Examples of disciplinary decisions by type of offence

Case 1

The former CPA set up a scheme to appropriate funds belonging to her client. She made false statements to the tax authorities and the Order, failed to keep her skills up to date in compilation engagements and hindered the syndic’s work. She had a disciplinary record.

Professional obligations referred to in this decision

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. 

Charge(s)

The disciplinary complaint alleges that while working as a CPA auditor, the respondent:

• embezzled and appropriated funds belonging to her client;
• made false statements to the tax authorities in connection with her business;
• made a false statement in her mandatory annual declaration to the Order, indicating that she was an employee without signing authority;
• failed to keep her skills up to date in compilation engagements;
• hindered the work of the assistant syndic by misrepresenting herself, producing false documents and repeatedly delaying her replies.  

Decision

The respondent showed a lack of integrity in several respects. 

She could not be unaware of her ethical obligations:

• She had been a CPA since 2010.
• In 2023, a first disciplinary complaint found her guilty of misplacing over $46,000 belonging to her client, fabricating or falsifying documents, failing to act with integrity and hindering the work of the assistant syndic. She was struck off the roll for 25 months.
  • In these proceedings, the respondent undertook not to accept any further mandates related to transactions or managing funds.
• She was subject to disciplinary investigations in relation to two other companies.

The respondent set up a scheme to appropriate funds from her client:

• She required the services of a virtual assistant paid for by the client.
• She offered to pay the virtual assistant from her PayPal account, then posted false transactions to the client’s accounts in order to obtain reimbursements in excess of the amounts owed to her.

These breaches were repeated over a period spanning nearly 21 months. The client suffered significant financial losses and moral damage.

The respondent also admitted to making false statements to the tax authorities concerning her own company by reporting understated sales figures, inaccurate consulting fees and unjustified consulting expenses on her corporate tax returns.

Furthermore, she provided falsified invoices to the assistant syndic justify her false statements to the authorities.

The respondent knowingly associated herself with inaccurate information. This was a repeat offence, as she had already been sanctioned by the disciplinary board for similar breaches.  

In addition, the respondent entered inaccurate information in her mandatory annual declaration to the Order, which had an impact on the professional liability insurance she was required to pay. She was struck off the roll following her failure to rectify the situation when asked to do so by the Order. This showed carelessness and negligence on her part. 

The respondent’s deceptive, intentional and fraudulent actions compromise public protection.

The risk of recurrence is very high, as the respondent committed the alleged acts while already involved in a disciplinary process for similar acts.

However, this risk is considerably reduced by the fact that the respondent has waived her right to rejoin the Order and perform duties reserved for the profession. 

The respondent has been found guilty on all counts, namely of having violated:

• Sections 6, 23, 34 and 61 of the Code of ethics of chartered professional accountants* in force at the time of the incidents;
• Section 114 of the Professional Code. 

Her permit has been revoked, and she can never again work as a CPA. 

* These provisions correspond to sections 18, 24, 26, 78 and 79 of the Code of ethics in force since May 9, 2024. 

Reasons considered in imposing the penalty

Aggravating factors

• Respondent’s disciplinary record
• Content of the scheme devised to appropriate funds
• Failure of the respondent to honour her undertaking to no longer work with money
• Administrative strike-off and previously imposed disciplinary strike-offs

Mitigating factor

• Guilty plea

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 retained confidential client and information belonging to his employer after his employment relationship ended. The CPA’s use of the computer provided by his successive employers for personal purposes, and his copying of all personal and professional files onto a new work computer at the end of each employment relationship, constituted a breach of professional secrecy. 

What professional obligations does this decision refer to?

CPAs must protect their clients’ highly confidential and sensitive information to which they have access and use it only for the purposes intended. 

The scope of professional secrecy is extremely broad. This extends in particular to the identity of a CPA’s clients or information that could identify them, unless such information is public.

Furthermore, professional secrecy survives the CPA-client relationship, even if the CPA changes jobs or ceases to serve the client in question.

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

Charge(s)

The CPA is accused of having, between 2009 and 2023, in several towns in Québec: 

• retained confidential client and information belonging to his employer after his employment relationship ended
• stored this information on the servers of subsequent employers

Decision

On at least five occasions, the CPA transferred confidential files from one employer to another via a USB key. Approximately 17,000 files ended up on the servers of one of these employers. The files contained non-anonymized, confidential, or information protected by professional secrecy. 

There is no evidence that the CPA used or disclosed this confidential information. He had no malicious intent; his reprehensible behaviour stemmed solely from his negligence. The stress generated by the disciplinary process will serve as a disincentive for the CPA. He engaged in sincere introspection and showed transparency with his current employer by disclosing the existence of the current disciplinary process. 

The CPA also adopted the following corrective measures:

• purchasing a personal computer to separate his professional and personal activities
• asking his current employer to restrict his access in order to prevent the copying of files used in the course of his work 

Nevertheless, a breach of professional secrecy is an offence that lies at the heart of the profession and must be penalized. 

The CPA was struck off the roll for two months. 

Section 60.4 of the Professional Code.

Reasons considered in imposing the penalty

Aggravating factors

• Number of years of CPA experience (more than 18 years) 
• High number of confidential files transferred 
• Recurrence: conduct was repeated at least five times
• Long period of the offence: 14 years
• Potential damage to clients’ and employer’s trust

Mitigating factors

• Full admission and acknowledgment of the facts
• No disciplinary record
• Low risk of recurrence 

Consult the decision

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

Case 1

While serving as general manager of an early childhood centre (CPE) and a CPA, the respondent used public funds to pay personal expenses and give gifts to CPE employees and administrators. He also failed to exercise due diligence in producing reports required by the government and put himself in a conflict of interest.

What professional obligations does this decision refer to?

The primary mission of a professional order is to ensure the protection of the public. Consequently, the permit issued by an order is a privilege granted to individuals who commit to upholding 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 the following of the respondent:

Count 1 (lack of integrity)
Having adopted, while serving as general manager of a CPE, methods and attitudes likely to damage the profession’s reputation by using public funds totalling nearly $25,000 for purposes other than the financing of services provided to children, in order to:

• Pay his dues to the Order
• Pay his spouse’s tuition fees
• Reimburse his travel expenses
• Offer gifts and rewards to CPE employees and directors

Counts 2 to 6 (lack of diligence)
Having failed to exercise diligence by being late in submitting, for six consecutive years, an administrative financial report required by the Ministère de la Famille, which led to the temporary suspension of government grants awarded to the CPE.

Counts 7 and 8 
Having put himself in a conflict of interest by:

• failing to inform his employer that the employee appointed to the position of accounting clerk was his spouse
• authorizing the CPE to reimburse his spouse’s tuition fees without the authorization of the board of directors

Decision

The respondent pled guilty to all counts alleged in the disciplinary complaint. He undertook never again to work, as a member of the CPA Order, as a general manager or CPA for a CPE or any other non-profit organization. 

He was subject to the following penalties:

Under count 1 (lack of integrity)
A four-year strike-off period under section 5 of the Code of ethics of chartered professional accountants, which corresponds to section 4 of the Code in force since May 9, 2024.

Under counts 2 to 6 (lack of diligence)
A six-month strike-off period per count under section 50 of the Code of ethics of chartered professional accountants, which corresponds to section 44 of the Code in force since May 9, 2024.

Under counts 7 and 8 (conflict of interest)
A two-month strike-off period per count under section 36.12 of the Code of ethics of chartered professional accountants, which corresponds to section 29 of the Code in force since May 9, 2024.

These strike-off periods must be served concurrently, starting from the date on which the respondent is reinstated on the roll of the Order, if applicable.

Reasons considered in imposing the penalty

Aggravating factors

• Objective seriousness of offences
  • Use of public funds for purposes other than those intended for several years
• Significant and systematic delays in the production of government reports, over several years
• Multiple offences over an extended period of time
• Professional experience of the respondent
• Lack of cooperation by the respondent during the syndic’s investigation, which led to a complaint for obstruction
• Respondent’s disciplinary record
  • Complaint for obstruction
• Total lack of introspection on the part of the respondent

Mitigating factors

• Guilty plea

There is a risk of recurrence but it is mitigated, due to:

• The fact that he is no longer a member of the Order
• The fact that he will be struck off the roll for four years if he is reinstated
• His age (57)
• His undertaking to no longer work for a non-profit organization while working as a CPA 

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 >