Ontario Private Investigator common mistakes
Ontario Private Investigator · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the PSISA licence as if it conferred police powers - asserting that a licensed investigator may 'detain and search' a suspected shoplifter, demand identification, or hold someone in a back room until police arrive, and being unable to state what the Act and its Code of Conduct actually prohibit (impersonating a police officer, holding oneself out as police, using police insignia, using the title 'detective' in a way that suggests police status).
Candidates study the licensing mechanics (eligibility, application, renewal) because they are concrete, then assume the powers of the job mirror what they have seen on television or in police procedure material. The prohibitions and the Code of Conduct regulation are short sections that are easy to skim and easy to forget, even though they are tested heavily.
What to do instead
Build a one-page 'power table': for every action you think a PI can take (arrest, search, detain, seize, demand ID, enter premises, record), write the specific statute and section that grants it or write 'none'. Memorise the prohibition list in the Act and the Code of Conduct regulation by writing it out from memory weekly, and note that a licence authorises the provision of services - it does not create peace officer authority.
Overstating citizen's arrest powers under section 494 of the Criminal Code - believing a private investigator may arrest anyone who has committed any offence, anywhere, and hold the person for as long as it takes to finish questioning or complete a report, rather than delivering the person to a peace officer 'forthwith'.
Section 494 is one long, qualified sentence with distinct branches (indictable offence found committing; reasonable grounds plus fresh pursuit; property owner or person in lawful possession for a criminal offence on or in relation to the property). Candidates memorise the phrase 'citizen's arrest' and skip the conditions, and they conflate the arrest power with the use-of-force justification in section 25.
What to do instead
Break section 494 into its three separate arrest routes and learn what each requires, then pair it with section 25 (force must be reasonable and necessary in the circumstances) and with the 'forthwith' delivery requirement. Practise applying it to scenarios: off-duty investigator sees a break-in at a client's warehouse; investigator recognises a fraud suspect three days later at a mall; tenant refuses to leave. State for each whether an arrest is lawful and why.
Assuming that because eavesdropping charges are rare, an investigator may record or listen in on a conversation between two other people - for example leaving a recorder in a lunchroom, or having a client sit in on a call while the investigator takes notes - on the theory that 'only one party needs to consent'.
The one-party consent rule in section 184(2) of the Criminal Code is remembered as a slogan. Candidates forget that it protects a person who is a party to the communication, and they mistakenly import the 'consent of one party' idea so that the consent of the client or investigator covers everyone. They also confuse interception with admissible recording of a conversation they are actually part of.
What to do instead
Learn the statutory definition of 'private communication' and of 'intercept', then apply a simple gate: am I a party to this conversation? If yes, recording is generally lawful; if no, stop and get legal advice. Work through three scenarios with the answer written down - recording your own interview with a witness; recording your own telephone call with a subject; recording a conversation between two employees with a device left in a room. Note the answer differs for the third.
Beginning work without a written scope - taking instructions by phone, starting surveillance or interviews the same day, and only later discovering that the client wanted something different, that the subject is a former partner of the client, or that the requested method (pretexting for personal information, accessing a private account) is unlawful or unethical.
New investigators want to appear responsive and capable, so they accept vague retainers ('find out what my ex is up to') and treat urgency as a reason to skip paperwork. They also underestimate that the investigator, not the client, carries the licence and the liability for the method used.
What to do instead
Adopt a standard intake form: who the client is, who the subject is, the specific question to be answered, lawful methods authorised, deliverables and deadlines, billing, and a conflicts check. Confirm the objective in writing before any field work and re-confirm in writing whenever the client's request shifts. If a requested method is unlawful, record that you declined and why, in the file, at the time.
Breaking the chain of custody - receiving a USB drive, phone, or document from a client or witness, examining it, and putting it in a desk drawer with no record of who had it, when it was received, whether copies were made, or where the original now is - and destroying original handwritten notes after typing them into the report.
Candidates think evidence handling is a police lab topic. In civil and workplace files the exhibit is often a photocopy or a screenshot, so the handling feels informal, and the original notes feel redundant once a clean report exists. The consequence - an exhibit ruled unreliable or notes that must be produced and cannot be - only surfaces months later.
What to do instead
Treat every item as if it will be challenged: log date, time, source, description, condition, and each transfer, and keep originals in a locked location with copies used for working. Never destroy handwritten notes, drafts, or recordings; the typed report supplements the notes, it does not replace them. In practice, write 'received from X at 14:05, sealed envelope, opened in presence of Y' as a habit until it is automatic.
Submitting surveillance with no usable log - video whose recorder clock is hours off real time, no note of when observation began or ended, no record of the location or vantage point, and no entry for the hours when nothing happened, so the report implies continuous observation that did not occur.
Long, quiet shifts create an incentive to record only the 'interesting' events, and a camera's on-screen clock is assumed to be correct. Candidates also believe that 'nothing happened' entries are wasted space rather than the backbone of credibility.
What to do instead
Use a surveillance log with fixed columns - date, time, location, weather/light, persons present, vehicles and plates, activity, and breaks in observation with the reason. Note the camera or device time against a reliable time source at start and end of each session. Record negative periods explicitly. If observation breaks off (subject out of view, device changed, battery swap), state the gap and its length.
Conducting interviews with leading or compound questions ('You were angry when you took the money, weren't you?'), then writing the statement in the investigator's own words and having the subject simply sign it, without establishing on the record that the person attended voluntarily and was free to leave.
Candidates confuse interviewing with interrogation technique seen on television, and they believe a signed statement is stronger if it is neatly worded by the investigator. They also assume that because a private investigator is not a peace officer, voluntariness and freedom to leave need not be addressed at all - right up until the statement is challenged.
What to do instead
Ask open questions first ('Tell me what happened'), then narrow, one fact per question. Record the exact questions and answers, or record the interview with consent if lawful. Write the statement in the subject's own words and phrasing, have it read back and corrected, and have the subject initial each page and any correction. At the outset, note the time, place, who is present, that the person came voluntarily, and that they may leave at any time.
Writing reports in which conclusions are stated as observations - 'the subject was nervous and acting suspiciously, confirming the theft' - with subjective adjectives, no chronology, and no distinction between what the investigator saw and what the investigator inferred.
Investigators naturally reason toward the client's theory, and the report is written after the fact when the conclusion already feels obvious. Subjective language is faster to write than a precise description of behaviour, and candidates do not realise that an unsupported conclusion gives opposing counsel an easy target.
What to do instead
Split every paragraph into observation and inference, labelling the inference ('In my opinion...'). Replace adjectives with described behaviour: not 'nervous' but 'tapped his foot, looked at the door four times in two minutes, and answered two questions with a question'. Write chronologically with times, and test each conclusion by asking whether a reader with only the observations would reach it. Type the report promptly, while notes are fresh.
Guessing on the stand - agreeing with a proposition the investigator does not actually remember because 'I don't recall' feels like a failure, arguing with defence counsel, volunteering evidence beyond the question, or testifying without having re-read the notes and report beforehand.
Candidates prepare the law and the file but not the role. They believe a confident witness is a credible witness, and they have never practised being cross-examined on a gap in their notes, so the first challenge to their memory feels like an attack to be resisted.
What to do instead
Before testifying, re-read notes, report, and exhibits, and know where the gaps are. Answer only the question asked, then stop. When memory is genuinely absent, say so and, if permitted, ask to refer to notes to refresh memory - distinguishing that from past recollection recorded. Rehearse cross-examination with a colleague who attacks times, distances, and wording. Never guess; an honest gap is survivable, a wrong answer under oath is not.
Letting the client's interest override the duty of accuracy - softening a negative finding, leaving out an observation that helps the other side, discussing one client's file with another, or accepting a retainer where the investigator has a personal connection to the subject, without disclosing it.
The client pays and expects a result, so there is quiet pressure to deliver one. Investigators also underestimate how often small files overlap socially, and they treat a personal connection as a private matter rather than a conflict that must be disclosed and documented.
What to do instead
Adopt the rule that the report states the truth as observed and that unfavourable findings are reported with the same detail as favourable ones. Identify and disclose any personal or financial connection to the subject or to the opposing party before accepting the retainer, and record the disclosure and the client's decision. Keep files separate, discuss them only with those who need to know, and treat confidentiality as continuing after the file closes.