Once the investigation has commenced, the CIU will delegate an investigator and an initial file assessment will be drafted to gain a synopsis of the case. This overview will guide the investigator in the rest of the operation and how they will handle the case. The first step in the investigative process at CIU is to contact the complainant to gather their personal testimony and any other evidence they are able to provide. In most cases, the complainant is contacted in one or a combination of three ways, through email, telephone, and or in-person meetings. Investigators must gather information and ask the questions that they need answered. A key skill investigators must acquire is the ability to formulate precise questions which open up the conservation as much as possible. Open-ended questioning allows for both the complainant and respondent to talk for as much as they would like, which is a great outcome for an investigator. Standard and approved interview practices to develop are immediacy and the PEACE model of interviewing. McGurk et al. (1993, as cited in King, 2021) found that officers who were taught the PEACE model had an increase in knowledge and skill in comparison to their counterpart officers. Fortunately, whilst interviewing either the complainant or respondent, it may occur that even more offences are identified which can potentially lead to more charges being laid as a result of training interviewing skills. Therefore, forensic interviewing skills are extremely useful in extracting the most beneficial information from both subjects and the skills learned are an invaluable tool as an investigator. As soon as the findings are concluded, CIU investigators write a report to determine the following steps to resolve the case. There are four distinct outcomes that result after an investigation has occurred, a formal warning by the CIU, administrative action, provincial court, and criminal court, with warnings and administrative action being the most common. For large and complex cases where there are expects of civil or criminal liability, judicial action is more likely to be required. 

In order for enforcement agencies to maximize compliance, regulation should be created in a way that allows public agents to carry out administrative sanctions (Abbot, 2009). Abbot (2009) argues that such powers will legitimize an Agency's enforcement abilities and consume less time and energy in comparison to the judicial process. These regulatory sanctions are carried out to deter the business from further victimizing Alberta consumers through fines and penalties, license revocation, director's orders, and regular inspections and investigations. If the CIU and other government agencies determine that a certain business is a public threat to the Alberta marketplace, these enforcement actions may become public, which in turn makes consumers aware of their practices and harms their reputation and potential future business. In order to maintain the public image of businesses, shareholders are urged to comply with legislation and regulations in order to protect their financial, reputational, and professional image associated with regulatory violations.