Editor’s note: This guide is for Canadians who want to investigate public-interest questions lawfully and carefully. It is not a licence to harass people, trespass, expose private information or publish accusations without proof. The goal is better evidence, stronger accountability and stories that survive scrutiny.
You do not need a newsroom to start
Nick Shirley’s viral investigations showed how a single person with a camera can force public attention onto questions that institutions were ignoring. The useful lesson is not to copy every tactic in a viral video. It is to ask a concrete question, gather records, visit public locations lawfully, document what you observe and test the answer against independent evidence.
In Canada, the targets might include public procurement, child-care subsidies, long-term-care contracts, municipal spending, housing programs, grants, lobbying, consulting fees or services that taxpayers are promised but do not receive.
Start with a specific, testable question
Do not begin with “the government is corrupt.” Begin with a claim that can be checked:
- Was a publicly funded daycare open and serving the number of children reported?
- Did a contractor deliver the service it was paid to provide?
- Were senior-care staffing levels consistent with the funding and the public promises?
- Did a company with political connections receive repeated no-bid or lightly competed contracts?
- Did a grant recipient spend money on the approved purpose?
- Did a regulator receive complaints and fail to act?
A narrow question produces evidence. A broad suspicion produces noise.
The investigation plan anyone can follow
1. Build a paper trail
Search government budgets, council minutes, procurement portals, corporate registries, lobbyist registries, court records, auditor-general reports, inspection reports and public meeting agendas. Save the original documents with the date, URL and page number.
2. Follow the money
Record the funder, recipient, amount, contract number, award date, renewal terms, subcontractors and stated deliverables. Compare the contract with invoices, inspection records, staffing reports and outcomes. Look for repeated sole-source awards, unusually rapid renewals, related companies, identical bid language, unexplained price changes and missing deliverables. A red flag is a lead—not proof of fraud.
3. Use access-to-information laws
Federal records can be requested through Canada’s Access to Information and Privacy Online Request Service. Provinces, municipalities, universities and hospitals have their own freedom-of-information systems. Ask for specific records over a defined date range: emails about a contract, inspection logs, payment approvals, complaint summaries, meeting notes or audit working papers. Avoid fishing expeditions.
Keep the request and response. Delays, exemptions and missing records may themselves be part of the story, but do not assume that a withheld document proves wrongdoing.
4. Verify what exists on the ground
Visit only places where you have a lawful right to be. Film from public property where permitted. Do not enter restricted areas, confront staff, follow individuals or record vulnerable people without consent. Compare what is publicly claimed with what can be independently observed. A closed door is not proof of a fake operation; it is a reason to request records and ask questions.
5. Interview people carefully
Ask sources what they personally saw, when they saw it and what records support it. Separate firsthand knowledge from rumours. Offer a fair opportunity to respond to serious allegations. Keep notes, preserve messages and record consent before recording calls or interviews. Canadian recording and privacy rules vary by circumstance and province.
6. Build a source matrix
For every important claim, list the supporting document, witness, date, location and level of confidence. Seek at least two independent forms of corroboration for serious allegations. Distinguish “the audit found,” “a witness alleged,” “the records show” and “we could not verify.”
7. Ask the subject for answers
Send a written list of precise questions with a reasonable deadline. Include the relevant dates and documents. Record whether the subject answered, denied, corrected or ignored the questions. A refusal to comment is not an admission.
8. Publish what the evidence supports
Do not call something fraud, theft, bribery or a criminal conspiracy unless the evidence and legal review support that description. Use “alleged,” “under investigation,” “the audit found” or “the records raise questions” accurately—not as empty boilerplate. Give readers the source documents so they can check the work.
How AI can help—and how it can hurt
AI can speed up research, but it cannot turn a suspicion into a fact. Use it as a research assistant, not as a source.
Useful AI jobs
- Search long budgets, contracts, audits and meeting minutes for names, dates, amounts and repeated terms.
- Extract tables from PDFs and compare payments, vendors and contract dates.
- Summarize a document, then check every important sentence against the original page.
- Build timelines of decisions, inspections, payments and complaints.
- Compare two versions of a policy, contract or public statement.
- Generate interview questions and an evidence checklist.
- Translate documents for research, followed by human review of the original.
- Find contradictions that require a follow-up request.
AI rules that protect the investigation
- Never treat an AI-generated name, quote, statistic or link as verified.
- Never upload confidential source material, medical information, passwords or identifying details into an AI system without permission and a clear security assessment.
- Keep the original files and record which AI tool produced each summary or extraction.
- Ask AI to identify uncertainty and missing evidence, not just to confirm your theory.
- Use a second human or independent source for serious allegations.
- Do not use AI to impersonate sources, create fake evidence, edit footage deceptively or mass-contact officials.
Where to investigate in Canada
- Federal, provincial and municipal procurement portals
- Auditor-general and integrity-commissioner reports
- Access-to-information and freedom-of-information systems
- Lobbyist registries and election-finance disclosures
- Corporate registries and court databases
- Public-health inspection and licensing records
- Parliamentary, legislative and municipal meeting records
- Open Contracting Partnership and investigative-journalism databases
Daycare, senior care and taxpayer-fraud leads
Care sectors deserve scrutiny because public money, vulnerable people and private operators can intersect. Look for discrepancies between promised staffing, licensing records, attendance or service levels, payments and inspection findings. Do not target an operator because of ethnicity, religion, neighbourhood or political views. Investigate the transaction and the evidence.
For senior care, protect residents’ privacy and dignity. Do not film patients, publish medical details or identify whistleblowers without informed consent. Ask whether staffing, occupancy, incident reporting and public funding match the applicable standards and contracts.
Send us a tip
If you find a credible public-interest story, send CanadaPress the documents, links, timeline and a short explanation of what you personally verified. Do not send passwords, illegally obtained private data, medical records or material that could put a vulnerable person at risk.
We may ask follow-up questions, seek the subject’s response and verify the material independently. A tip is not automatically a story. If the evidence is authentic, relevant and strong enough to publish, CanadaPress may report it. We do not promise publication, anonymity or legal protection unless those arrangements are agreed in advance.
Tip checklist: What is the specific allegation? Who paid whom? What dates and contract numbers are involved? Which original documents support it? What did you personally observe? Who else can corroborate it? What response did you receive?
Make the work hard to dismiss
The best citizen investigations do not rely on outrage alone. They show the receipt, the contract, the inspection, the email, the date and the consequence. They give the subject a fair chance to answer. They protect people who could be harmed by careless publication. And they let readers see the evidence.
Canada does not need more anonymous rumours. It needs more citizens willing to ask precise questions, follow public money and keep going when institutions refuse to answer.
