The 504 Database — Named, Sourced, Citizen-Actionable

What s.504 says.

Criminal Code of Canada — Section 504

Any one who, on reasonable grounds, believes that a person has committed an indictable offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a justice…

Three things that make this provision exceptional:

Any one means any person — citizen, non-citizen, the Attorney General's office, an MP, anyone. You do not need a lawyer. You do not need a police complaint to be opened. You do not need permission.
Reasonable grounds is the same threshold a police officer uses for an arrest — articulable facts that a reasonable person would believe support an inference of criminal conduct. It is not "beyond reasonable doubt." It is the threshold for a charge to proceed to a justice of the peace's pre-enquete.
Indictable offence includes (per the Criminal Code, the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, and adjacent statutes): breach of trust by a public officer (s.122), obstruction of justice (s.139), perjury (s.131–132), fraud on the government (s.121), and the s.4 / s.6 / s.7 offences in the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Key limitation, in plain language. The pre-enquete is a screening hearing where a justice of the peace decides whether to issue a summons or warrant. The Attorney General has the right to intervene and stay the prosecution at any time. Most s.504 informations against sitting officials are stayed at AG discretion. That does not erase the filing. The named information remains a public court record. The database treats that record as the durable artifact, not the prosecutorial outcome.

What the database is.

The 504 Database is not a list of accusations. It is a cross-indexed map of publicly admitted findings against named officials, with citations to:

LAYER 1

Statutory findings. Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner reports finding violations of the Conflict of Interest Act. Lobbying Commissioner findings of breach. Information Commissioner findings of withheld records. Each one of these is a finding by a Crown official with statutory authority — already adjudicated.

LAYER 2

Auditor General reports. AG chapter-and-verse identification of mismanagement, contracts let outside the rules, programs evaluated as ineffective, and money missing. AG reports name departments, dollar amounts, and (where the AG names them) responsible deputy ministers and ministers.

LAYER 3

Court findings. Convictions. Adverse cost rulings. Findings of judicial misconduct. Tribunal findings against named officials. The Ontario Judicial Council finding against Justice Currie (proven on 5 of 6 misconduct allegations) is one example already on file.

LAYER 4

Commission testimony. The MMIWG inquiry finding of "race-based genocide." The TRC finding of cultural genocide. The Foreign Interference Commission record. The Mass Casualty Commission record. The Hogue commission. Every one of these is sworn evidence on the record under the Inquiries Act.

LAYER 5

Parliamentary record. Hansard divisions. Committee testimony. Lobbyist registration. Disclosed sponsored travel. The Bill C-233 vote (22–295, 2024-03-11) is the named per-MP roll on the strongest single-piece intent evidence on the dossier.

How the database is sized.

The numbers below reflect the named record across the dossier as of the last update (see the timestamp at the bottom of this page). Counts are rounded to broad categories — see accountability.html for the per-name detail with citations.

344

source-cited pages on this site, every claim with a primary government or court citation

173

named MPs on the MAID expansion voting record, by name and party

still-sitting MPs whose votes are documented on the dossier

295

named MPs who voted against Bill C-233 (the arms-export restriction)

2,156+

CIJA federal lobbying communications on file with the Commissioner of Lobbying

superior-court registries to which s.504 informations have been dispatched (and tracked)

How to read an entry.

Every entry across the dossier is built to the same shape:

Who. Named individual or named institution. No anonymous "sources said." No "a senior official told Canadian Press."
What. The act, the policy, or the vote — described in plain language, with the legal element it speaks to.
When. Date or window, anchored to a published artifact (Hansard, court docket, AG report, commission transcript).
Where the public record lives. A working link to the primary source. Where the source is paywalled, the citation is given so any reader can pull it from a library or court registry.
What element of the case it goes to. Article II(a)–(e), capture-mechanism step 1–8, or both.

What the database is NOT.

It is not a verdict. The 504 Database is the evidence package from which a citizen — or a juror, or a justice of the peace at pre-enquete — can decide whether reasonable grounds exist.
It is not gossip. Every entry has a primary citation to a government or court record. Social-media chatter is not evidence and does not appear.
It is not anonymous. Every assertion is attributable — either to a named source on the record, or to TENET5's cross-reference layer, which is itself sourced.
It is not closed. The database is updated as new findings land. The methodology page documents what gets added, what gets removed, and on what evidence threshold.

If you can read it, you can act on it. That is the entire point of s.504.

How to use the database.

⚖ FILING GUIDE — file-504.html 📋 Filing tracker (17 courts) 📂 Full named record 📚 Bibliography (all citations) 🔧 Methodology + sourcing rules

The 504 Database — named, sourced, citizen-actionable.