CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO
ADMISSION AND REGISTRATION COMMITTEE
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
FOR MEMBERSHIP BY:
A C , Applicant
NOTICE OF REFERRAL FOR A HEARING
Pursuant to section 14 of Regulation 7-1, adopted by Council under the Chartered Professional
Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, and the By-law governing the Chartered Professional
Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario), I hereby request the Admission and Registration
Committee (ARC) to convene an oral hearing in respect of this application.
THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST ARE:
1. The Applicant applied for membership with CPA Ontario on March 17, 2020. Having
reviewed the application for membership, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has
provided evidence of good character as required under section 3.4 of Regulation 7-1.
2. The particulars are as follows:
a. In application for admission to membership, the Applicant answered “yes” to the
question, “Have you ever been found guilty of a criminal offence or other similar
offence for which a pardon has not been granted or are there any other charges
pending against you”?
b. The Applicant advised CPA Ontario that pled guilty on August 2, 2012 and as a
result was convicted of breaching section 253(1)(b) (operating a motor vehicle with
more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood) and section 335 (take
motor vehicle without consent) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
c. The Applicant was sentenced to a suspension of driver’s license for one year, a
prohibition from operating or driving a motor vehicle for a period of one year, a
$1,500 fine, and one-year reporting probation order. Prior to sentencing, the
Applicant paid restitution to the owner of the motor vehicle in the amount of
$1,823.65 to cover the shortfall of the victim’s insurance.
d. On September 16, 2019, the Parole Board of Canada granted the Applicant a Record
Suspension under the Criminal Records Act.
3. The Applicant disclosed the criminal conviction at the time of application for Student
Registration. The Applicant was approved for Student Registration on May 24, 2017.
4. I have determined that the Applicant otherwise meets all the criteria to be registered as
a member.
Date: January 12, 2021
Heidi Franken, CPA, CA
Registrar
CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO
CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO ACT, 2017
ADMISSION AND REGISTRATION COMMITTEE
IN THE MATTER OF: A good character hearing into A C , an
applicant for membership with the Chartered Professional Accountants
of Ontario pursuant to Regulation 7-1: Membership, Obligations and
Standing, Section 14: Good Character on Admission, as amended.
TO: C
AND TO: Registrar, CPA Ontario
DECISION AND ORDER MADE MARCH 17, 2021
DECISION
Having heard and seen the evidence and submissions of the parties, the Tribunal is satisfied that
the applicant is of good character as required under Regulation 7-1: Membership, Obligations and
Standing, Section 14: Good Character on Admission.
ORDER
The Tribunal, having been advised by the Registrar the applicant otherwise meets all the
requirements of admission, directs the Registrar to admit A C as a member
of CPA Ontario.
DATED at Toronto this 17th day of March 2021.
Bernard S. Schwartz, FCPA, FCA
Deputy Chair, Admission and Registration Committee
CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO
CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO ACT, 2017
ADMISSION AND REGISTRATION COMMITTEE
IN THE MATTER OF: A good character hearing into A C , an
applicant for admission as a member of the Chartered Professional
Accountants of Ontario, pursuant to Regulation 7-1: Admission to
Membership, Obligations and Standing, as amended
BETWEEN:
A C
-and-
REGISTRAR, CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL
ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant
C -M :
Self
-represented
For the Registrar:
Ms. Lara Kinkartz, Counsel
Heard:
Decision and Order
effective:
Release of written reasons:
March 17, 2021
March 17
, 2021
April
6, 2021
REASONS FOR THE DECISION MADE MARCH 17, 2021
I. BACKGROUND AND FACTS
[1] This hearing was held by videoconference to determine whether the Applicant, A
C (the “Applicant”) was of good character at the time of the hearing and
thereby met the requirements for admission to membership in the Chartered Professional
Accountants of Ontario (“CPA Ontario”). The Applicant’s good character was put into issue
-2-
as a result of criminal conviction for driving with excess alcohol in blood and take
motor vehicle without consent on June 9, 2012. application was referred by the
Registrar to the Admission and Registration Committee (“ARC”).
The Applicant’s Application to CPA Ontario
[2] The Applicant applied to be registered as a student with CPA Ontario in 2017. In
application, answered affirmatively that had been convicted of a “criminal or similar
offence”.
[3] When the Applicant applied for student registration in 2017, the regulation in effect
(Regulation 6-1) did not provide for hearings into good character matters. Accordingly, the
Vice President Student Services (“VPSS”) conducted a written review of the Applicant’s
application and documents relevant to criminal convictions. By letter dated May 26,
2017, the VPSS asked the Applicant to provide additional information respecting the
offence in a questionnaire, as well as reflective thoughts about the offences and letters
of reference.
[4] On June 9, 2017, the Applicant completed the questionnaire, and explained that in
2012, was found guilty of offences under sections 253(1)(b) and 335 of the Criminal
Code. advised that these convictions related to an offence that took place on June 9,
2012. The Applicant wrote that took full responsibility for actions and had pleaded
guilty to the offences. In a letter accompanying the questionnaire, the Applicant provided
detailed information about what had happened and response to these events (see
below). also provided several reference letters.
[5] The Applicant was subsequently approved for student registration.
[6] When the Applicant had completed the CPA student program, applied for admission to
membership with CPA Ontario on March 17, 2020. The Applicant again disclosed that
had previously “been convicted of a criminal or similar offence.”
[7] By this time, the regulations had changed and the Registrar was required to refer
applications for membership to the ARC if they were not satisfied with the evidence of
good character provided by an applicant. The Registrar found that the Applicant met all of
the criteria for registration as a member other than the good character requirement.
-3-
The Events Leading to the Applicant’s 2012 Conviction
[8] The events at issue occurred in the summer of 2012, when the Applicant was years
old and had just finished final year at university.
[9] In evidence at the hearing, the Applicant explained that on the evening of June 8, 2012,
had been at a party at the home of a friend’s parents. testified that had consumed
so much alcohol that could not recall the specific details of that evening; for example,
could not recall getting in a car or getting the keys. The Applicant testified that later
learned that had taken the car belonging to friend’s parents in the early hours of the
morning.
[10] According to the police report, at 3:30 on the morning of June 9, 2012, the police received
a call that there had been a single car accident. When they arrived at the scene, the police
noted that the road was wet from a previous rainfall. The road had a gradual left turn
before an intersection, with a heavily wooded area to the right side and a residential
property on the left. The police concluded that the car driven by the Applicant had failed
to negotiate the corner and drove off the road about a quarter of the way into the turn. The
car landed sideways in the wooded area and was hung up off the ground by trees and
brush. One witness described the Applicant as “clearly shaken and upset”. The police
detected a strong odour of alcohol on the Applicant and was ultimately arrested for
driving under the influence. The Applicant recalled being in an ambulance and knowing
that had done something wrong.
The Criminal Charges and Conviction
[11] The Applicant was arrested and charged with operating a vehicle after consuming alcohol
in such a quantity that the concentration thereof in blood exceeded 80 milligrams of
alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
was also charged with taking a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent, contrary to
section 335 of the Criminal Code.
[12] The Applicant testified that met with a lawyer shortly after the incident, who provided
with various options. The Applicant testified that decided to plead guilty because
wanted to take responsibility and that was the right thing to do.
-4-
[13] The Applicant pleaded guilty to both offences on August 2, 2012. The Applicant was
represented by counsel. There was a joint submission on sentencing made for: a $1500
fine; a one year driving prohibition; and, a probation order for one year in relation to taking
the car without the owner’s consent.
[14] In submission on sentencing, the Applicant’s lawyer argued that the Applicant, who
was years old at that time, had acknowledged that had made a grave mistake. Prior
to the hearing, the Applicant had paid $1,823.65 in restitution to the owner of the car,
which covered the shortfall the owner had to pay after insurance coverage, again because
wanted to take responsibility for actions and felt that the payment was the right thing
to do. The Applicant told the Court that had learned from mistakes.
[15] In reasons for sentence, the judge expressed concern about how the Applicant’s
actions would have upset and frightened parents, and how fortunate was that
did not kill or others. The judge noted the bright future that the Applicant had ahead
of and accepted the joint submission, waiving the victim fine surcharge, and
recommended that the Applicant apply to an Interlock program, described below, once the
fine was paid.
Events Following the Conviction
[16] The Applicant paid fine immediately after the trial and participated in the probation
without incident.
[17] The Applicant completed a “Back on Track” program on September 15, 2012. The
Applicant testified that this was a one-day program that provided in-depth education about
the consequences of drinking and driving and highlighted the impact of excessive drinking
generally. learned about different tolerance levels for alcohol and various other issues.
[18] Although the Court ordered that driver’s licence be suspended for one year, the
Applicant was able to participate in a reduced sentence program by installing an ignition
device in car. This device required the Applicant to blow into a breathalyzer installed
in car before the car would start. Any trace of alcohol on the Applicant’s breath would
not allow the car to start.
-5-
[19] The Applicant testified that has never driven under the influence since the 2012
incident. In fact, said that had abstained from alcohol for several months after the
accident and drank only casually after that. Since has become a and started
studying to be an accountant, the Applicant said that priorities have changed. stated
that approximately four-and-a-half years ago made the choice to live a life of complete
sobriety because is determined to be a positive role model to children.
[20] The Applicant testified that learned a lot from the events of 2012. testified that
specifically learned how easy it was to get out of control, specifically with alcohol, and that
this was a huge “wake up call.” described the accident and conviction as “the most
impactful event of my life.”
[21] Five years after the completion of sentence, the Applicant was able to apply to the
Parole Board of Canada for a Record Suspension (referred to at the time as a “Pardon”).
testified that the application process for the Record Suspension was quite involved,
but wanted a Pardon so that could do volunteer work at school events, including
coaching junior basketball. On September 19, 2020, the Applicant received a Record
Suspension from the Parole Board of Canada. The Record Suspension stated, amongst
other things, that the conviction should no longer reflect adversely on the Applicant’s
character, unless it was subsequently revoked. The Board added that the Applicant had
been of good conduct since the convictions.
[22] After the incident, the Applicant worked in the community in a number of capacities,
including working at the local Chamber of Commerce. In 2015, the Applicant decided to
pursue a career in accounting and began work in a staff accountant position while
completing CPA Ontario courses. completed the program in September 2019.
Character Evidence
[23] The Applicant provided the Panel with the following reference letters:
a. February 19, 2021 – In a letter from a retired educator and family friend, the referee
indicated that she had known the Applicant in high school and was an excellent
communicator and an active student. She was aware of the drinking and driving
incident and believed that it was out of character. She stated that had matured
since that time.
-6-
b. February 20, 2021 – An employer and respected community member wrote that the
Applicant was an excellent employee at the Chamber of Commerce and was a leader
at work. She was also aware of the drinking and driving incident and believed that it
was out of character. She stated that the Applicant took the matter very seriously.
c. February 22, 2021 – A member of CPA Ontario who employed the Applicant in his
office was highly complimentary of the Applicant’s people skills, honesty and integrity.
He wrote that the 2012 event was an isolated incident. He had observed the Applicant
socially and said that the Applicant was sober at extracurricular office events and other
activities outside the office.
II. ISSUES IN THIS HEARING
[24] The issue in this application was whether the evidence demonstrated on a balance of
probabilities that the Applicant was of good character at the time of the hearing and could
be admitted as a member of CPA Ontario.
III. DECISION
[25] The Panel found that the Applicant established on a balance of probabilities that was
of good character at the time of the hearing and granted application for admission as
a member of CPA Ontario.
IV. REASONS FOR DECISION
Good Character Requirement in Regulations
[26] All applicants for membership in CPA Ontario are required to provide evidence of good
character satisfactory to the Registrar (subsection 3.4 of Regulation 7-1). It is implicit in
this mandatory requirement that the onus is on the applicant to establish their good
character. The standard of proof in regulatory matters, unless stated otherwise, is
“balance of probabilities”; in other words, the applicant must establish that it is more likely
than not that they are a person of good character.
[27] Under Section 14 of Regulation 7-1, where an applicant for membership in CPA Ontario
does not provide evidence of good character satisfactory to the Registrar, the Registrar
-7-
shall refer the matter to an oral hearing before the ARC. Sections 16 to 22 of the
Regulation sets out the parameters for the hearing and the powers of the ARC.
[28] In the seminal good character decision for CPA Ontario, GB v. Registrar, Chartered
Accountants of Ontario (November 26, 2019), the Panel found that when a matter is
referred to the ARC for a good character hearing, the panel’s assessment of the
applicant’s good character must be respecting their character at the time of the hearing.
In other words, while the criminal conviction may prima facie establish that the applicant
historically made a poor ethical choice or exercised poor judgment, the issue for the
panel’s determination is whether the applicant is currently a person who possesses good
character.
What is Good Character?
[29] “Good character” is not defined in the CPA Ontario Regulations; however, the following
definition from a Law Society decision, Law Society of Upper Canada v Preyra, 2000
CanLII 14383, has been adopted by CPA Ontario panels:
“[Good character consists of] that combination of qualities or features
distinguishing one person from another. Good character connotes moral or ethical
strength, distinguishable as an amalgam of virtuous attributes or traits which
undoubtedly include, among others, integrity, candour, empathy and honesty.”
[30] In an often cited article about good character, Madam Justice Southin of the British
Columbia Court of Appeal elaborated and wrote as follows:
“[G]ood character” means those qualities which might reasonably be considered
in the eyes of reasonable men and women to be relevant to the practice of
law…Character…comprises…at least these qualities:
1. An appreciation of the difference between right and wrong; and
2. The moral fibre to do that which is right, no matter how uncomfortable the doing
may be and not to do that which is wrong no matter what the consequences
may be to oneself;
-8-
3. A belief that the law at least in so far as it forbids things which are malum in se
must be upheld and the courage to see that it is upheld.
[31] The purpose of the good character requirement for various professions, including the
accounting profession, is to protect members of the public who retain professionals and
more broadly to ensure that the profession maintains a reputation for high professional
and ethical standards. Gavin MacKenzie, in his book Lawyers and Ethics: Professional
Responsibility and Discipline, stated that the objectives of the good character requirement
are the same as the principles of discipline, namely to:
“…protect the public, to maintain high ethical standards, to maintain public
confidence in the legal profession and its ability to regulate itself, and to deal fairly
with persons whose livelihood and reputation are affected.”
[32] Section 7 of Regulation 7-1 states that the Registrar shall not admit an applicant without
being satisfied that the admission will not put the public at risk or bring the reputation of
the accounting profession into disrepute.
Factors Determining Good Character
[33] It is well established that ARC panels conducting a good character hearing must review
the evidence relating to the good character of an applicant as framed by the following
factors:
a. The nature and duration of the misconduct;
b. Whether the applicant is remorseful;
c. What rehabilitative efforts, if any, had been taken and the success of such efforts;
d. The applicant’s conduct since the misconduct; and
e. The passage of time since the misconduct.
[34] The calculation of whether a person is of good character is not a mathematical formula
but rather is based upon a combination of these factors, which are often overlapping and
inter-related.
-9-
Analysis
Nature and Duration of Misconduct
[35] Counsel for the Registrar argued that the mere fact of criminal convictions reflects
negatively on the character of an applicant. She submitted, however, that the Panel must
look behind the convictions and consider the underlying events and misconduct. Driving
while under the influence is a serious offence and has attracted society’s condemnation
because of the dangers posed to the public.
[36] Counsel for the Registrar provided the Panel with jurisprudence about the impact of
Pardons (now referred to as Record Suspensions) on the Panel’s consideration of the
criminal convictions. The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed this issue in City of Montreal
v Quebec, 2008 SCC 48, where an applicant for employment as a police officer was
rejected on the basis that she had been found guilty of a criminal offence (shop-lifting),
The applicant for the position appealed the decision on the basis that she had been
pardoned for the offence and that a hiring prohibition based on prior convictions that had
since been pardoned offended the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court
found that a Pardon generally restored the person’s reputation but did not erase the past.
The Court held that it was not a violation of the Charter for an employer to consider the
facts and circumstances that lead to the offence in order to support their decision about
the fitness of the person for the job. The employer must show, however, that the decision
to reject the applicant was not based on the mere fact of a conviction, but rather on the
underlying facts and circumstances.
[37] The City of Montreal analysis was applied to a good character hearing before a Law
Society Appeal Panel in LSUC v Tunney, 2016 ONLSTA 20. There, the Appeal Panel
found that a Record Suspension received by a paralegal licensing candidate did not
foreclose a review of the candidate’s prior criminal offences. The Panel concluded at para
[51] of the decision as follows:
“In our view, the existence of a Pardon and/or a discharge disposition does not
preclude a hearing panel from considering the facts underlying the prior, pardoned
conduct or the facts underlying a prior, pardoned discharge in the context of a good
character hearing. The existence of a pardon and/or discharge is a relevant fact
that must be considered, and in many cases is likely to operate in the applicant’s
-10-
favour. However, this is not necessarily so. Each case must be approached on a
case-by-case basis in accordance with the Armstrong factors [the 5 factors listed
above] and other relevant information.”
[38] The Panel adopted this analysis and found that it could not deny the Applicant
membership in CPA Ontario merely because had a criminal conviction in the past,
however it could review the circumstances leading to the conviction despite the Pardon.
The panel noted the seriousness of the offence of drinking and driving, and also the wrong-
doing in taking a vehicle without the owner’s permission. However, the Panel accepted
the evidence of the Applicant and character witnesses that this was an isolated event,
rather than part of a pattern of poor judgment and decision-making.
Whether Applicant is Remorseful
[39] The Panel noted the Applicant’s numerous expressions of remorse in correspondence
to CPA Ontario during the student and membership application processes in 2017 and
2019, where indicated that after the accident was filled with regret, embarrassment,
sadness and anger. wrote that had let family down as well as friends and .
In terms of taking the car of friend’s parents, the Applicant wrote that felt terrible
about betraying the trust of that family. The Applicant also acknowledged that was
fortunate to have walked away from the accident without hurting or others.
[40] The Applicant had promptly pled guilty to the criminal charges and took full responsibility
for actions prior to criminal trial by paying the car owner for the portion of damages
to the vehicle not covered by insurance.
[41] The Panel observed that the Applicant expressed genuine remorse at the hearing and
did not minimize or try to explain away behaviour in any way. One of references
also noted that the Appellant had expressed remorse to him.
[42] In conclusion, the Panel found that the Applicant had insight into actions in 2012, had
learned from them, and expressed true remorse on several occasions since the events,
both in word and deed.
-11-
Rehabilitation Efforts and the Success of Such Efforts
[43] The Applicant completed the “Back on Track” program and in evidence, it was clear
that had gained insight and knowledge in this program. The Panel was impressed by
the Applicant’s current mature view about drinking. had changed lifestyle since the
accident. In words, this was the most impactful event of life.
[44] The Panel noted the Applicant’s community involvement, work with youth and sports,
and supportive family environment. The Applicant had clearly restored reputation
in community.
Applicant’s Conduct Since the Misconduct
[45] The Panel found that there was no evidence of any misconduct on the part of the Applicant
since 2012. The evidence before the panel was that the Applicant was a contributing
member of community, a hard-working and respected employee and a devoted parent.
The Parole Board of Canada also found in 2019 that the Applicant’s conduct since the
convictions had been good.
The Passage of Time Since the Misconduct
[46] The Panel noted that the underlying events were over eight years old and occurred when
the Applicant was a young . The Panel accepted the evidence of the Applicant that
life today is very different from the lifestyle enjoyed in 2012 when was years
old.
Conclusion
[47] The Panel concluded that the Applicant’s misconduct was from a single series of events
that occurred many years ago. The Applicant expressed clear and genuine remorse both
in words and actions, and had engaged in rehabilitation that resulted in a changed
lifestyle. There was no evidence of misconduct since 2012.
-12-
[48] For these reasons, the Panel found that the Applicant had proven good character
and, because had satisfied all other membership requirements, directs the Registrar
to admit as a member of CPA Ontario.
Dated this 6
th
day of April, 2021
Bernard S. Schwartz, FCPA, FCA
Admission and Registration Committee – Deputy Chair
Members of the Panel
Naresh Agarwal, Public Representative
Margot Howard, Public Representative
Seemant Thakkar, CPA, CMA, CGA
Independent Legal Counsel
Susan J. Heakes
