Trauma-Informed Investigations: A Core Competency and Professional Standard

Date: September 15, 2026

There is no doubt that the term “trauma-informed investigation” has served an important purpose. However, as its use has become more widespread in procurement documents, investigator biographies, and marketing materials, I have become concerned that the term is losing the specificity that once prompted genuine reflection and evolution in our profession. Increasingly, it appears to function as a shorthand for a set of values or beliefs rather than a description of identifiable competencies.

Additionally, the term can be invoked in a manner that suggests trauma-informed investigations are a specialized category of investigation, or a premium version of an investigation. In my view, trauma-informed practice is best understood as a competency requirement; every investigation ought to be trauma-informed in the same way that every investigation ought to be procedurally fair and be grounded in the available evidence.

What Is a Trauma-Informed Investigation?

The recognition that trauma can affect evidence and that certain techniques and processes can unnecessarily re-traumatize a witness is the product of decades of advocacy challenging assumptions that shaped our understanding of evidence law, including the role of expert evidence in assessing credibility in certain circumstances, and administrative law, including emerging practices for addressing concerns of procedural fairness.

In the investigative context, the term "trauma-informed" is generally used to describe an approach that recognizes the potential impact of trauma on participants and seeks to account for that impact in the design and conduct of the investigation. This includes examining assumptions about how a complainant, respondent, or witness may present; being mindful of how procedural decisions can affect participation; and understanding how the conduct of an investigator can influence the participant’s feelings of psychological safety and the quality of information obtained.

The principles commonly associated with trauma-informed practice are largely components of competent investigative practice. A trauma-informed investigator keeps current with legal developments about how to account for the impact of trauma and mental health on issues of evidence and procedure. For example, we should take guidance from the ways courts and tribunals have addressed experiences such as racial trauma, intergenerational trauma, colonial trauma, and trauma arising from prior interactions with state actors or legal systems in their decisions.

As our understanding of these issues evolves, so too must our investigative practices. This is particularly true in relation to the assessment of evidence, the design of investigative processes, and the manner in which investigators engage with participants. An investigation that ignores established knowledge about trauma may not simply be less effective; it may be indefensible in law, be it from an evidentiary or a procedural perspective, inconsistent with our professional obligations and mandates as neutrals, and may undermine trust in an organization’s ability to respond to and manage conflict.

Credibility Assessments

The aspect of trauma-informed investigations that has arguably received the greatest attention concerns the assessment of credibility and reliability and the extent to which weight should be assigned to witness comportment. As outlined below, the case law indicates that credibility assessments must be informed by the emerging law.

Whether we accept a witness's evidence depends on both credibility and reliability. Credibility concerns the witness's willingness to tell the truth, whereas reliability concerns their ability to accurately perceive, recall, and recount events. One of the earliest lessons to emerge from the case law addressing trauma and evidence was that inconsistencies may raise issues of reliability rather than credibility. As our understanding of trauma evolved, so too did the manner in which those inconsistencies were assessed.

In this regard, the Divisional Court’s comments in Joe Singer Shoes Limited v. A.B., 2019 ONSC 5628 [“Joe Singer Shoes”], are often cited. See, for example, paras 46 – 50 in which the Divisional Court considered the Tribunal’s assessment of the applicant’s reliability.

In Joe Singer Shoes, the Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's approach to assessing the applicant's evidence despite acknowledged concerns regarding reliability. The Court noted that the Tribunal distinguished between inconsistencies arising from memory difficulties and evidence suggestive of dishonesty, and relied on other indicators of reliability, including the applicant's ability to recount vivid sensory details associated with the alleged assaults, such as smells, physical sensations, and emotional responses.

None of this relieves investigators of their obligation to rigorously assess credibility and reliability. Investigators remain required to identify material inconsistencies, put those inconsistencies to the witness, and explain in their findings the weight assigned to them. This includes considering the nature of the inconsistency, such as whether it concerns a peripheral or material issue, whether it is isolated or recurring, and whether there are alternative explanations for it that do not involve dishonesty.

In our pursuit to rigorously test credibility and reliability, our approach as to how we interview a witness, including as it relates to discharging our obligations under Brown v Dunn, needs to be informed by frameworks established under the law. This may manifest through the use of open-ended questioning, a consistent and non-adversarial tone, and clear explanations as to why apparent inconsistencies are being put to a witness for response.

Another important lesson concerns the limitations of demeanour or comportment evidence in our credibility assessments. Courts and tribunals have repeatedly cautioned against drawing conclusions about credibility based solely on how a witness presents. Assumptions about how a truthful, traumatized, angry, fearful, or innocent person should behave are often unsupported and may reflect cultural, psychological, or personal biases rather than reliable indicators of truthfulness.

That is not to say that observations about a participant's conduct are never relevant. In limited circumstances, a decision-maker may properly consider conduct observed during the process where it bears directly on issues in dispute. For example, where a respondent is alleged to have engaged in disrespectful or demeaning conduct and demonstrates similar behaviour during the investigation while denying such tendencies, those observations may be relevant to the reliability of their evidence (and particularly their evidence that a reasonable person would not have found their conduct inappropriate).

This is consistent with the reasoning in Joe Singer Shoes, where the Divisional Court did not take issue with the Tribunal's observation that the respondent's language and combative conduct toward counsel reflected “a lack of respect for women generally”, which was one factor that was considered in the Tribunal’s assessment of the respondent’s evidence.

Process Considerations and Investigator Comportment

Understanding our role as neutrals is also fundamental to trauma-informed practice. A neutral investigator's objective is to obtain the best evidence available and determine, on a balance of probabilities, what occurred. From that perspective, transparency, predictability, and the removal of barriers to participation are not matters of ideology, but informed practice decisions that assist investigators in fulfilling their mandate.

Providing participants with clear information about the process, explaining procedural decisions, and ensuring that individuals are able to participate meaningfully promotes confidence in the investigation. In turn, this can improve the quality of the evidence obtained, reduce anxiety about the process, and increase trust in the investigator's neutrality.

Creating psychological safety, to the extent possible, is part of that exercise. Investigations are inherently stressful. Participants may become defensive, raise their voice, express distrust in the investigator, or otherwise appear unable to regulate their emotions. A trauma-informed investigator understands that such responses should not be viewed as personal attacks or, without more, as indicators of credibility or reliability. Rather, the investigator must remain focused on the task at hand: gathering evidence. This may involve resetting expectations, identifying concerns about conduct in a non-judgmental manner, offering breaks, or otherwise creating conditions that support meaningful participation while maintaining appropriate boundaries.

Trauma-informed practice also requires investigators to consider accommodations and barriers to participation. In many respects, this reflects existing legal obligations. However, it also requires an awareness of the broader context in which investigative processes operate. For some participants, previous experiences with legal institutions, state actors, or colonial systems may reasonably affect how they engage with investigative processes. Courts, tribunals, and administrative decision-makers have increasingly recognized these realities and, where appropriate, have adjusted procedures to facilitate meaningful participation while maintaining fairness to all parties. See for example Wilson and another v. Pagalis Sales Ltd. DBA: Canadian Tire Store 608 and others, 2025 BCHRT 241 or Mercier v. Correctional Service of Canada, 2023 CHRT 11.

Takeaways

Investigators are responsible for remaining current on legal developments and emerging research that affect their practice, and for cultivating the skills necessary to respond effectively to the issues that commonly arise in investigative interviews and processes.

If you have any questions about how this Insight may apply to your organization, or if you would like to discuss a complaint or a complaint policy, please contact Becky at becky@langillelittle.ca.