Corporate Investigation Services Ltd. (CIS) - London, Ontario

Faceshank

What a joke. Company hired these guys who assigned Michael Arntfield to do a Human Rights Retaliation Investigation, despite the guy appearing to have no training or experience in this field. Nowhere on CIS or Michaels personal pages does it mention this. Upon finally receiving the report 2 years later, I believe I may have an actual criminal case against them for Fabrication of Evidence/Public Mischief, Obstruction of Justice, Fraud and Defamation. The investigator falsely characterized evidence, manipulated witness statements and created inconsistent summaries. The investigator altered witness testiomy, guided responses and asked leading questions to plant narratives. If they were paid for an impartial investigation, but knowingly delivered a biased, factually incorrect report, this could constitute as fraud. Maybe they were just hired under false pretences or conducted a bias predetermined investigation. Their investigation and fabricated report damaged my reputation by making provably false claims. I see other reviews claiming these guys are anti union, so that might explain why they fabricated lies in the report stating I used words like "Union Buster" "decertification of the union" and so on when that never happened. What I found most odd was while investigating a Human Rights case, the investigator discriminated against me by attacking me based on protected grounds in his report, this just goes to show how incompetent these people are IMO. Can they prove his competency in Human Rights Cases? (Adequately qualified, suitably trained and with sufficient experience) Bet you can't.

According to the CIS website, their workplace investigations are conducted by experienced personnel trained in **Reid interviewing techniques, statement analysis, and human behavior.** These standards, however, were blatantly disregarded in the investigation against me. Instead of conducting an impartial investigation, the investigator conducted what can only be described as an **amateurish, biased, and legally incompetent** attempt to discredit me.

Reid Interviewing Techniques – Or Coercion?
CIS advertises that its investigators are trained in **Reid techniques**—a method designed for **law enforcement interrogations.** This approach is widely criticized for its ability to coerce false confessions rather than determine the truth. Human rights investigations are **not criminal investigations**, yet this investigator treated me like a suspect instead of a complainant.

The investigator claimed expertise in statement analysis, yet failed to address **blatant contradictions** in witness testimonies. Instead, he focused on discrediting me with **falsehoods, exaggerations, and outright fabrications.**

If this investigator was truly trained in **statement analysis**, then his refusal to reconcile these contradictions is either **intentional deception** or sheer **incompetence.**

Darryl B.

Now that the dust has settled on the CUPE 2361 strike, it felt appropriate to give an updated review of CIS.

First off, based on my experience as a labour leader, I would not ever recommend that a union local or a union member agree to a workplace investigation conducted by a company that has taken an anti-worker anti-union position in a labour dispute. (It is not just for the University of Western Ontario, you can see other strike examples in Google reviews below.)

How can you expect as a unionized worker to get a fair shake from an investigator that is anti-union? Personally, I received a CIS investigation report given to a UNIFOR member and it was indeed flawed.

In my experience, your best choice for a workplace investigator is a member of the Law Society of Ontario. There are some very good choices in the London area who are duty-bound as lawyers to be thorough and impartial. In short, there are much better neutral choices out there for employers and unions to choose from for workplace investigations than CIS, or their principals Guy Parent, Mike Glavin, and Lloyd Stacey.

For those of you who do find yourselves on a picket line, as a union member or a supportive member of the public, know your Constitutionally-protected rights when participating in a legal strike action. If you come across a private investigator on your lines, they must present ID when requested of them. And, keep your video rolling! (See instagram for a video of an emergency vehicle being blocked by private security at Western.)

Darryl Bedford
Communications Officer
London and District Labour Council

Darryl B.

To Guy Parent, CEO of Corporate Investigation Services (CIS) Ltd.

Dear Guy,

On behalf of the community members, local politicians, workers both unionized and non-unionized, we demand a public apology from your company.

On August 31, 2024, members of the community, community leaders, and union leaders held a rally in support of the members of CUPE 2361. Food service was arranged at the event.

Employees of your company parked two vehicles in an intentionaly intimidating and disruptive location next to one of the food trucks. Your employees kept their vehicles running, one with Quebec plates with its exhaust pointed directly towards the crowd gathered. I could smell the exhaust fumes myself. When confronted about the exhaust (coincidentally by a Western employee), your employees showed no empathy or particular response.

When confronted by me about their location and as to why a company hired by Western would be operating in a location not on the Western campus, the answers given by your employees made no sense:

1. That they were there to respond to traffic incidents. Since when does a private security firm, and not the London Police Service (LPS), respond to traffic indicents on city streets? Or since when would a private security firm, and not the sworn Special Constables, repond to a traffic incident on University property?
2. The above answer especially made no sense as Western had already closed University Drive to traffic. There was no traffic into the University from that point.
3. That they were there to protect the safety of CUPE 2361 members. This made no sense as not only were they located over 108 metres (yes, I measured it) from the picket line, but they also had no clear view whatsoever of the picket line as there are many trees preventing any clear view of Richmond Street. As mentioned, University Drive was closed with any number of locations your vehicles could have parked with a clear view of Richmond Street.
4. That they "needed to be mobile" in the event of a traffic incident. That answer was laughable. As anyone who has driven in London would know, making a left turn from the TD parking lot onto Richmond Street would be nearly impossible and unwise. Not to mention that driving at any kind of speed in the area with people gathered would be unsafe and cause more problems than it would solve.
5. If the above were true, then why were your people outside of the vehicle at times in an intimidating posture and why did one of them who was recording information on a clipboard suddenly duck out of sight into the vehicle when I approached? What was written on that clipboard?

There are two conclusions an outside observer would reach as to why your people were in that location and behaving as they did:

1. To intimidate and/or disrupt members of the community including three Members of Provincial Parliament and a City Councillor gathered from enjoying and engaging in a peaceful show of support for fellow workers, and/or,
2. To gather intelligence as to who was in the crowd, CUPE members, local politicians, labour leaders, community leaders, and others, and to report back to Western the content of any private conversations that they most certainly overheard at the food truck they were standing in proximity to.

Regardless of your true motives or any direction from Western, all of this is a rather disgraceful look on your firm. I am giving you the opportunity, two days before the City of London gathers to celebrate Labour Day, to offer an unqualified public apology.

Sincerely,
Darryl

Darryl Bedford
Social Media and Communications Officer
London and District Labour Council

Sean A.

I have done a couple of labour disputes for the company, and I would suggest for anyone who is a licensed private investigator looking for work to apply with them. Specially for people looking for opportunities to develop their skills and experience.

CIS was my first private Investigator employer.

Suleyman O.

He is not professional. You never get a report. Very disorganized. I lost money.

Kyle H.

Extremely unprofessional, wouldnt recommend

David

Prompt, efficient and professional service from start to finish.

Nick F.

Strong leadership backed by decades of experience