Hearings and disciplinary decisions

Case 1

While she was a CPA, the respondent, who acted as an investments associate, forged the signature of her client, who is a family member, to divert $150,000 to herself and her spouse.

What professional obligations does this decision refer to?

The primary mission of a professional order is to ensure the protection of the public. Accordingly, the permit issued by an order is a privilege granted to persons who undertake to uphold the highest standards of competence and integrity.

For more information on this topic, please refer to L’intégrité, un principe cardinal (in French only).

Charge(s)

The disciplinary complaint alleges that the CPA forged the signature of her close family member to authorize the transfer of $150,000 to her spouse's bank account, knowing that this amount was to be used to pay for renovations to their personal residence

Decision

The forgery of a client's signature shows a lack of integrity, which is an essential characteristic for the practice of the profession.

The respondent is no longer a CPA, but she was at the time the offence was committed even though she was acting as an investments associate.

The respondent's behaviour tarnishes the entire profession.

Conviction on the sole count of the complaint.

The CPA was struck off the roll for six months and fined $5,000 for violating section 23* of the Code of ethics of chartered professional accountants (in force until May 8, 2024).

* This section corresponds to section 24 of the Code of ethics of chartered professional accountants in effect since May 9, 2024.

Reasons considered in imposing the penalty

Aggravating factors
• Offence at the heart of the practice of the profession
• Personal benefits derived by the CPA from the offence

Mitigating factors
• CPA with four years of experience at the time of the facts
• Guilty plea at earliest opportunity
• Consequences already suffered (loss of employment)
• Amounts of money reimbursed to client
• Lack of disciplinary record
• Isolated act
• Lack of intention to re-enter the roll of the Order
• Low risk of re-offending

Consult the decision

See the full text of the decision on conviction and on penalty >

Case 1

While he was the acting auditor general of a city, the CPA made degrading remarks and behaved aggressively towards colleagues and his employer. He also tried to circumvent a harassment investigation process and disclosed confidential information to the media.

What professional obligations does this decision refer to?

CPAs are required to act with honour, dignity, respect, and courtesy, so as not to damage the reputation of and the public's trust in the profession. Making denigrating remarks or subjective comments about a colleague and not about their work is considered unacceptable behaviour. Professionals must foster a healthy working environment by acting courteously, respectfully, and professionally.

For more information on this topic, please refer to Que signifie agir avec honneur, dignité, respect et courtoisie ? (in French only).

CPAs often have access to highly confidential, sensitive information, including personal information; CPAs must protect this information and use it only for the purposes intended.

For more information on this topic, please refer to Confidentialité et secret professionnel (in French only).

Charge(s)

The disciplinary complaint alleges that the CPA:

• Was disrespectful, aggressive, and brusque towards his assistant, made degrading remarks about her, and damaged her reputation by publicly denigrating her.
• Was unprofessional by:
  • damaging the reputation of other members of the Order and denigrating their competence
  • using disrespectful nicknames
  • making inappropriate and misogynistic statements
  • disclosing sensitive or confidential information
• Spoke to the media in an unreasonable manner several times
• Tried to circumvent the harassment investigation process in which he was involved
• Hindered the work of the assistant syndic
• Acted in an undignified and disrespectful manner towards SPCA employees and used his professional reputation to circumvent pet adoption policies or obtain personal favours

Decision

The respondent’s conduct damaged the image of the profession and the public's trust.

Probity and integrity are fundamental values of the CPA profession.

A professional's right to freedom of expression is not absolute, and their statements must be assessed against the reasonable expectations of the public.

The CPA made contemptuous or hurtful statements about women that cannot be justified under any circumstances.

The CPA did not use lawful means to argue his case following the psychological harassment complaint filed against him and tried to put an end to this investigation.

The CPA's answers to the assistant syndic's questions could have been more specific and better structured; nonetheless, he did not hinder her investigation.

Conviction on 10 of the 13 counts of the disciplinary complaint (acquittal on the counts of obstruction and having behaved in an undignified and disrespectful manner towards SPCA employees and having used his professional reputation to circumvent pet adoption policies or obtain personal favours).

The CPA was struck off the roll for concurrent two-year periods, fined a total of $22,500, and reprimanded for violating sections 5, 23, 48, and 67* of the Code of ethics of chartered professional accountants.

* These sections correspond to sections 4, 24, 39 and 86 of the Code of ethics of chartered professional accountants in effect since May 9, 2024.

Reasons considered in imposing the penalty

Aggravating factors
• CPA with several years of experience (close to 30 years)
• Risk of re-offending
• Lack of introspection
• Lack of remorse

Mitigating factors
• Lack of disciplinary record

Consult the decision

See the full text of the decision on conviction >
See the full text of the decision on penalty >

Application to dismiss appeal granted; appeal from the conviction and the penalty dismissed.
See the decision rendered by the Professions Tribunal >

Case 1

In performing a review engagement of a company’s financial statements, the CPA did not comply with the applicable standards and signed a report complacently.

What professional obligations does this decision refer to?

The practice of the profession is intended to be a token of trust both for clients and for those individuals to whom the opinions, assurance levels, attestations, certifications, and professional audits prepared by CPAs are destined.

For more information on this topic, please refer to Devoirs généraux - Compétence (in French only).

Charge(s)

The disciplinary complaint alleges that the CPA:

• Failed to act with due care when performing a review engagement of financial statements
• Signed a financial statement review engagement report complacently
• Prepared or altered documents before responding to the assistant syndic's requests
• Failed to respond to a client's requests
• Ceased to act on behalf of a client without giving the client reasonable advance notice of withdrawal and without making sure that the client could still file its income tax returns before the deadline
• Hindered the work of the assistant syndic

Decision

The CPA produced or altered documents before responding to the assistant syndic's requests to obtain a full copy of his work file concerning the review engagement report.

The CPA failed to respond to the requests of his client, who wanted to obtain its income tax returns. He also ceased to act on the behalf of the company without giving it reasonable advance notice of withdrawal and without making sure that it could still file its income tax returns before the deadline.

The CPA hindered the work of the assistant syndic.

Conviction on five counts of the complaint.

The CPA was struck off the roll for a 12-month period for violating sections 19, 34, and 50* of the Code of ethics of chartered professional accountants and section 114 of the Professional Code.

* These sections correspond to sections 17, 26 and 44 of the Code of ethics of chartered professional accountants in effect since May 9, 2024.

Reasons considered in imposing the penalty

Aggravating factors
• CPA with 30 years of experience
• Age of the professional
• Number of clients involved

Mitigating factors
• Lack of disciplinary record
• Guilty plea at earliest opportunity
• Undertaking given by the professional to permanently relinquish his auditor's license

Consult the decision

See the full text of the decision on conviction and on penalty >

Case 1

The CPA sent his clients' income tax returns to a third-party email address and did not use a secure document transfer mode.

What professional obligations does this decision refer to?

CPAs must protect their clients' highly confidential, sensitive information to which they have access and use it only for the purposes intended. They must also ensure that persons reporting to them comply with and protect the confidential nature of all information received.

The scope of professional secrecy extends to all exchanges, regardless of their medium or form: advice that CPAs provide to their clients, telephone conversations, text messages, emails, etc.

For more information on this topic, please refer to Confidentialité et secret professionnel (in French only).

Charge(s)

The disciplinary complaint alleges that the CPA:

• Failed to comply with his professional secrecy obligations;
• Failed to exercise reasonable diligence.

Decision

As a professional, the CPA is subject to a mandatory obligation of professional secrecy towards his client.

The protection of the public was compromised by the CPA's conduct in that confidential information gathered in connection with the practice of his profession ended up in the hands of third parties.

The CPA did not take the necessary steps to ensure the non-use and destruction of the information sent.

This is an anxiety-provoking situation for clients who fear identity theft.

Although the CPA should have corrected the situation, he was not diligent after sending the emails.

Moreover, the CPA failed to exercise diligence by allowing his clients' income tax returns to be sent to both levels of the government tax authorities without first obtaining their written authorization.

Conviction on the three counts of the complaint.

The CPA was struck off the roll for concurrent one-month periods and fined $3,000 for violating sections 48 and 50* of the Code of ethics of chartered professional accountants.

* These sections correspond to sections 39 and 44 of the Code of ethics of chartered professional accountants in effect since May 9, 2024.

Reasons considered in imposing the penalty

Aggravating factors
• Recent publications issued by the Order as a reminder of the measures needed to deal with confidential information in a secure manner
• Professional secrecy is at the heart of the practice of the profession
• CPA with several years of experience

Mitigating factors
• Guilty plea at earliest opportunity
• Lack of disciplinary record
• Isolated act
• Sincere remorse
• Steps taken to ensure that the situation does not happen again, while ensuring that documents sent to clients will now be password-protected
• Low risk of re-offending

Consult the decision

See the full text of the decision on conviction and on penalty >

Case 1

The CPA, who was the subject of 2 judgments rendered by a Canadian court that convicted him of a criminal offence relating to the practice of the profession, has been imposed a disciplinary penalty.

What professional obligations does this decision refer to?

Certain behaviour or situations are contrary to the honour and dignity of the profession because they violate the fundamental qualities the public expects from a CPA.

Charge(s)

The disciplinary complaint alleges that the CPA was, on 2 occasions, the subject of a judgment by a Canadian court convicting him of a criminal offence relating to the practice of the profession, that is, of having operated a motor vehicle while prohibited from doing so.

Decision

A Canadian court rendered 2 judgments in which it convicted the CPA of a criminal offence:

• he was twice convicted, once in 2019 and then in 2021, for having operated a motor vehicle while prohibited from doing so;
• following these convictions, he was fined $1,000 and sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment to be served intermittently.

To determine whether there is a link between the commission of the criminal offence and the practice of the profession, the fundamental qualities required to practice the profession of CPA must be taken into consideration.

In this case, the professional’s attitude runs directly counter to the fundamental qualities of integrity, honesty, and probity expected from a CPA.

There is a link between the 2 judgments and the practice of the profession. Not only are the offences objectively serious, but recidivism occurred. It is therefore appropriate to penalize the CPA, as admitted by the parties, who made a joint recommendation in this regard.

The CPA was struck for a period of 2 months under section 149.1 of the Professional Code.

Reasons considered in imposing the penalty

• CPA with close to 6 years of experience
• No disciplinary record
• Admission of the link between the criminal offences and the practice of the profession
• Consequences already suffered by the CPA
• Collaboration offered

Consult the decision

See the full text of the decision on penalty >

Case 1

While he was the spouse of the general manager of his client, a private seniors' residence, the CPA placed himself in a conflict of interest situation, and his integrity and objectivity were compromised.

What professional obligations does this decision refer to?

The conflict of interest is a threat to CPAs’ objectivity because it could influence their professional judgment. It involves a situation where CPAs risk not acting in the client's interest, in particular due to self-interest or the interest of a person to whom they are related (e.g., a friend or family member).

Charge(s)

The disciplinary complaint alleges that the CPA:

• Placed himself in a conflict of interest situation and in a position where his integrity and objectivity were compromised by:
  • Having his spouse approve his statements of fees for professional services rendered that exceeded the scope of his mandate
  • Selling an item of movable property to his client at a price higher than what he had paid
  • Failing to inform his client's board of directors that his spouse had used company funds for personal reasons and that she had given herself a salary increase that was not included in the budgets
• Hindered the work of the syndic

Decision

The obligation to act with integrity, honesty, and probity is an essential ethical obligation.

When a CPA is asked to prepare and sign various corporate documents, his signature certifies the information set out in those documents, which is then used by the public and public bodies to assess the financial situation of a company. These actions must therefore be beyond reproach.

The CPA acted with wilful blindness for several years while his spouse gave herself salary increases and bonuses so she could buy things for the couple and pay for major renovation work to their principal residence.

As a CPA, he had an obligation to denounce these unlawful acts.

In addition, he misled the syndic by false statements and concealment.

Conviction on the seven counts of the complaint.

The CPA was struck off the roll for a three-year period for violating section 23* of the Code of ethics of chartered professional accountants and section 114 of the Professional Code.

* Section 23 corresponds to section 24 of the Code of ethics of chartered professional accountants in effectsince May 9, 2024.

Reasons considered in imposing the penalty

Aggravating factors
• CPA with over 50 years of experience who worked for 2 large firms
• Former president of the Order
• Breach of trust
• Client who was the victim of these offences was housing vulnerable individuals
• CPA personally benefitted from the situation
• Not isolated acts
• Duration of offence

Mitigating factors
• Lack of disciplinary record
• Guilty plea

In their joint recommendation, the parties took into account the fact that the professional has been subject to a provisional restriction of his right to practise the profession for more than a year.

Consult the decision

See the full text of the decision on conviction and on penalty >