Going Solo During Investigative Interviews

Can a person who is under investigation insist upon having someone with them during an interview? That was the issue raised in British Columbia (Securities Commission) v. Clozza, 2017 BCSC 419. Mr. Clozza wanted a director from his company present with him during his investigative interview. It just so happened that the director was a former employee of the regulator. The regulator declined to proceed with the colleague present and insisted that Mr. Clozza answer the questions on his own. Mr. Clozza refused, arguing that his colleague would act as his “counsel”.

The Court held that Mr. Clozza could not insist on having his colleague present. His colleague was not a lawyer and thus did not fit within the exception for having “counsel” present. Having the colleague present could compromise the confidentiality of the investigation. In addition, in the circumstances of this case, the colleague might be a potential witness or perhaps even a party in any subsequent proceedings. The Court ordered Mr. Clozza to attend the interview and answer questions without his colleague present.

This case does not address the issue of whether the regulator could permit a witness or subject of the investigation to have a “support person” present in the interview in appropriate circumstances.

More Posts

A Judicial Warning

Courts rarely give warnings to regulators about future potential problem areas. Courts tend to decide individual matters on specific facts. However, in Welkoff v. Ontario

Wording Standards of Practice

An important professional regulation tool is the publication of standards of practice (or other types of advisory statements) guiding registrants. However, to be effective, standards

Accepted Outcomes

Introduction Reform to professional regulation in the UK continues with the recent release of the guideline  Using accepted outcomes in fitness to practice: guidance for

Charkhandeh – Part 3 – Costs

Alberta’s Court of Appeal appointed a special five-Justice panel to consider important aspects of discipline hearings. In a blockbuster decision, the Court addressed three recurring