disclosed to a court, police service, or prosecutor;
• Whether the agent had a conflict of interest;
• Whether the matter involved retaliation, coercion, bias, or improper disclosure of confidential information.

A disagreement with a discretionary social-service decision does not by itself establish misconduct. The complaint should identify specific conduct affecting credibility, record integrity, fairness, evidence, or lawful use of authority.

Correctional, Probation, and Parole Complaints

Where the complaint concerns correctional, probation, or parole personnel, identify:

• The institution, office, or supervising authority;
• The agent’s role;
• The disputed incident;
• Any use-of-force, disciplinary, classification, release, breach, or supervision record;
• The relevant report, log, recording, or witness statement;
• Whether the agent provided information to police, prosecutors, a court, or a parole authority;
• Whether records were altered, omitted, destroyed, or withheld;
• Whether the conduct affected liberty, release, institutional discipline, or criminal proceedings.

Potentially relevant matters include false reports, fabricated institutional charges, witness retaliation, misuse of confidential information, destruction of video, improper searches, discriminatory treatment, and misleading evidence given to a court or board.

Supporting Documentation

Attach or link the strongest available supporting records.

Useful materials may include:

• Government reports;
• Inspection records;
• Investigation files;
• Affidavits;
• Court decisions;
• Tribunal decisions;
• Hearing transcripts;
• Regulatory orders;
• Professional-discipline decisions;
• Internal correspondence;
• Access-to-information records;
• Privacy-commissioner findings;
• Ombudsperson reports;
• Auditor or inspector-general reports;
• Laboratory reports;
• Scientific data;
• Chain-of-custody records;
• Digital audit logs;
• Photographs;
• Audio or video recordings;
• Emails, letters, text messages, or official notices;
• Complaint acknowledgements;
• Civil pleadings, judgments, or settlement documents;
• News reporting from identifiable publications;
• Sworn declarations;
• Statements from witnesses;
• Policies, manuals, standards, or protocols governing the agent’s conduct.

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, scientific data, or images.

Evidence Preservation

Where relevant records may be deleted, overwritten, degraded, or destroyed, consider making a timely written preservation request to the organization controlling them.

Potentially relevant records may include:

• Agent notes;
• Draft and final reports;
• Interview recordings;
• Inspection photographs;
• Surveillance video;
• Laboratory data;
• Samples and exhibits;
• Email and messaging records;
• Database-access logs;
• Audit trails;
• GPS or vehicle-location records;
• Call recordings;
• Case-management records;
• Document metadata;
• Internal review records;
• Training and qualification records;
• Complaint and disciplinary files;
• Policies and procedural manuals in effect at the relevant time.

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

Complaints Based on Personal Knowledge

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

The complaint should explain:

• The submitter’s relationship to the matter;
• What the submitter personally observed;
• What information came from another person;
• What information came from a document, recording, database, or public source;
• Whether the submitter was a complainant, regulated person, accused person, witness, employee, lawyer, journalist, expert, or other participant;
• 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, hearsay, and professional opinion.

Multiple Government Agents

When several agents are involved, identify the conduct attributed to each person separately.

Do not attribute one agent’s conduct to every employee of a department or agency unless the evidence supports joint participation, authorization, supervisory responsibility, concealment, adoption, or ratification.

Separate profiles may be created where the conduct and supporting records differ materially among agents.

Supervisory and Institutional Conduct

A complaint may identify a supervisor, manager, director, deputy minister, commissioner, laboratory director, or other responsible official when the evidence supports individual involvement.

Potentially relevant supervisory conduct includes:

• Ordering improper conduct;
• Approving a false or incomplete report;
• Directing the withholding or destruction of evidence;
• Concealing a complaint or disciplinary matter;
• Interfering with an investigation;
• Retaliating against a complainant or whistleblower;
• Permitting repeated misuse of databases or surveillance tools;
• Failing to correct a known false record;
• Failing to notify police, prosecutors, courts, or regulators of credibility concerns;
• Ratifying misconduct after receiving notice;
• Maintaining practices that systematically impair disclosure or record integrity.

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

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, protected health-information subject, juror, sealed witness, or other legally protected person.

Prohibited Material

Do not submit:

• Knowingly false information;
• Fabricated evidence;
• Materially altered records presented as originals;
• Threats or encouragement of harassment;
• Home addresses or unrelated family information;
• Personal telephone numbers unrelated to the complaint;
• Financial account or identity-theft information;
• Unrelated medical or social-services records;
• Information prohibited by a publication ban;
• Sealed or unlawfully obtained records;
• Privileged information 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 government 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 government agent’s identity, position, and agency;
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 agent, department, regulator, or other authority for comment;
8. Categorize the complaint by source and procedural status;
9. Redact protected, privileged, 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 credibility or government evidentiary conduct, excessively speculative, duplicative, or unsupported by sufficient factual detail.

Government Agent Response and Corrections

A government agent or authorized representative may submit:

• A response;
• A correction;
• An official disposition;
• A disciplinary or regulatory decision;
• A court or tribunal ruling;
• An acquittal or exculpatory record;
• An appeal or review decision;
• Relevant contextual information;
• Proof of mistaken identity;
• Evidence that a statement, allegation, method, report, 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 when the complaint and its disposition remain matters of public, evidentiary, or disclosure relevance.

Requesting Removal

A government agent may separately request removal or modification of published information.

Removal is not automatic merely because:

• The agent disputes the complaint;
• An agency declined to investigate;
• A complaint was found unsubstantiated;
• No professional discipline was imposed;
• No criminal charge was filed;
• No court granted relief;
• The agent changed positions, retired, resigned, or left government service;
• An internal record was closed, expunged, or administratively removed;
• 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.

As confirmed in McKee, administrative expungement does not necessarily eliminate the disclosure relevance of underlying misconduct where that conduct has a realistic bearing on credibility.

Not an Official Government or Professional Determination

The Stinchcombe List is an independent public-interest platform.

Publication does not mean that a department, ministry, regulator, tribunal, police service, prosecution authority, court, ombudsperson, professional body, or other government institution has formally designated the agent as dishonest, unreliable, incompetent, or subject to disclosure.

The platform records potential disclosure, credibility, reliability, integrity, bias, and impeachment material so that it 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, opinions, and professional disagreements are identified as such;
• The correct government agent 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, evidentiary, or public concern.

Before You Submit

Confirm that you have:

• Identified the correct government agent;
• Identified the department, agency, office, or institution;
• Included the relevant file, investigation, court, or complaint number;
• Described specific conduct rather than relying on conclusions;
• Explained the potential credibility, reliability, integrity, bias, evidentiary, or disclosure 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, exculpatory decision, or contrary evidence;
• 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, regulatory, administrative, or judicial proceeding.