This page explains a documented decision by Crown counsel not to call or rely on a witness because of credibility, reliability, integrity, or evidentiary concerns. Records of this kind can help the public, legal community, researchers, journalists, and institutions understand an event and locate the authoritative material behind it. The label is a classification aid, not a substitute for the original decision or source.
What may be included
The category can include case-specific non-call decisions, office-wide or conditional restrictions where documented, later reassessments, court references, and related accountability records. Inclusion depends on relevance, source quality, public availability, and the ability to describe the matter fairly. Closely related documents may be linked so that readers can follow the matter from allegation or initiation through investigation, decision, review, correction, or final disposition.
Core information in a record
A useful record should identify the Crown office or decision-maker where public, witness, jurisdiction, date, stated basis, scope, duration, affected matter, later status, and authoritative source. Missing information should be marked as unknown or unavailable rather than inferred. Names, dates, quotations, and outcome labels should be taken from authoritative sources wherever possible.
How the process develops
Many matters move through several stages: intake or initiation, jurisdiction review, investigation or evidence gathering, notice and response, decision, reasons, remedy, appeal or review, and follow-up. Some end earlier or proceed under confidential rules. Each page should state the known stage and avoid describing an interim event as a final result.
Sources and verification
Primary sources may include judgments, orders, published decisions, official reports, hearing notices, policies, government releases, and authenticated public records. Reliable secondary reporting can supply context, but should not silently replace the primary record when one is available. Readers should follow citations, confirm that the source concerns the correct person and event, and check for later decisions.
Classification and status
Alleged, under review, substantiated, dismissed, withdrawn, stayed, overturned, expunged, and final are materially different statuses. A single matter may contain several allegations with different outcomes. The record should preserve those distinctions and explain whether a later decision changed the legal or administrative effect of an earlier one.
Important caution
a non-call decision is not automatically a criminal conviction, disciplinary finding, or permanent determination about every future proceeding. No entry on the Manitoba Stinchcombe List independently establishes criminal guilt, civil liability, professional discipline, inadmissibility, or a disclosure obligation. Those conclusions depend on governing law, the complete record, and the decision of the responsible authority.
Using this page
Use the page to orient research, identify connected people and organizations, and find source documents. For litigation, employment, licensing, reporting, or other consequential decisions, obtain the complete official material and qualified advice where appropriate. Do not rely on a summary when the wording, scope, or procedural status of the underlying decision matters.
Corrections and updates
Records should be updated when an appeal is decided, a complaint is resolved, a restriction changes, a source is corrected, or reliable new information becomes public. Correction requests should identify the exact statement at issue and provide an authoritative source. The Manitoba Stinchcombe List should preserve a transparent history while presenting the current status prominently.
