CITATION: Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario v. Gujral, 2019 ONCJ 859  
DATE: November 29, 2019  
IN THE MATTER OF  
the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017,  
S.O. 2017, c. 8, Sched. 3,  
the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 6, Sched. B,  
and the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 6, Sched. C.  
Between  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario  
prosecutor  
and  
Joginder Singh Gujral  
defendant  
Ontario Court of Justice  
Brampton, Ontario  
Quon J.P.  
Reasons for Judgment and rulings on Charter Applications  
Charges:  
8 counts:  
Between March 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018 at the City of Brampton:  
(1) taking or using designations or initials or a description implying that he is a Certified Management  
Accountant, or otherwise holding himself out as a Certified Management Accountant, while not being a  
member of the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, contrary to section 26 of the Certified  
Management Accountants Act, 2010 (2 counts);  
(2) taking or using designations or initials or a description implying that he is a Chartered Accountant, or  
otherwise holding himself out as a Chartered Accountant, while not being a member of the Institute of  
Chartered Accountants of Ontario, contrary to section 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010 (2  
counts);  
(3) taking or using designations or initials or a description implying that he is a Chartered Professional  
Accountant, Chartered Accountant, Certified Management Accountant, or Certified General Accountant,  
or otherwise holding himself out as a Chartered Accountant, while not being a member of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario, contrary to section 29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants  
of Ontario Act, 2017 (3 counts);  
(4) practising as a Chartered Professional Accountant while not a member of the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario, contrary to section 29(1)(d) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario Act, 2017 (1 count).  
Trial held:  
Judgment released:  
September 11, 2019.  
November 29, 2019.  
1
Counsel:  
Andrew Faith and Madeline Brown, Polley Faith LLP, counsel for the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario.  
Joginder Singh Gujral, unrepresented.  
Cases Considered or Referred To:  
Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, [2009] S.C.J. No. 37 (S.C.C.).  
Black v Law Society of Alberta, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 591 (S.C.C.).  
Canada (Attorney General) v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., [2007] S.C.J. No. 30 (S.C.C.).  
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] S.C.J. No. 2 (S.C.C.).  
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Richardson, [1998] S.C.J. No. 78 (S.C.C.).  
Carter v. The Queen, [1986] S.C.J. No. 36 (S.C.C.).  
Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] S.C.J. No. 9 (S.C.C.).  
Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, [1999] S.C.J. No. 24 (S.C.C.).  
Dunmore v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1016 (S.C.C.).  
Egan v. Canada, [1995] S.C.J. No. 43 (S.C.C.).  
Ford v. Quebec, [1988] S.C.J. No. 88 (S.C.C.).  
Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] S.C.J. No. 95 (S.C.).  
Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2002] S.C.J. No. 85 (S.C.C.).  
Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] S.C.J. No. 28 (S.C.C.).  
Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] S.C.J. No. 36 (S.C.C.).  
Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), [2017] S.C.J. No.  
54 (S.C.C.).  
Lalonde v. Canada (Attorney General), [2016] O.J. No 6318 (Ont. C.A.) per Doherty, Blair and Epstein  
JJ.A.  
Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211 (S.C.C.).  
Lavoie v. Canada, [2002] S.C.J. No. 24 (S.C.C.).  
Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] S.C.J. No. 12  
Law Society British Columbia v. Andrews, [1989] S.C.J. No. 6 (S.C.C.).  
2
Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, [2018] S.C.J. No. 32 (S.C.C.).  
Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357 (S.C.C.).  
Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Commissioner of Customs and Revenue), [2007] S.C.J.  
No. 2 (S.C.C.).  
M. v. H., [1999] S.C.J. No. 23 (S.C.C.).  
McKinney v. University of Guelph, [1990] S.C.J. No 122 (S.C.C.).  
Miron v. Trudel, [1995] S.C.J. No. 44 (S.C.C.).  
Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., [2005] S.C.J. No. 63 (S.C.C.).  
Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] S.C.J. No. 1 (S.C.C.).  
Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, [2006] S.C.J. No. 6 (S.C.C.).  
Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh, [2002] S.C.J. No. 84 (S.C.C.).  
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v. Northwest Territories (Commissioner), [1990]  
S.C.J. No 75 (S.C.C.).  
Ramsden v. Peterborough (City), [1993] S.C.J. No. 87 (S.C.C.).  
R. c. Ketchate, [2019] J.Q. no 2440 (Que. C.A.).  
R. c. Québec, [2001] R.J.Q. 2590 (Que. C.A.).  
R. v. Askov, [1990] S.C.J. No. 106 (S.C.C.).  
R. v. Babos, [2014] S.C.J. No 16 (S.C.C.).  
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] S.C.J. No. 17 (S.C.C.).  
R. v. Butler, [1992] S.C.J. No. 15 (S.C.C.).  
R. v. Cancor Software Corp. (1990), 74 O.R. (2d) 65 (Ont. C.A.), per Blair and McKinlay JJ.A. and Craig  
J. (ad hoc).  
R. v. Cisar, [2014] O.J. No 952 (Ont. C.A.), per Hoy A.C.J.O., Rosenberg and Sharpe JJ.A.  
R. v. Cody, [2017] S.C.J. No. 31 (S.C.C.).  
R. v. Delaronde, [1996] Q.J. No. 535 (Que. C.A.), aff’d [1997] S.C.J. No. 8.  
R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., [1986] S.C.J. No. 70 (S.C.C.).  
R. v. Elliott, [2003] O.J. No 4694 (Ont. C.A.), per Rosenberg, Moldaver and Simmons JJ.A.  
R. v. F.J.H., [1993] A.J. No. 7 (Alta. C.A.).  
R. v. Furtney, [1991] S.C.J. No. 70 (S.C.C.).  
R. v. Francey, [2002] O.J. No 2773 (Ont. C.J.), per Duncan J.  
3
R. v. Heit, [1984] S.J. No. 209 (Sask. C.A.).  
R. v. Jones, [1986] S.C.J. No. 56 (S.C.C.).  
R. v. Jordan, [2016] S.C.J. No 27 (S.C.C.).  
R. v. Kapp, [2008] S.C.J. No 42 (S.C.C.).  
R. v. Keegstra, [1990] S.C.J. No. 131 (S.C.C.).  
R. v. Kutynec, [1992] O.J. No 347 (Ont. C.A.), per Brooke, Finlayson and Doherty JJ.A.  
R. v. Milani, (2014) 120 O.R. (3d) 641 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, 36095 (15 January  
2015).  
R. v. Morin, [1992] S.C.J. No. 25 (S.C.C.).  
R. v. Oakes, [1986] S.C.J. No. 7 (S.C.C.).  
R. v. Pontes, [1995] S.C.J. No. 70 (S.C.C.).  
R. v. Ryback (1996), 105 C.C.C. (3d) 240 (B.C.C.A.).  
R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978), 40 C.C.C. (2d) 353 (S.C.C.).  
R. v. Scott, [2015] S.J. No. 683 (Sask. C.A.).  
R. v. Swain, [1991] S.C.J. No. 32 (S.C.C.).  
R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] S.C.J. No. 83 (S.C.C.).  
Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, [2004] S.C.J. No. 75 (S.C.C.).  
Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, [1996] S.C.J. No. 40 (S.C.C.).  
S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 235 (S.C.C.).  
Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, [2013] S.C.J. No. 11 (S.C.C.).  
Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, [2004] S.C.J. No. 46 (S.C.C.).  
Thomson Newspapers Co. (c.o.b. Globe and Mail) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] S.C.J. No. 44  
(S.C.C.).  
Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] S.C.J. No. 29 (S.C.C.).  
Walker v. Prince Edward Island, [1993] P.E.I.J. No. 111 (P.E.I.C.A.), aff’d [1995] S.C.J. No. 45 (S.C.C.).  
Walker v. Prince Edward Island, [1995] S.C.J. No 45 (S.C.C.).  
Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] S.C.J. No 12 (S.C.C.).  
4
Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited:  
Canada Business Corporations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-44.  
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 2 of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B of the  
Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, R.S.C. 1985, App. II, ss. 1, 2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 6, 7, 11(a), 11(b), 11(g),  
15(1), 24(1), 32, and, 52.  
Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 6, Sched. B, ss. 1, 14, 14(1), 15, 26, 26(1),  
26(1)(d), 26(2), 26(2)(1), 26(2)(1)(ii), 26(3), 26(6), and 27.  
Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 6, Sched. C, ss. 1, 11, 12, 27, 27(1), 27(1)(d), 27(2),  
27(2)(1)(ii), 27(3), 27(6), and 28.  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 8, Sched. 3, ss. 1, 5, 15(1), 15(3),  
17, 18, 18(2), 29, 29(1), 29(1)(d), 29(2), 29(2)(b), 29(3), 29(6), and 30.  
Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, S.C. 2009, c. 23.  
Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 81.  
Exhibits entered:  
Exhibit "1" -  
Exhibit "2" -  
Charter application (undated) and filed by the defendant on August 18, 2019, by Joginder Singh  
Gujral (7 pages).  
copy of the Notice Under The Evidence Act (Business Records) dated August 30, 2019 (the 7  
documents listed in Schedule “A” were previously provided to the defendant as part of the disclosure  
package on October 2, 2018) (4 pages).  
Exhibit "3" -  
Exhibit "4" -  
copy of the Affidavit of Service of the affiant Nykhol Mancini, sworn on August 30, 2019, which is in  
respect to service of the Notice Under The Evidence Act (Business Records) dated August 30, 2019  
on the defendant (7 pages).  
copy of the “Member Profile – SE” of Joginder S. Gujral dated Wednesday, September 26, 2018, with  
an e-mail address of [email protected] and indicating under the heading Informal: Jogi; under  
the heading “member: S / Student”; under the heading “Membership Status: SDFC / Dereg Fail  
CFE 3X”; under the heading “Join Date: 6/23/2015”; under the heading “Preferred Address:  
RESIDENTIAL”; and under the heading “Employment History: 9/9/2015 Experience Requirement  
Incomplete 9/7/2015 (2 pages). The telephone number indicated on the Member Profile which was  
provided to Student Services of CPA Ontario by Joginder S. Gujral was (647) 629-3508.  
Exhibit "5" -  
Exhibit "6" -  
copy of one page of the Republic of India passport issued to Joginder Singh Gujral issued on  
03/02/2014 and expiring on 02/02/2024 containing the photograph and signature of the holder that  
had been filed with the Chartered Professional Accountants Association of Ontario (1 page).  
copy of Document Summary: Records pertaining to Joginder Singh Gujral as a student writing  
qualifications exams for membership in the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, which  
contain a letter dated February 22, 2016 from John Murray, Registrar to Joginder Singh Gujral; a  
summary of Joginder Singh Gujral experience and employment history for an exemption; an e-mail  
from Audrey Lubowitz dated January 18, 2016 to Joginder Singh Gujral; copy of Joginder Singh  
Gujral’s International Candidate Application Form; copy of Joginder Singh Gujral’s CPA Certificate  
Program: CPA Student Registration Form 6-1A; copy of document from the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of India in respect to Joginder Singh Gujral’s membership dated May 13, 2015; copy of  
a letter dated June 23, 2015 from the Institute of Cost Accountants of India in respect to Joginder  
Singh Gujral’s membership as a Fellow Member; resume of Joginder Singh Gujral, CA, CMA; copies  
of 8 different Practical Experience Certificate Forms for Joginder Singh Gujral dated September 25,  
2015 for 8 different companies; copies of 2 different Practical Experience Certificate Forms for  
5
Joginder Singh Gujral dated August 24, 2015 for 2 companies; copy of Practical Experience  
Certificate Form for Joginder Singh Gujral dated June 18, 2015 for a company; e-mails from Brenda  
Lun dated June 1, 2015 to Joginder Singh Gujral; e-mail from Alison Alderson, Office of the Registrar  
dated January 18, 2016 to Joginder S. Gujral; and a copy of letter from T E Warner, Vice-President  
and Registrar dated June 2016, 2015 to Joginder Singh Gujral (94 pages).  
Exhibit "7" -  
copy of Certificate of Heidi Franken, Registrar for Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario,  
dated September 28, 2019, stating that Joginder S. Gujral had been a registered student of CPA  
Ontario as of June 23, 2015 and that on February 12, 2018, he had been deregistered as a student of  
CPA Ontario as a result of his third unsuccessful attempt in the common Final Examination and that  
Joginder S. Gujral has not been and is not a member of CPA Ontario and is therefore not authorized  
or entitled to use the designations, “Certified Management Accountant” or “CMA”, “Chartered  
Accountant” or “CA” or “Chartered Professional Accountant” or “CPA” nor to hold himself out as a  
member of CPA Ontario (2 pages).  
Exhibit "8" -  
Exhibit "9" -  
copy of screenshot taken on March 23, 2017 by Karen Armstrong of Kijiji advertisement indicating  
date listed as 14-Feb-17 with an e-mail address of [email protected] and telephone number of 647-629-  
3862 for contact. The ad also states that “I am qualified CPA, CA(Canada Candidate), CMA (USA),  
CA(I), CMA(I), MBA(IIM-B) and CS(I)”. A website of website of www.gujraltutor.com is also listed in  
the ad (1 page).  
copy of screenshot taken on March 23, 2017 by Karen Armstrong of website page of  
http://gujraltutor.com/about” with the heading “Why choose Gujral Tutor” states “Our offices are  
located in Ontario, Canada. My name is Jogi Gujral and I have 25 years experience in accounting  
and taxation … My firm proves the following professional services to broad range of small or medium  
sized entrepreneurial clients. I am serving the Greater Toronto Are including Brampton, Mississauga,  
Toronto, Thornhill, Richmond Hills, Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke. My aim is to provide  
Accounting and Tax Services at reasonable rates to clients and to exercise due car[e] and to exercise  
due diligence in my work in creating various accounting solutions for you and your company, which  
may improve your standing with the federal revenue government. … My sixth designations  
CPA(Certified Public Accountant), CA(Chartered Accountant) (Candidate) from CPA Canada(1  
page).  
Exhibit "10" - copy of letter from Tom Litzgus, Associate General Counsel of Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario, dated March 30, 2017 to Joginder Gujral informing Gujral that Gujral had been identifying  
himself to the public in Ontario as a CPA, CA and CMA while a student enrolled with the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario and not a member of CPA Ontario or with the Certified  
Management Accountants of Ontario. The letter also enclosed copies of two website pages (website:  
http://gujraltutor.com/about and the Kijiji advertisement) showing the use of those initials for  
accounting designations. In addition, the letter contained a page entitled Canadian trade-mark data  
which states that as of 2017-03-28 the prohibited Mark; Official Mark (Word) of “CPA” was the  
registered mark of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario”. The letter also states ”Under  
the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, (the “Act”) only members of CMA Ontario may  
take or use the designation “Chartered Accountant” or the initials “C.A.”, or “CA”, alone or in  
combination with other words or abbreviations, or take or use any term, title, initials, designation or  
description implying that the individual is a Chartered Accountant. Similarly, under the Certified  
Management Accountants Act, 2010, only members of CMA Ontario may take or use the designation  
“Certified Management Accountant” or the initials “CMA.”, or “C.M.A.”, alone or in combination with  
other words or abbreviations, or take or use any term, title, initials, designation or description implying  
that the individual is a Certified Management Accountant, or otherwise hold himself out as such in  
Ontario. In addition, “CPA” is protected as an official mark held by CPA Ontario and may only be  
used with our permission. Proof of ownership is enclosed for your reference. Individuals are  
permitted to reference designations earned from accounting bodies outside Ontario only in the limited  
circumstances described in subsections 27(2) and (3) of the Act. Adding “Candidate” or the  
jurisdiction from which a foreign accounting designation was obtained is not sufficient to avoid the  
requirements noted above. We seek your cooperation in respecting the provisions of the Act and our  
proprietary rights in the official mark. Accordingly, we require that you remove all references to  
“CPA”, “CA”, and “CMA” all on documents, business cards, letterhead, websites, e-mails, social  
media or other advertising or communication materials. Please respond to this letter by April 14,  
2017 confirming that you have taken these steps.” (4 pages).  
6
Exhibit "11" - copy of e-mail chain between Joginder Singh and Tom Litzgus from April 3, 2017 to April 5, 2017.  
Joginder Singh Gujral informs Tom Litzgus by e-mail on April 3, 2017, that Gujral had received  
Litzgus’ letter dated March 30, 2017; that Gujral had always mentioned the jurisdiction of India after  
his designations; that because Gujral is a student with CPA Ontario he had always mentioned  
“Candidate” as Gujral had seen this was the practice being used by all the students of CPA Ontario,  
which can be observed on LinkedIn and on other social media. In addition, Gujral informed Litzgus in  
that e-mail that he had removed it all together and to cooperate with CPA Ontario, Gujral had  
modified his advertisement in Kijiji and that Gujral further promised to abide by all the guidelines and  
respect the provisions of the Act. Litzgus then acknowledged the defendant’s e-mail on April 3, 2017  
at 4:41 PM and further explained to Gujral that a qualifying statement, “I am not a member of  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario) and I am not governed by CPA  
Ontario. My services have not been approved or endorsed by CPA Ontario.must be included  
wherever the defendant described his foreign professional accounting designations to indicate the  
defendant’s educational background. Gujral then responded to Litzgus by e-mail on April 5, 2017,  
stating that the defendant would abide by Litzgus’ instructions.  
Exhibit "12" - copy of screenshot taken on March 20, 2018 by Karen Armstrong of the LinkedIn profile page for  
Joginder Gujral FCA, FCMA, CMA (USA), Fellow Chartered Accountant, that makes mention of  
Gujral Finance Inc., Canada USA and India, Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario …  
Toronto, Canada Area … and testimonials from previous employers. Under the heading “Education”  
is listed Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Canada), CPA, CA (Candidate),  
Finance, Strategy, Assurance, 2015-2016, Chartered Accountant … (3 pages).  
Exhibit "13" - copy of e-mail from Joginder S. Gujral to Richard Piticco dated March 02, 2018 2:23 PM in respect to  
an appeal of Joginder Gujral’s deregistration as a student with CPA Ontario. Attached to the letter  
was Joginder Gujral’s 3-page resume (5 pages).  
Exhibit "14" - copy of screenshot taken on March 20, 2018 by Karen Armstrong of the website  
www.gujralaccounting.cawith the title page stating “Welcome To The Gujral Finance inc.” On this  
page is also logos for CMA USA, CPA Chartered Professional Accountants [CPA Ontario logo], CMA  
The Institute of Cost Accountants of India and CA Chartered Accountants of Canada. The second  
page contains the “About Us” page that also contains the CPA Chartered Professional Accountants  
Ontario logo and states “Our offices are located in Ontario, Canada. My name is Jogi Gujral and I  
have 25 years experience in accounting and taxation … My firm provides the following professional  
services to broad range of small or medium sized entrepreneurial clients. I am serving the Greater  
Toronto Are including Brampton, Mississauga, Toronto, Thornhill, Richmond Hills, Scarborough,  
North York and Etobicoke. My aim is to provide Accounting and Tax Services at reasonable rates to  
clients and to exercise due car[e] and to exercise due diligence in my work in creating various  
accounting solutions for you and your company, which may improve your standing with the federal  
revenue government. … My sixth designations CPA(Certified Public Accountant), CA(Chartered  
Accountant) (Candidate) from CPA Canada” (2 pages).  
Exhibit "15" - copy of screenshot taken on March 20, 2018 by Karen Armstrong of the Toronto Overseas Centre of  
Cost Accountants of India webpage under the website http://home.icmai-canada.org/containing a  
photograph of Joginder Gujral and the title underneath the photograph of “Joginder Gujral Director,  
Corporate Development”. The page also contains the statements, “Joginder has been CMA member  
since 1995 and is also CMA from USA. He is also Chartered Accountant from India and Candidate  
CPA, CA, Canada. He has successful career, spanning over 20 years with Fortune 500 companies  
…” (1 page).  
Exhibit "16" - copy of summons in respect to Information #7488 (withdrawn on April 8, 2019) that was issued to  
Joginder Singh Gujral of 18 Tustin Road, Brampton, Ontario L6P 3K9 on June 22, 2018 by the  
Ontario Court of Justice informing the defendant to appear in court on October 2, 2018 at 9:00 AM in  
courtroom #B2.  
Exhibit "17" - copy of Affidavit Of Service Of Summons sworn on July 16, 2018, by Carlyle Murray, process server,  
indicating that the summons issued to Joginder Singh Gujral of 18 Tustin Road, Brampton, Ontario  
L6P 3K9 on June 22, 2018 by the Ontario Court of Justice informing the defendant to appear in court  
on October 2, 2018 at 9:00 AM in courtroom #B2 was served personally on the defendant, Joginder  
Singh Gujral at 5 Keystone Drive, Brampton, Ontario.  
7
Exhibit "18" - copy of letter from Richard Piticco, Vice President of Student Services of the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario, 69 Bloor Street East, Toronto, Ontario M4W 1B3, dated February 18, 2018,  
to Joginder S. Gujral of 5 Keystone Drive, Brampton, in respect to Joginder Singh Gujral  
deregistration as a CPA student effective February 9, 2018 because of the third unsuccessful attempt  
of any module of the CPA Professional Education Program or the Common Final Examination, or  
upon denial of the appeal of results. Joginder S. Gujral was also informed in the letter about the  
consequences of deregistration including loss of any student rights and privileges with CPA Ontario  
and also on his appeal rights (2 pages).  
Exhibit "19" - copy of e-mail train from Joginder S. Gujral of 5 Keystone Drive, Brampton, Ontario, dated March 21,  
2018 to the Membership Committee of CPA Ontario with attachments of Joginder S. Gujral’s  
Certificate of Contents of the Appeal Book Form 24C dated March 20, 2018 and the Notice of  
Appeal Form 24A dated February 12, 2018.  
Exhibit "20" - copy of screenshot taken on September 20, 2018 by Karen Armstrong of the LinkedIn profile page for  
Joginder Gujral CMA (USA), FCA (India), FCMA (India), … and testimonials from previous  
employers. Under the heading “Education” is listed Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario  
(CPA Canada), CPA, CA (Candidate), Finance, Strategy, Assurance, 2017-2018, CA, Accounting  
and Finance, Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (FCA) 1991-1995 There is  
also the CPA Canada logo on the second age beside the reference to Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario (CPA Canada) CPA, CA (Candidate), Finance, Strategy, Assurance, 2017-  
2018 (3 pages).  
Exhibit "21" - copy of screenshot taken on September 20, 2018 by Karen Armstrong for Toronto Overseas Centre  
of Cost Accountants of India webpage under the http://home.icmai-canada.org/website containing  
the statements, “Joginder has been CMA member since 1995 and is also CMA from USA. He is also  
Chartered Accountant from India and Candidate CPA, CA, Canada. He has successful career,  
spanning over 20 years with Fortune 500 companies …” with a title underneath the statements of  
“Joginder Gujral Director, Corporate Development”. (1 page).  
Exhibit "22" - copy of document dated 2018-07-19 with the title, “Federal Corporation Information – 979689-4” with  
the heading Corporate Name: Gujral Finance Inc.”: with the heading “Status: Active”; with the  
heading “Registered Office Address” 5 Keystone Drive, Brampton, ON L6Y 3L2 Canada”; and under  
the heading “Directors: Joginder Singh Gujral, 5 Keystone Drive, Brampton ON L6Y 2L2 Canada”;  
and under the heading “ Type of Corporation: Non-distributing corporation with 50 or fewer  
shareholders” (2 pages).  
Exhibit "23" - copy of letter dated April 4, 2018 from Tom Litzgus, Vice-President, Associate General Counsel of  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario to Joginder Gujral of 18 Tustin Road, Brampton  
regarding misuse of designations and unauthorized use of official marks. The letter also informs  
Joginder Gujral that no individual other than a member of CPA Ontario may take or use the  
designation “Chartered Accountant”, or the initials “F.C.A.”, “F.C.M.A.”, “C.M.A.”, “C.P.A.” or “C.A.”  
(with or without periods) and that using the official marks owned by CPA Ontario without permission  
on the website: www.gujralaccounting.ca was an infringement of the rights of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario under the Trade-marks Act of Canada (3 pages).  
1.  
INTRODUCTION  
[1]  
Like many foreign-trained professionals who emigrate to Canada, Joginder Singh  
Gujral (“the defendant”), a Chartered Accountant from India with several profes-  
sional accounting designations, had wanted to live the Canadian dream and  
continue his profession in Canada. However, to be able to continue and be legally  
able to practice as a Chartered Accountant or professional accountant in Ontario,  
the defendant had been required to have his work experience and credentials  
assessed, and if not exempted, then he had been required to enroll in and  
complete classes as a professional accounting student and pass the qualification  
8
exam set by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (formerly the  
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario), the governing and licensing body of  
Chartered Accountants in Ontario at that time, before he would be legally  
authorized to practice as a Chartered Accountant or as a professional accountant  
in Ontario. Although there is an exemption from having to enroll in classes as a  
student or from having to write the qualification exam, the defendant was not  
exempted by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (“CPA Ontario”)  
and had been required to enroll as a student with CPA Ontario and take certain  
courses, and to also write the qualification exam known as the Common Final  
Exam. The purpose in requiring foreign-trained professionals in such fields as  
medicine, law, dentistry, architecture, engineering, accounting and other trades, to  
undergo accreditation of their experience and education and to complete courses  
and pass licensing exams before they can continue in their profession or trade in  
Ontario, is to ensure that they have a minimum level of education, competence,  
and experience in their respective fields before they can practice in their chosen  
fields, which is necessary for the safety and protection of the Canadian public.  
[2]  
At the time the defendant was enrolled as a student and studying for his  
qualification exam, there were 3 governing bodies for the 3 different professional  
accounting designations in Ontario of Certified Management Accountant (or  
Registered Industrial Accountant), Chartered Accountant, and Certified General  
Accountant. The three governing accounting bodies in Ontario were known as the  
“Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario”, which governed and regulated  
Chartered Accountants in Ontario; the Certified Management Accountants of  
Ontario, which governed and regulated Certified Management Accountants and  
Registered Industrial Accountants in Ontario, and the Association of Certified  
General Accountants of Ontario, which governed and regulated Certified General  
Accountants. There were also 3 Ontario statutes at that time which governed each  
of those 3 professional accounting designations: the Certified General Accountants  
Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 6, Sched. A.; the Certified Management Accountants Act,  
2010, S.O. 2010, c. 6, Sched. B; and the Chartered Accountants of Ontario Act,  
2010, S.O. 2010, c. 6, Sched. C. However, sometime in 2014 the 3 professional  
accounting designations and the 3 governing accounting bodies in Ontario were  
amalgamated under one governing professional accounting body, known as the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (“CPA Ontario”), and on May 17,  
2017, the 3 governing statutes were repealed on May 17, 2017, and a new statute,  
the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 8,  
Sched. 3., came into force to regulate all professional accountants in Ontario.  
[3]  
But more importantly, while being a student preparing for the qualifying exam and  
licensure, and before being accepted as a member of CPA Ontario, the governing  
professional accounting body in Ontario, the defendant was prohibited by  
provincial legislation from using publicly in Ontario his foreign professional  
accounting designations and their corresponding initials or descriptions that he had  
obtained from India and the United States, under the three governing professional  
accounting statues in Ontario that were applicable to the defendant (the Certified  
9
Management Accountants Act, 2010, the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, and  
the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017), until he became a  
member of CPA Ontario or one of the governing professional accounting bodies in  
Ontario. In addition, the defendant was not permitted to practice as, or to publicly  
to hold himself out as, or imply that he was a Chartered Accountant, a Certified  
Management, or a Chartered Professional Accountant in Ontario, until such time  
as he became a member of CPA Ontario or one of the governing professional  
accounting bodies in Ontario.  
[4]  
[5]  
Before coming to Canada and enrolling as a student of CPA Ontario in 2015, the  
defendant had obtained in India the professional designations of Chartered  
Accountant (“C.A.”)”, “Fellow Chartered Accountant” (“F.C.A.”), “Cost And  
Management Accountant” (“C.M.A.”), “Fellow Cost And Management Accountant”  
(“F.C.M.A.”), and from the United States the professional accounting designation  
of “Certified Management Accountant” (“C.M.A. (U.S.A.)”)  
However, under the 3 professional accounting statutes of Ontario which were  
applicable to the defendant, the defendant was not legally permitted to use his  
foreign accounting designations of Chartered Accountant, Fellow Chartered  
Accountant, Cost And Management Accountant, Fellow Cost And  
Management Accountant, and Certified Management Accountant”, or any  
initials representing those foreign designations such as “CA, C.A., FCA,  
F.C.A., CMA, C.M.A., FCMA, F.C.M.A., in the public sphere, when he had not  
be accepted as a member of one of the professional accounting bodies in  
Ontario before May 17, 2017, and by CPA Ontario after May 17, 2017, and  
while as a student preparing for the qualification exam. In addition, the  
defendant would only be legally permitted to use his foreign accounting  
designations and their corresponding initials or descriptions after the  
defendant had passed his qualification exam and became a full-fledged  
licensed member of one of the 3 professional bodies governing and regulating  
the practice of professional accounting in Ontario. Before May 17, 2017, the  
defendant was governed by the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario  
and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario. After May 17, 2017,  
when all the professional accounting bodies in Ontario were amalgamated  
under the umbrella of one governing professional accounting body, the  
defendant was governed and regulated by the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario (“CPA Ontario”), the professional body which presently  
governs and regulates all professional accountants in Ontario. To reiterate,  
the purpose behind this prohibition against the taking or use of these foreign  
professional accounting designations or their corresponding initials or  
descriptions publicly in Ontario was for ensuring that the public was not  
confused or misled that the person using those foreign professional accounting  
designations, initials or descriptions was indeed an actual member of one of  
the governing accounting bodies in Ontario, the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, or  
the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, and was being regulated  
10  
by one of them and authorized by one of them to practice as a Certified  
Management Accountant, Chartered Accountant or Chartered Professional  
Accountant in Ontario.  
[6]  
On the other hand, there are 3 statutory exceptions provided by the Ontario  
Legislature where the defendant would be permitted to use his foreign professional  
accounting designations, initials, or descriptions in the public sphere in Ontario  
without the defendant having to be a member of one of the 3 Ontario accounting  
bodies of the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, the Institute of  
Chartered Accountants of Ontario, or the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario (CPA Ontario). Those 3 exceptions are identical in all 3 of the professional  
accounting statutes applicable to the defendant (the Certified Management  
Accountants Act, 2010, Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, and the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017). Those 3 exceptions would allow  
accounting professionals who are not members of one the governing professional  
bodies in Ontario to use their foreign professional accounting designations and  
their corresponding initials or descriptions in the following circumstances: (1) in a  
speech or other presentation given at a professional or academic conference or  
other similar forum; (2) in an application for employment or a private  
communication respecting the retainer of the individual’s services, if the reference  
is made to indicate the individual’s educational background, and the individual  
expressly indicates that he or she is not a member of the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario, a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of  
Ontario, or a member of CPA Ontario; or (3) in a proposal submitted in response to  
a request for proposals, if the reference is made to demonstrate that the individual  
meets the requirements for the work to which the request for proposals relates.  
[7]  
After an investigation of the defendant had been conducted by Karen Armstrong of  
the General Counsel’s office of CPA Ontario, the defendant was originally charged  
with committing 8 offences between March 30, 2017 and June 21, 2018, on an  
information numbered #7488 sworn on June 22, 2018. However, Information  
#7488 was later withdrawn by the prosecution on April 8, 2019, and replaced with  
an information numbered #5539, that was sworn on January 24, 2019, which also  
charged the defendant with committing the same 8 offences but for a different time  
period between March 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018. The replacement Information  
#5539 is the information that will govern this proceeding. The 8 counts on  
Information #5539 are for the following types of offences:  
- 2 counts under s. 26 of the Certified Management Accountants Act,  
2010, for the offence of taking or using designations or initials or a  
description implying that he is a Certified Management Accountant, or  
otherwise holding himself out as a Certified Management Accountant,  
while not being a member of the Certified Management Accountants of  
Ontario;  
11  
- 2 counts under s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants of Ontario Act,  
2010, for the offence of taking or using designations or initials or a  
description implying that he is a Chartered Accountant, or otherwise  
holding himself out as a Chartered Accountant, while not being a  
member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario;  
- 3 counts under s. 29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario Act, 2017, for the offence of taking or using designations or  
initials or a description implying that he is a Chartered Professional  
Accountant, Chartered Accountant, Certified Management Accountant,  
or Certified General Accountant, or otherwise holding himself out as a  
Chartered Accountant, while not being a member of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario, contrary to s. 29 of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017; and  
- 1 count under s. 29(1)(d) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario Act, 2017, for the offence of practising as a Chartered  
Professional Accountant while not a member of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario.  
[8]  
In particular, the prosecution contends that the defendant had been using his  
foreign professional accounting designations, initials, or descriptions in the public  
sphere in Ontario and which were not exempted by one of the three statutory  
exceptions for their use in Ontario, as well as practicing as a Certified  
Management Accountant or as an Chartered Accountant or as a Chartered  
Professional Accountant while not being a member of one of the 3 Ontario  
accounting bodies of the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, the  
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, or the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario).  
[9]  
On March 23, 2017, after receiving a complaint about the defendant, CPA Ontario  
conducted an internet and Google search of the defendant and found that the  
defendant had unlawfully used his foreign professional accounting designations,  
initials, or descriptions on two websites that were readily accessible by the public  
in Ontario, which were on a website containing a Kijiji advertisement and on the  
website http://gujraltutor.com”. In addition, the defendant had been using the  
designation or description, CPA, CA(Candidate)on the Kijiji website and the  
designation or description, “CPA(Certified Public Accountant), CA(Chartered  
Accountant) (Candidate) from CPA Canada” on the website http://gujraltutor.com,  
when there is no such designation containing the word “Candidate” that is issued  
by CPA Ontario and that the designation “CPAis a proprietary mark belonging to  
CPA Ontario, and as such, the designation CPAcannot be used without  
authorization or permission from CPA Ontario. Furthermore, the defendant had  
being using the logos for CPA Ontario and for CPA Canada inappropriately to  
suggest his affiliation with CPA Ontario or with CPA Canada without having  
obtained CPA Ontario or CPA Canada’s permission or authorization. Moreover,  
12  
CPA Ontario or CPA Canada only allows firms to use the CPA Ontario or CPA  
Canada logo in advertisements or in other places through a licensing agreement  
with CPA Ontario or CPA Canada.  
[10] In addition, Tom Litzgus, Associate General Counsel of CPA Ontario, had sent a  
“cease and desist” letter dated March 30, 2017, by registered mail to the defendant  
advising the defendant to stop using his foreign professional accounting  
designations, initials, or descriptions publicly in Ontario and to also stop using the  
designation CPA which is a protected mark belonging to CPA Ontario, and to  
remove all references to “CPA”, “CA”, and “CMA” all on documents, business  
cards, letterhead, websites, e-mails, social media or other advertising or  
communication materials, since the defendant was not a member of CPA Ontario  
or a member of the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario. In addition,  
Tom Litzgus, informed the defendant in an e-mail dated April 3, 2017, that if the  
defendant was not providing accounting services to the public, but only teaching,  
tutoring or providing other services, then it was permissible for the defendant to  
describe his foreign professional accounting designations to indicate the  
defendant’s educational background, but to avoid confusion by the public that the  
defendant had to expressly include the statement, I am not a member of  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario) and I am not  
governed by CPA Ontario. My services have not been approved or endorsed by  
CPA Ontario. However, the prosecution contends that the defendant did not  
include that required statement on the website for the Kijiji advertisement or for the  
http://gujraltutor.comwebsite.  
[11] The defendant in response to Tom Litzgus’s “cease and desist letter” had stated in  
an e-mail dated April 3, 2017, that the defendant had removed the references to  
“Candidate” all together and would cooperate with CPA Ontario, and that the  
defendant had modified his advertisement in Kijiji, and that the defendant further  
promised to abide by all the guidelines and respect the provisions of the Act.  
[12] However, a year later, CPA Ontario received a second complaint about the  
defendant, and on March 20, 2018, CPA Ontario did another internet and Google  
search of the defendant and found three websites in which the defendant had  
been unlawfully taking or using his foreign professional accounting designations,  
initials or descriptions on three websites which were readily accessible by the  
public in Ontario, which were on a website containing the defendant’s LinkedIn  
profile page, on the website www.guralaccounting.ca, and on the Toronto  
Overseas Centre of Cost Accountants of India webpage under the website  
http://home.icmai-canada.org/. In addition, the defendant had been holding  
himself out as or implying that he was a Certified Management Accountant,  
Chartered Accountant or Chartered Professional Accountant by using on those  
websites the designation or description, “CPA, CA(Candidate)”, “CPA(Certified  
Public Accountant), CA (Chartered Accountant) (Candidate) from CPA Canada”  
when there is no such designation containing the word “Candidate” that is issued  
by CPA Ontario and that the designation “CPA” is a proprietary mark belonging to  
13  
CPA Ontario, and as such, the designation “CPA” cannot be used without  
authorization or permission from CPA Ontario. Furthermore, the defendant had  
being using the logos of CPA Ontario and CPA Canada inappropriately to suggest  
his affiliation with CPA Ontario or CPA Canada without CPA Ontario or CPA  
Canada’s permission or authorization.  
[13] In addition, the defendant was charged for practicing as a Chartered Professional  
Accountant or holding himself out as or implying that he was a Chartered  
Professional Accountant, Certified Management Accountant, or Chartered  
Accountant, while not a member of the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario, by stating publicly on his websites that he and his firm provided  
professional accounting and taxation services at reasonable rates to his clients  
from a broad range of small or medium sized entrepreneurial clients and that the  
defendant was serving the Greater Toronto Area including Brampton, Mississauga,  
Toronto, Thornhill, Richmond Hills, Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke from  
his offices in Ontario, alongside his professional accounting designations, initials or  
descriptions and the CPA Ontario and CPA Canada logos and the CPA  
designation.  
[14] In his defence, the defendant brought a Charter application claiming that 9 of his  
Charter rights and freedoms had been violated by the actions of CPA Ontario or  
that the legislation applicable to the defendant which governs and regulates  
professional accountants in Ontario, by its purpose or effect, had infringed the  
defendant’s rights and freedoms. Those 9 violations of the Charter claimed by the  
defendant are that:  
(1) the defendant’s freedom of conscience and religion under s. 2(a) has been  
infringed because CPA Ontario has prevented the defendant from  
practicing his religion as CPA Ontario is biased and hand-picking on the  
defendant;  
(2) the defendant’s freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression,  
including freedom of the press and other media of communication under s.  
2(b) has been infringed because CPA Ontario is not allowing the  
defendant to publish his professional accounting designations and  
corresponding initials he has obtained from India and the United States on  
his Linkedln profile page or in other media;  
(3) the defendant’s freedom of association under s. 2(d) has been infringed by  
CPA Ontario because of his association or membership in the Institute of  
Chartered Accountants of India, the Institute of Cost Accountants of India,  
and the Toronto Overseas Chapter of Cost Accountants of India;  
(4) the defendant’s right to move to and take up residence in any province  
and to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province under s. 6(2) has  
been infringed by CPA Ontario by preventing the defendant from using  
14  
and displaying his international qualifications and from writing the  
professional accounting initials FCA (India) and FCMA (India) with the  
defendant’s name on the defendant’s LinkedIn profile page which prevents  
the defendant from pursuing the gaining of a livelihood in Ontario;  
(5) the defendant’s right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right  
not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of  
fundamental justice under s. 7 has been infringed because the pre-trial  
justice of the peace was biased and did not give the defendant time to be  
heard or to talk during the judicial pre-trial conference had therefore  
infringed his right to liberty;  
(6) the defendant’s right to be informed without unreasonable delay of the  
specific offence under s. 11(a) has been infringed by CPA Ontario, since  
the defendant had only been informed on February 2, 2019, of an alleged  
offence which had taken place on March 30, 2017, which is 23 months  
after the date of the alleged offence.  
(7) the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b)  
has been infringed by CPA Ontario, since the defendant’s trial was set for  
September 11, 2019 for an alleged offence which had taken place on  
March 30, 2017, which is over 30 months after the date of the alleged  
offence.  
(8) the defendant’s right not to be found guilty on account of any act or  
omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an  
offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to  
the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations  
under s. 11(g) has been infringed, since the defendant contends that the  
defendant had only omitted to include a particular statement that CPA  
Ontario had wanted the defendant to include with his professional  
accounting qualifications and their corresponding initials when he was  
publicly using his professional accounting qualifications and their  
corresponding initials.  
(9) the defendant’s right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law  
without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on  
race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or  
physical disability under s. 15 has been infringed because CPA Ontario  
has discriminated against the defendant for being of the Sikh religion and  
for being a member of an ethnic group and not from the white race, since  
hundreds of people from the white community are writing their  
professional accounting designations and their corresponding initials on  
LinkedIn and the internet and that CPA Ontario is specifically picking on  
the defendant for being a turban-clad Sikh.  
15  
[15] In respect to the defendant’s Charter infringement claims, the defendant has failed  
to prove on a balance of probabilities that his Charter rights and freedoms  
guaranteed by ss. 2(a), 2(d), 6(2), 7, 11(a), 11(b), 11(g), and 15, have been  
infringed by the actions of CPA Ontario or by the purpose or effect of s. 26 of the  
Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants  
Act, 2010, or s. 29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017.  
However, the defendant has proven on a balance of probabilities that his freedom  
of expressionguaranteed by s. 2(b) has been infringed by s. 26 of the Certified  
Management Accountants Act, 2010, s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act,  
2010, or s. 29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017,  
which prohibits the defendant from taking or using publicly in Ontario his foreign  
professional accounting designations, initials, or descriptions, but s. 26 of the  
Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants  
Act, 2010, or s. 29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017  
are reasonable limits on the defendant’s freedom of expression and saved by s. 1  
of the Charter. As such, all of the defendant’s Charter infringement claims are  
dismissed.  
[16] In regards to the 8 counts on Information #5539, the prosecution has proven  
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed the actus reus of the  
respective offences set out in the 8 counts. However, the defendant has not met  
his burden in proving on a balance of probabilities the defence of due diligence in  
respect to those respective 8 offences, and as such, convictions will be entered  
against the defendant on all 8 counts on Information #5539.  
[17] The Charter application and the trial of the 8 counts on Information #5539 was  
held on September 11, 2019. After submissions were heard in respect to both the  
Charter application and on the 8 counts, ruling on the Charter application and  
judgment on the 8 counts was reserved, and the matter was adjourned to  
November 29, 2019, for it to be rendered. These, therefore, are the written  
reasons for the ruling on the Charter application and the written reasons for  
judgment on the 8 counts:  
2.  
BACKGROUND  
(a) Amalgamation of the 3 statutes governing accounting professionals in  
Ontario, as well as the unification 3 professional bodies governing  
professional accountants in Ontario  
[18] Prior to 2017, there were three statutes that governed different categories of  
accounting professionals in Ontario. For Chartered Accountants in Ontario they  
were regulated and licenced under the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, S.O.  
2010, c. 6, Sched. C by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario. For  
Certified Management Accountants in Ontario, they were regulated and licenced  
under the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 6, Sched.  
16  
B, by the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario. And, for Certified  
General Accountants, they were regulated and licenced under the Certified  
General Accountants Act, 2010, c. 6, Sched. A, by the Certified General  
Accountants of Ontario.  
[19] On June 26, 2013, the members of both the Institute of Chartered Accountants of  
Ontario and members of the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario voted  
in favour of the unification of their two bodies. On April 2, 2014, the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario (formerly the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of Ontario) and the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario  
signed a Unification Agreement which allowed members of the Certified  
Management Accountants of Ontario to become members of the newly formed  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario). On June 18, 2014,  
members of the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario voted their approval  
to join the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario. On October 2, 2014, all  
3 professional accounting bodies in Canada were united under one organization  
known as Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada.  
[20] However, even though CPA Ontario became the governing body of all professional  
accountants in Ontario in 2014, the 3 statutes in Ontario governing the 3  
professional accounting designations of Chartered Accountant, Certified  
Management Accountant, and Certified General Accountant (C.A., C.M.A. and  
C.G.A.) had not yet been amalgamated under one statute, so that CPA Ontario still  
regulated the 3 categories of professional accountants in Ontario under the 3  
professional accounting statutes.  
[21] On May 17, 2017, the 3 professional accountant statues (Chartered Accountants  
Act, 2010, Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, and Certified General  
Accountants Act, 2010) that governed and regulated the different categories of  
professional accountants in Ontario were repealed and the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017 came into force, which now regulated and  
governed all the professional accountants in Ontario under one statute and under  
the umbrella of CPA Ontario.  
[22] Ergo, the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (“CPA Ontario”) was the  
body that governed and regulated the defendant, as a non-member of CPA  
Ontario, prior to and after May 17, 2017 for the period between March 1, 2017 and  
June 30, 2018. However, before, May 17, 2017, the defendant, as a non-member  
of CPA Ontario, was governed and regulated by both the Chartered Accountants  
Act, 2010 and the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010; while after May  
17, 2017, the defendant, as a non-member of CPA Ontario, was governed and  
regulated by only the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017.  
[23] Before the amalgamation, the three separate governing bodies of professional  
accountants in Ontario would grant membership in their specific professional  
accounting bodies once an accounting professional met the education, experience,  
17  
competence, character, and exam requirements for membership in their respective  
bodies.  
[24] Once qualified for membership in one of the three specific professional accounting  
bodies in Ontario prior to May 17, 2017, the qualified accounting professionals  
were entitled to use professional designations and initials to inform the public of  
their professional qualifications and membership in their specific professional body  
in Ontario and to practice as a Certified Management Accountant, Chartered  
Accountant, or Certified General Accountant.  
For  
qualified Chartered  
Accountants in Ontario, they could use the term “Chartered Accountant” or “Fellow  
Chartered Accountant” and the initials “C.A.”, “CA”, “F.C.A.” or “FCA” to designate  
their specific professional accounting qualification and membership in the Institute  
of Chartered Accountants of Ontario. And, for qualified Certified General  
Accountants in Ontario, they could use the term “Certified General Accountant”  
and the initials “C.G.A.” or “CGA” to designate their professional qualification and  
membership in the Certified General Accountants of Ontario. And for qualified  
Certified Management Accountants in Ontario, they could use the term “Certified  
Management Accountant” or “Fellow Certified Management Accountant” and the  
initials “C.M.A.”, “CMA”, “F.C.M.A.”, or “FCMA” to designate their specific  
professional qualification and membership in the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario. After May 17, 2017, the three separate designations for  
the three categories of accounting designations were kept, including a new  
designation of “Chartered Professional Accountant”. However, they were now all  
governed under one umbrella by one professional accounting body known as the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (“CPA Ontario”).  
[25] As for the use of logos belonging to and trademarked by CPA Ontario and CPA  
Canada, only an accounting firm could display either of the professional  
accounting body’s trademarked logo on the firms’ business cards, websites or  
advertisements for which authorization from the applicable professional accounting  
body and a licencing arrangement and licencing fees agreement were concluded  
and arranged. Anyone who did not enter into a licencing agreement to use or  
display CPA Ontario or CPA Canada’s trademarked logos would be improperly  
using the logos and infringe on those trademarked logos.  
(b) The defendant  
[26] The defendant was 48 years old at the time of the trial. He was born in India. In  
addition, the defendant is of the Sikh religion. He attended university in India and  
graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce degree. He also completed a Master of  
Business Administration degree in India. Furthermore, the defendant has  
approximately 25 years of experience working as a Chartered Accountant (C.A.) or  
Cost and Management Accountant (C.M.A.) with international companies in India,  
before he was accepted as a student of CPA Ontario on June 23, 2015.  
18  
[27] However, no evidence was provided at trial on whether the defendant is a citizen  
or permanent resident of Canada, although Exhibit #5 is a copy of a page of the  
defendant’s Indian Passport which shows that the defendant is a citizen of India.  
[28] In order to complete the required CPA Ontario courses and to write the Common  
Final Exam, the defendant was residing in the Province of Ontario. He resided at  
several addresses in Ontario and had provided Student Services of CPA Ontario  
with different addresses in Brampton, Ontario. He had also provided and used in  
his communication with Tom Litzgus, Associate General Counsel of Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario and with other CPA Ontario officials, different  
addresses in Brampton in which mail could be sent to.  
(c) The defendant had obtained several professional accounting  
designations from India and the United States  
[29] The defendant had received the professional accounting designation of “Chartered  
Accountant” (C.A.) from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in 1995.  
He was also granted in 2012 by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India the  
designation of “Fellow Chartered Accountant (F.C.A.). In addition, the defendant  
had received the designation “Cost and Management Accountant (C.M.A.)” from  
the Institute of Cost Accountants of India in 2002. He also received the  
designation from the Institute of Cost and Management Accountants of India of  
“Fellow Cost and Management Accountant (F.C.M.A.)” in 2012. Furthermore, the  
defendant received the designation of Certified Management Accountant (CMA)”  
from the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA) of the United States (date it  
was obtained is unknown).  
(d) The defendant was not a member of CPA Ontario  
[30] The defendant had been registered as a student of CPA Ontario on June 23, 2015.  
He had commenced the application process to become a student of CPA Ontario  
while he was working and residing in Cape Town, South Africa.  
[31] The defendant, if not exempted by CPA Ontario from the education, examination  
and experience requirements of the qualification program of CPA Ontario for  
foreign qualified professional accountants, then the defendant would have been  
required to successfully complete those requirements to qualify for admission as a  
member of CPA Ontario. After the defendant was assessed, CPA Ontario granted  
the defendant an exemption from having to complete the academic prerequisites  
except for a course in Canadian business law, and also exempted from having to  
complete the first 4 modules of the CPA Prerequisite Education Program (PEP),  
and also exempted from having to fulfill the experience requirement as the  
defendant had 23 years of professional accounting experience. However, the  
defendant was not exempted from having to write the Common Final Exam (CFE).  
CPA Ontario also had required the defendant to complete the Capstone 1 Module  
and the Capstone 2 Module education courses. If the defendant were to  
19  
successfully complete those specific requirements, then the defendant would be  
awarded upon admission to CPA Ontario the “Chartered Professional Accountant”  
designation and the entitlement to use the initials “C.P.A.” or “CPA”.  
[32] However, the defendant had been deregistered by CPA Ontario as a student of  
CPA Ontario on February 12, 2018, after his third attempt and failure in passing  
the Common Final Exam (CFE).  
[33] But more importantly, students enrolled with CPA Ontario are not members of CPA  
Ontario for the purpose of being legally permitted to use their foreign professional  
accounting designations and their corresponding initials or descriptions in the  
public realm in Ontario, which members of CPA Ontario are legally permitted to do.  
Only when a student of CPA Ontario successfully completes the required courses,  
fulfills the experience requirement and passes the qualifying exam, is the person  
then entitled for admission and to become a member of CPA Ontario.  
[34] Moreover, the word “student” is defined in s. 1 of the Certified Management  
Accountants Act, 2010, with the following meaning:  
“student” means an individual registered as a student of the Corporation in  
accordance with the by-laws.  
[35] Furthermore, the word “student” is also defined in s. 1 of the Chartered  
Accountants Act, 2010, with the following meaning:  
“student” means an individual registered as a student of the Institute in  
accordance with the by-laws.  
[36] In addition, the word “student” is also defined in s. 1 of the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, with the following meaning:  
“student” means an individual registered as a student of CPA Ontario in  
accordance with the by-laws.  
[37] None of those definitions for the term “student” in those three statutes defines a  
“student” of CPA Ontario to be a “member” of the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, or the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario).  
(e) Chronology of the proceeding against the defendant  
[38] In March of 2017 (before the amalgamation of the 3 different professional  
accounting bodies and the 3 governing statutes on May 17, 2017), the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Canada (CPA Canada) had made a complaint to CPA  
20  
Ontario that the defendant, Joginder Singh Gujral, may be contravening Ontario’s  
professional accounting legislation. Karen Armstrong, a law clerk in the General  
Counsel’s Office of CPA Ontario, was then assigned to investigate the defendant.  
Armstrong first confirmed that the defendant was a student of CPA Ontario and  
who had been taking courses provided by CPA Ontario to prepare for the  
qualification exam (Common Final Exam) in order to be accepted as a member of  
CPA Ontario.  
[39] On March 23, 2017, Karen Armstrong did internet and Google searches in respect  
to the defendant. On that day, Armstrong found two different items in her search  
which were associated with the defendant, Joginder Singh Gujral, and which  
indicated to Armstrong that the defendant had contravened provisions of the  
Chartered Accountants Act, 2010 and the Certified Management Accountants Act,  
2010, as the defendant had been using publicly in Ontario his foreign professional  
accounting designations and their corresponding initials or descriptions, when the  
defendant was not a member of any of the 3 Ontario accounting bodies of the  
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario, or the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario.  
[40] Armstrong then forwarded to Tom Litzgus, Associate General Counsel of CPA  
Ontario, the webpages she had found on her internet and Google searches that  
were linked to the defendant and which contained evidence that the defendant was  
using his foreign professional accounting designations and their corresponding  
initials or descriptions in the public realm, when he was not a member of the  
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario, or the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, and  
which were not legally allowed under the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010 and the  
Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010.  
[41] Tom Litzgus then sent a “cease and desist” letter dated March 30, 2017 (Exhibit  
10), by registered mail to the defendant which informed the defendant, that the  
defendant as a student of CPA Ontario was not legally permitted to use his foreign  
professional accounting designations and their corresponding initials or  
descriptions in the public realm in Ontario, since the defendant was not yet a  
member of CPA Ontario, nor was he permitted to use any of the CPA Ontario  
marks or logos which are trademark protected, and that he was to cease and  
desist this unlawful activity. In addition, the letter informed the defendant that he  
could only use his foreign professional accounting designations and their  
corresponding initials or descriptions in 3 limited exceptions, which included a  
requirement to expressly state that the defendant was not a member of CPA  
Ontario and that the defendant was not being regulated by CPA Ontario.  
[42] The defendant then responded to Tom Litzgus by an e-mail dated April 3, 2017, in  
which the defendant had stated that he had received Litzgus’ letter dated March  
30, 2017; that he had always mentioned the jurisdiction of India after his  
designations; that because he is a student with CPA Ontario he had always  
21  
mentioned Candidate” as he had seen this was the practice being used by all the  
students of CPA Ontario, which he noted can be observed on LinkedIn and on  
other social media. In addition, the defendant informed Litzgus in that e-mail that  
he had removed it all together and that he would cooperate with CPA Ontario, and  
that the defendant had modified his advertisement in Kijiji and that he further  
promised to abide by all the guidelines and respect the provisions of the Act (see  
Exhibit #11).  
[43] Karen Armstrong also testified that she believed the defendant was cooperative  
and going to comply with the cease and desistletter of March 30, 2017, based on  
the defendant’s e-mail to Litzgus, so it was decided at that time that there would be  
no further action taken against the defendant by CPA Ontario.  
[44] On May 17, 2017, the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010 and the Certified  
Management Accountants Act, 2010 were repealed and replaced with the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, the legislation that  
would from that point on govern all the professional accountants of Ontario.  
[45] However, on February 12, 2018, CPA Ontario deregistered the defendant as a  
student of CPA Ontario because the defendant had failed the Common Final Exam  
3 times. The defendant then appealed his deregistration and included a copy of  
his resume in his appeal to CPA Ontario, which included the express use of the  
defendant’s foreign professional accounting designations and their corresponding  
initials. Because the defendant publicly used his foreign professional accounting  
designations and their corresponding initials or descriptions by sending his resume  
with his appeal, which did not fall within one of the 3 statutory exceptions for their  
use in Ontario, the defendant’s action would be in contravention of s. 29 of the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017.  
[46] A second complaint about the defendant’s misuse of his foreign credentials in  
Ontario was then brought to the attention of Karen Armstrong, who then reopened  
the investigation into the defendant nearly a year after the first complaint. On  
March 20, 2018, Armstrong did an internet and Google search of the defendant  
and found 3 websites, which included his LinkedIn profile page, in which the  
defendant had been publicly using his foreign professional accounting  
designations and their corresponding initials or descriptions and advertising that  
the defendant had offices in Ontario in which he and his accounting firm, “Gujral  
Accounting”, provided accounting and taxation services as a Chartered  
Professional Accountant to small and medium-sized entrepreneurial clients in the  
GTA area of Ontario for reasonable rates when the defendant was not a member  
of CPA Ontario, which would be in contravention of s. 29 of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017.  
[47] Then subsequently on June 22, 2018, a Part III information (Information #7488)  
containing 8 counts for regulatory offences committed between March 30, 2017  
and June 21, 2018, was sworn and laid against the defendant. A summons was  
22  
also issued by the Ontario Court of Justice on June 22, 2018, commanding the  
defendant to appear in court on October 2, 2018, to answer to the 8 charges.  
[48] The defendant was then served with the information and the summons on July 11,  
2018.  
[49] On October 2, 2018, the defendant made an appearance through his legal  
representative, Harpreet Luthra, who appeared in court on behalf of the defendant.  
Because of the defendant’s legal representative’s unavailability, the defendant’s  
matter was adjourned to February 5, 2019, which was four months later.  
[50] On February 5, 2019, the defendant appeared, but Harpreet Luthra was no longer  
representing the defendant. Also, on February 5, 2019, counsel for CPA Ontario,  
Madeleine Brown, sought and obtained a judicial pre-trial conference date of  
March 26, 2019, which was one of the earliest dates that was available.  
[51] Because of defects in the charges on Information #7488, which was sworn on  
June 22, 2018, a second information (Information #5539) was then sworn on  
January 24, 2019, which also charged the defendant with committing the same 8  
offences as set out in Information #7488, but between the period from March 1,  
2017 and June 30, 2018.  
[52] The judicial pre-trial conference presided over by Amenta J.P. was then held on  
March 26, 2019. Following the judicial pre-trial conference, Amenta J.P. attempted  
to set a date for trial by instructing the defendant to attend at the trial coordinator's  
office with Madeleine Brown, counsel for CPA Ontario, to obtain a trial date. The  
trial coordinator advised counsel for CPA Ontario and the defendant that there  
were no available dates in July and August of 2019. The defendant in response to  
the attempt by the presiding pre-trial conference justice to set the trial on an  
available date up to the end of June, refused to agree to any available dates on  
account of the defendant’s purported travel plans for that time period. Upon being  
informed of the defendant’s refusal to agree to a trial date before the end of June  
of 2019, Amenta J.P. ordered the defendant to return on April 8, 2019, with proof  
of his travel plans.  
[53] On April 8, 2019, the defendant produced to Amenta J.P. airline tickets that the  
defendant had actually purchased on April 3, 2019, as "proof' of his travel plans.  
The airline tickets were for the departure date of April 20, 2019 and the return date  
of July 1, 2019. On receiving this “proof” of the defendant’s travel plans, Amenta  
J.P. discovered that the defendant had only purchased his airline tickets on a date  
after Amenta J.P. had tried to set the matter down for trial on March 26, 2019.  
Amenta J.P. then asked the defendant to move his travel plans. However, the  
defendant refused to change his travel plans. Consequently, Amenta J.P. then  
scheduled the defendant’s trial for September 11, 2019, which was one of the first  
available dates after the defendant’s scheduled trip from April 20, 2019 to July 1,  
2019 would be completed.  
23  
[54] In addition, on the April 8, 2019 court appearance, Information #7488 which had  
been sworn on June 22, 2018, was withdrawn by the prosecution. As such, the  
prosecution was proceeding with the second information (Information #5539), that  
had been sworn on January 24, 2019, which also charged the defendant with  
committing the same 8 offences, but for a different period from March 1, 2017 to  
June 30, 2018.  
[55] Although the defendant’s trial for September 11, 2019, had been set on April 8,  
2019, the defendant brought a motion on August 19, 2019, in an attempt to  
adjourn the scheduled trial, on the grounds that there was a settlement conference  
scheduled on the same date in an unrelated Small Claims Court matter that had  
been scheduled to commence on a date after the September 11, 2019 trial date.  
At the hearing of the motion on August 19th, the defendant through his agent had  
introduced a new theory as to why the defendant’s adjournment ought to be  
granted, which was that the defendant’s father was ill. However, Bonas J.P. who  
heard the Motion for Adjournment dismissed the defendant’s application to adjourn  
the defendant’s trial, calling the defendant’s grounds and motion "frivolous" and  
"lacking in truthfulness".  
[56] The defendant’s Charter application and the trial was then heard and held on  
September 11, 2019. At the trial, two witnesses testified: one for the prosecution  
and one for the defence. The prosecution witness was Karen Armstrong, a law  
clerk in the General Counsel’s Office of the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario; while for the defence, the defendant, Joginder Singh Gujral, had testified.  
[57] After submissions on the 8 charges and the Charter Application from both the  
prosecution and the defendant were completed, judgment was reserved and the  
matter adjourned to November 29, 2019, for the ruling on the Charter Application  
and for judgment on the 8 charges to be rendered.  
(f) Withdrawal by the prosecution of the first Information laid against the  
defendant  
[58] Two Part III Informations were actually laid against the defendant. The first  
information (Information #7488) was sworn on June 22, 2018. The second  
information (Information #5539) which had corrected errors on the first information  
was sworn on January 24, 2019. The prosecution withdrew the first information on  
April 4, 2018. For the purposes of s. 11(b) of the Charter the commencement of  
the proceedings against the defendant would be the date in which the first  
Information was sworn, which is June 22, 2018.  
(g) Students of CPA Ontario are not members of CPA Ontario  
[59] Students of CPA Ontario are not members of the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of Ontario, the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, or the  
24  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario under the Chartered Accountants  
Act, 2010, the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010 and the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, the 3 statutes that are applicable in  
this proceeding.  
(h) Judicial Pre-Trial Conferences are not courts of competent jurisdiction  
for the purposes of granting a remedy for an infringement of the Charter  
[60] The defendant contends that the presiding justice in the judicial pre-trial  
conference had violated his rights by not listening to the defendant and by only  
listening to the prosecution, by not spending enough time to discuss the  
defendant’s charges during the judicial pre-trial conference, and by not dismissing  
his charges at the judicial pre-trial conference.  
[61] However, Judicial Pre-Trial Conferences are not courts of competent jurisdiction  
for the purposes of granting a remedy for an infringement of the Charter.  
Moreover, a Judicial Pre-Trial Conference, which is a meeting held between a  
judicial officer, a prosecutor, and an accused (if self-represented) or the accused’s  
legal representative to discuss the accused’s case, to resolve procedural issues, to  
determine the number of witnesses to be called for the trial, and to determine the  
amount of time required to complete the trial including whether there are any pre-  
trial motions or Charter applications or experts being called as witnesses. A  
Judicial Pre-Trial Conference can also help narrow the issues and resolve  
disclosure issues. Judicial Pre-Trial Conferences are also a mandatory step  
where the trial is expected to take up a significant amount of court time.  
[62] Moreover, Judicial Pre-Trial Conferences may only last 15 to 30 minutes and are  
not formal trials involving the presentation of evidence or the cross-examination of  
witnesses testifying under oath. The concerns of the presiding justice conducting  
the Judicial Pre-Trial Conference may have been on matters related to determining  
the number of witnesses to be called and the amount of time required to complete  
the defendant’s trial and not a discussion on whether the defendant had committed  
the offences that the defendant was charged with, which may have been the  
specific concern of the defendant.  
As such, the defendant may have  
misunderstood the purpose of the Judicial Pre-Trial Conference and it may have  
not been appropriate for the presiding justice to even consider dismissing the  
defendant’s charges when the procedural meeting was not for the purposes of  
determining guilt or innocence.  
(i) There is no evidence that Karen Armstrong who investigated the  
defendant was biased towards the defendant  
[63] The defendant contends that Karen Armstrong is biased towards the defendant,  
but there is no credible evidence adduced that Karen Armstrong is biased towards  
the defendant or that there is any acrimony between Armstrong and the defendant.  
Moreover, Armstrong had no personal contact or communication with the  
25  
defendant prior to the trial and that Armstrong’s investigation consisted only of  
internet and Google searches of the defendant and accessing information about  
the defendant that was already in CPA Ontario’s records and did not involve  
questioning the defendant or taking a statement from the defendant during her  
investigation of the defendant. In addition, there is no evidence that Armstrong  
knows the defendant personally or had investigated the defendant previously on  
other charges.  
(j) Karen Armstrong is not required to be a cyber expert in order to testify  
about taking screenshots of webpages pertaining to the defendant that  
she had observed and found on the internet  
[64] The defendant contends that Karen Armstrong is required to be a cyber expert in  
order to testify about taking screenshots of webpages pertaining to the defendant  
that she had observed and found on the internet. Armstrong had testified that she  
had used the Microsoft Office Suite application on her computer to take a  
screenshot of the defendant’s webpages and then had saved those webpages as  
a PDF file. The method of recording the defendant’s webpages for a particular  
point in time does not appear to be complicated and needing of specialized  
computer and technical knowledge, skill, experience or expertise, and that anyone  
with a basic knowledge of computers, the internet, and the Microsoft Office Suite  
application could undertake the task of taking a screenshot of the defendant’s  
webpages and saving the webpage as a PDF file.  
[65] Moreover, Armstrong also took care by erasing her cache memory on her  
computer to ensure that any previous screenshots that she had made of the  
defendant’s webpages on March 23, 2017, were not by default the same  
screenshots of the defendant’s webpages that would have been stored in her  
computer for the defendant’s webpages she had found on March 20, 2018.  
[66] In addition, the defendant suggested that a better method could have been used to  
capture and to authenticate the defendant’s webpages, but did not offer or state  
what this better method would be.  
(k) There is no evidence of selective prosecution of the defendant by CPA  
Ontario  
[67] The defendant contends that CPA Ontario has picked on the defendant and have  
not charged anyone else who were doing the same things as the defendant.  
However, there is no credible evidence produced at trial that supports the  
defendant’s contention that CPA Ontario had intentionally selected the defendant  
for prosecution for an improper purpose or to prosecute only the defendant while  
other individuals who may have committed the same contraventions of the 3  
statutes in question that the defendant has been charged with were themselves  
not prosecuted or charged.  
26  
(l) There is no intentional infringement of the defendant’s privacy rights by  
CPA Ontario when it had sent a registered letter dated April 4, 2018, to  
the defendant at the defendant’s last known address where a third party  
had signed for that registered letter being delivered by the post office.  
[68] The defendant contends that CPA Ontario had intentionally violated the  
defendant’s privacy rights by intentionally mailing out the April 4, 2018 registered  
letter to the wrong address, full well knowing that the defendant’s address had  
been changed by the defendant with Student Services of CPA Ontario and that the  
address to which the registered letter had been addressed had been the incorrect  
address, thereby violating the defendant’s privacy rights, since a third party named  
“Naviza Chatergoon” had on April 6, 2018, signed for that registered letter  
addressed to the defendant being delivered by Canada Post. However, Karen  
Armstrong testified that Tom Litzgus’ registered letter of April 4, 2018 had been  
sent to the same address which the defendant had been using when the  
defendant had received the first registered “cease and desist” letter dated March  
30, 2017, that had been sent by the General Counsel’s Office, and that the  
General Counsel’s Office were not aware that defendant had changed his address  
until the General Counsel’s Office obtained the defendant’s current address from  
the Student Services branch of CPA Ontario.  
[69] Ergo, CPA Ontario did not intentionally infringe on the defendant’s right to privacy  
by sending the April 4, 2018 registered letter to the defendant’s old address.  
Moreover, any infringement of the defendant’s privacy, if any, would appear to be  
on Canada Post who had allowed the April 4, 2018 registered letter to be received  
and signed for by a third party, who was not the defendant. Consequently, as  
there is no infringement by CPA Ontario of the defendant’s right to privacy then  
there is no remedy.  
(m) CPA Ontario is not required by law to provide a warning to the  
defendant that he is contravening a statutory provision of the  
governing legislation and allow the defendant to correct the  
contravention before it is permitted to charge the defendant with an  
offence under that governing legislation  
[70] The defendant also contends that if CPA Ontario had not intentionally sent the  
April 4, 2018 registered letter to the wrong address, which would have notified the  
defendant about CPA Ontario’s concerns with the improper use of his foreign  
professional accounting designations, initials, or descriptions on his LinkedIn  
Profile page or his other websites, then we would all not be here today, since the  
defendant would have been made aware of CPA Ontario’s concerns and as the  
defendant had always immediately corrected anything with which CPA Ontario had  
concerns about or requested of him, then he would have corrected those concerns  
outlined in the April 4, 2018 letter immediately.  
27  
[71] However, the 3 governing statutes do not contain a legislative provision that  
requires CPA Ontario to provide a warning to the defendant that a provision under  
one of those 3 statutes is being contravened before CPA Ontario can actually  
charge the defendant with committing an offence under one of those 3 statutes.  
[72] But more significantly, there is a presumption that the defendant is aware of the  
law and that ignorance of the lawunder the common law and as expressly  
provided for under s. 81 of the Provinces Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, is  
not a defence.  
(n) CPA Ontario is not required by law to retain the services of a third party  
to investigate and then charge the defendant with an offence under that  
governing legislation  
[73] The defendant contends that an objective third party should have been used to  
investigate the defendant instead of Karen Armstrong, who was an employee of  
CPA Ontario and where CPA Ontario is also the body prosecuting him in the  
present proceeding.  
[74] However, there is no principle in law that requires a particular body or institution  
that regulates or administers a particular legal regime governing a profession  
having to use investigators who are not employees of or part of that body or  
institution. Unless, for example, it is an employee of that body or institution that is  
being suspected of committing an offence under the governing legislation, then to  
avoid a potential conflict situation a third-party investigator may be required to be  
utilized. But for the defendant’s case, there is nothing wrong in law or principle for  
Karen Armstrong, an employee of CPA Ontario, to investigate the defendant for  
contravention of the legislation administered by CPA Ontario. Furthermore, many  
regulatory bodies, such as the Law Society of Ontario, have their own in-house  
investigators that investigate complaints.  
(o) There is a “Memorandum of Understanding” between CPA Ontario and  
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India  
[75] CPA Ontario has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Institute of  
Chartered Accountants of India1, in which a member of the Institute of Chartered  
1
From the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India webpage https://www.icai.org/post.html?post_id=15255, under the heading  
Memorandum of Understanding with Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada (CPA Canada)”, dated November 28, 2018,  
it states:  
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada (CPA  
Canada) has signed the Memorandum of Understanding, leading the Membership Pathway Arrangements, which would  
facilitate mutually recognizing the Qualification of each other’s and admit the Members in good standing by prescribing a  
bridging mechanism between the two Institutes.  
The MoU applies to members in good standing who have gained membership in ICAI or one of the Canadian Provincial  
CPA bodies by meeting the education, experience and practical experience requirements of the ICAI or Canadian  
Provincial CPA bodies. In August 2018, the Union Cabinet of India, chaired by Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, Shri  
Narendra Modi, approved the proposed MoU. ICAI and CPA Canada share common and strong interests in the  
28  
Accountants of India who is in good standing and who has a university degree  
recognized by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, would be eligible to  
apply for registration and admission to membership in CPA Ontario under the  
terms of the MOU, which provides for a bridging mechanism for this admission  
(see also the CPA Ontario webpage https://www.cpaontario.ca/become-a-  
cpa/why-cpa/internationally-trained-accountants/member-of-specified-accounting-  
body which confirms the MOU between CPA Ontario and the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of India). The MOU was signed on November 17, 2018.  
(p) Becoming a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of  
Ontario  
[76] Before the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, was repealed, an individual  
according to s. 11 of that Act, could become a member of the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of Ontario by meeting the requirements and qualifications for  
membership that are established by the council of that governing body. Moreover,  
s. 12 of that Act provides that the right of a member of the Institute to practice as a  
Chartered Accountant is subject to any restrictions or conditions imposed under  
that Act [emphasis is mine below]:  
Membership  
11. The registrar shall admit as a member of the Institute any individual who  
meets the requirements and qualifications for membership that are  
established by the council.  
Restrictions, conditions  
12. The right of a member of the Institute to practise as a Chartered Accountant  
is subject to any restrictions or conditions imposed under this Act.  
(q) Becoming a member of the Certified Management Accountants of  
Ontario  
[77] In addition, before the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010 was repealed,  
s. 14(1) of that Act also provided that an individual could become a member of the  
Certified Management Accountants of Ontario by meeting the requirements and  
qualifications for membership that are specified by the by-laws and who applies for  
advancement of the profession of accountancy, especially in relation to the maintenance and strengthening of  
professional and educational standards in all sectors, as well the internationalisation of the profession.  
Under the terms of MoU, ICAI members in good standing with requisite experience are eligible for exemption from  
practical training requirements of CPA Canada as well as appearing in CPA Professional Education Program (CPA PEP),  
Capstone 1 and Capstone 2 modules and can acquire the CPA qualification by passing the final examination of CPA  
Canada i.e. the 3 day’s Common Final Examination (CFE) only.  
The members are advised that they are required to maintain their respective home body membership. The MoU does not  
provide the members of ICAI and CPA Canada any rights access to public accounting and to other regulated services  
requiring provincial registration or licensure.”  
29  
membership in accordance with the by-laws. In addition, s. 15 the Certified  
Management Accountants Act, 2010 states that an individual is not a member of  
the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario unless the register indicates that  
he or she is a member [emphasis is mine below]:  
Membership  
14(1) The Board shall admit as a member of the Corporation any individual who  
meets the requirements and qualifications for membership that are  
specified by the by-laws and who applies for membership in accordance  
with the by-laws.  
Register  
15.  
For the purposes of this Act and the by-laws, an individual is not a  
member of the Corporation unless the register indicates that he or she is  
a member.  
(r) Becoming a member of CPA Ontario  
[78] As set out under s. 15(1) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario  
Act, 2017, an individual can become a member of CPA Ontario, the present  
governing body of all professional accountants in Ontario, by meeting the  
requirements and qualifications for membership that are specified by the by-laws  
and who applies for membership in accordance with the by-laws. Moreover, s.  
15(3) provides that in exercising powers or performing duties under the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, CPA Ontario shall ensure that  
members are treated equally and without preference for or discrimination against  
any prior membership in or designation by a predecessor body, unless this Act or  
the by-laws provide otherwise [emphasis is mine below]:  
Membership  
15(1) The registrar shall admit as a member of CPA Ontario any individual who  
meets the requirements and qualifications for membership that are  
specified by the by-laws, and who applies for membership in accordance  
with the by-laws.  
Classes  
(2) The council may by by-law establish Fellows, Associates, and other  
classes or groups of members.  
Equal treatment  
(3) In exercising powers or performing duties under this Act, CPA Ontario  
shall ensure that members are treated equally and without preference for  
30  
or discrimination against any prior membership in or designation by a  
predecessor body, unless this Act or the by-laws provide otherwise.  
Members as Chartered Professional Accountants  
16.  
A member of CPA Ontario is entitled to practise as a Chartered  
Professional Accountant, subject to any suspension of the membership or  
any restrictions or conditions imposed on the member under this Act.  
(s) Only members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario can  
use the designation of “Chartered Accountant” or the initials “CA” in  
the public realm in Ontario  
[79] As set out under s. 27(1) of Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, only a “member” of  
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario are legally permitted to take or  
use the designation “Chartered Accountant” or the initials “C.A.”, “CA”, “A.C.A.”,  
“ACA”, “F.C.A.” or “FCA in the public realm in Ontario, or practice as a Chartered  
Accountant in Ontario, or hold themselves out as a Chartered Accountant to the  
public in Ontario, regardless of whether he or she provides services as a  
Chartered Accountant to any individual or entity [emphasis is mine below]:  
Prohibitions  
Prohibition, individuals  
27(1) No individual, other than a member of the Institute, shall, through an  
entity or otherwise,  
(a) take or use the designation “Chartered Accountant” or the initials  
“C.A.”, “CA”, “A.C.A.”, “ACA”, “F.C.A.” or “FCA”, alone or in  
combination with other words or abbreviations;  
(b) take or use any term, title, initials, designation or description implying  
that the individual is a Chartered Accountant;  
(c) practise as a Chartered Accountant; or  
(d) otherwise hold himself or herself out as a Chartered Accountant,  
regardless of whether he or she provides services as a Chartered  
Accountant to any individual or entity.  
[80] However, under s. 27(2) of Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, an individual, who is  
not a “member” of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, may still  
legally take or use their foreign professional accounting designations, “Chartered  
Accountant” or the initials “C.A.”, “CA”, “A.C.A.”, “ACA”, “F.C.A.” or “FCA in  
Ontario in 3 specific situations, which are: (1) for the purposes of a speech or other  
presentation given by the individual at a professional or academic conference or  
other similar forum; (2) for the purposes of the individual’s application for  
31  
employment or a private communication respecting the retainer of the individual’s  
services, if the reference is made to indicate the individual’s educational  
background and the individual expressly indicates that he or she is not a member  
of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario and is not governed by the  
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario; or (3) for the purposes of a proposal  
submitted by the individual in response to a request for proposals, if the reference  
is made to demonstrate that the individual meets the requirements for the work to  
which the request for proposals relates [emphasis is mine below]:  
Exceptions  
27(2) Clauses (1) (a) and (b) do not apply if an individual uses a term, title,  
initials, designation or description when making reference to authentic  
professional accounting qualifications obtained by the individual from a  
jurisdiction other than Ontario in,  
(a) a speech or other presentation given at a professional or academic  
conference or other similar forum;  
(b) an application for employment or a private communication respecting  
the retainer of the individual’s services, if the reference is made to  
indicate the individual’s educational background and the individual  
expressly indicates that he or she is not a member of the Institute  
and is not governed by the Institute; or  
(c) a proposal submitted in response to a request for proposals, if the  
reference is made to demonstrate that the individual meets the  
requirements for the work to which the request for proposals relates.  
[81] And, more importantly, s. 27(3) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, provides  
that even stating the name of the jurisdiction from which the foreign professional  
accounting designations or their corresponding initial were obtained after the term,  
title, initials, designation or description is not sufficient to expressly indicate that  
the individual is not a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario  
and is not governed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario  
[emphasis is mine below]:  
27(3) For the purposes of clause (2) (b), stating the name of the jurisdiction  
from which the qualifications were obtained after the term, title, initials,  
designation or description is not sufficient to expressly indicate that the  
individual is not a member of the Institute and is not governed by the  
Institute.  
[82] Furthermore, s. 27(6) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010 expressly states that  
the prohibition under s. 27, which prohibits an individual from taking or using their  
foreign professional accounting designations or their corresponding initials in  
Ontario, does not apply extraterritorially and does not apply to the situation where  
32  
the individual uses those designations or initials outside Ontario or outside  
Canada, as long as the individual does not reside, have an office or offer or  
provide accounting services in Ontario [emphasis is mine below]:  
Non-residents, etc.  
27(6) Nothing in this section affects or interferes with the right of a person to  
use any term, title, initials, designation or description identifying himself or  
herself as an accountant, if the person does not reside, have an office or  
offer or provide accounting services in Ontario.  
(t) Only members of the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario can  
use the designation of “Certified Management Accountant” or the  
initials “CMA” in the public realm in Ontario  
[83] Furthermore, as set out under s. 26(1) of the Certified Management Accountants  
Act, 2010, only a “member” of the Institute of Certified Management Accountants  
of Ontario are legally permitted to take or use the professional accounting  
designation “Certified Management Accountant”, “comptable en management  
accrédité”, “Registered Industrial Accountant” or “comptable en administration  
industrielle”, or the initials “C.M.A.”, “CMA”, “F.C.M.A.”, “FCMA”, “R.I.A.” or “RIA”,  
in the public realm in Ontario, or practice as a Certified Management Accountant  
or Registered Industrial Accountant in Ontario, or hold themselves out as a  
Certified Management Accountant or Registered Industrial Accountant to the  
public in Ontario, regardless of whether he or she provides services as a Certified  
Management Accountant or Registered Industrial Accountant to any individual or  
entity [emphasis is mine below]:  
Prohibitions  
Prohibition, individuals  
26(1) No individual, other than a member of the Corporation, shall, through an  
entity or otherwise,  
(a) take or use the designation “Certified Management Accountant”,  
“comptable en management accrédité”, “Registered Industrial  
Accountant” or “comptable en administration industrielle”, or the initials  
“C.M.A.”, “CMA”, “F.C.M.A.”, “FCMA”, “R.I.A.” or “RIA”, alone or in  
combination with other words or abbreviations;  
(b) take or use any term, title, initials, designation or description implying  
that the individual is a Certified Management Accountant or a  
Registered Industrial Accountant;  
(c) practise as a Certified Management Accountant or Registered Industrial  
Accountant; or  
(d) otherwise hold himself or herself out as a Certified Management  
33  
Accountant or a Registered Industrial Accountant, regardless of whether  
he or she provides services as a Certified Management Accountant or  
Registered Industrial Accountant to any individual or entity.  
[84] However, under s. 26(2) of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, an  
individual, who is not a “member” of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of  
Ontario, may still legally take or use their foreign professional accounting  
designations, “Certified Management Accountant” or the corresponding initials  
“C.M.A.”, “CMA”, “F.C.M.A.”, “FCMA”, in Ontario in 3 specific situations, which are:  
(1) for the purposes of a speech or other presentation given by the individual at a  
professional or academic conference or other similar forum; (2) for the purposes of  
the individual’s application for employment or a private communication respecting  
the retainer of the individual’s services, if the reference is made to indicate the  
individual’s educational background and the individual expressly indicates that he  
or she is not a member of the Institute and is not governed by the Institute; or (3)  
for the purposes of a proposal submitted by the individual in response to a request  
for proposals, if the reference is made to demonstrate that the individual meets the  
requirements for the work to which the request for proposals relates [emphasis is  
mine below]:  
Exceptions  
26(2) Clauses (1) (a) and (b) do not apply to an individual in any of the following  
circumstances:  
1. The individual uses a term, title, initials, designation or description  
when making reference to authentic professional accounting  
qualifications obtained by the individual from a jurisdiction other than  
Ontario in,  
i. a speech or other presentation given at a professional or  
academic conference or other similar forum,  
ii. an application for employment or a private communication  
respecting the retainer of the individual’s services, if the reference  
is made to indicate the individual’s educational background and  
the individual expressly indicates that he or she is not a member  
of the Corporation and is not governed by the Corporation, or  
iii. a proposal submitted in response to a request for proposals, if the  
reference is made to demonstrate that the individual meets the  
requirements for the work to which the request for proposals  
relates.  
2. The individual uses a term, title, initials, designation or description as  
authorized by the by-laws.  
34  
[85] And, more importantly, s. 26(3) of the Certified Management Accountants Act,  
2010, provides that even stating the name of the jurisdiction from which the foreign  
professional accounting designations or their corresponding initial were obtained  
after the term, title, initials, designation or description is not sufficient to expressly  
indicate that the individual is not a member of the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario and is not governed by the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario [emphasis is mine below]:  
26(3) For the purposes of subparagraph 1 ii of subsection (2), stating the name  
of the jurisdiction from which the qualifications were obtained after the  
term, title, initials, designation or description is not sufficient to expressly  
indicate that the individual is not a member of the Corporation and is not  
governed by the Corporation.  
[86] Furthermore, s. 26(6) of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010  
expressly states that the prohibition under s. 26, which prohibits an individual from  
taking or using their foreign professional accounting designations or their  
corresponding initials in Ontario, does not apply extraterritorially and does not  
apply to the situation where the individual uses those designations or initials  
outside Ontario or outside Canada, as long as the individual does not reside, have  
an office or offer or provide accounting services in Ontario [emphasis is mine  
below]:  
Non-residents, etc.  
26(6) Nothing in this section affects or interferes with the right of a person to use  
any term, title, initials, designation or description identifying himself or  
herself as an accountant, if the person does not reside, have an office or  
offer or provide accounting services in Ontario.  
(u) Only members of CPA Ontario can use the designation of “Chartered  
Professional Accountant” or the initials “CPA” or the predecessor  
designations “Chartered Accountant”, “Certified Management  
Accountant”, or the predecessor initials “CA” of “CMA” in the public  
realm in Ontario  
[87] After amalgamation of the three professional accounting bodies in Ontario under  
one governing body of CPA Ontario and the repeal of the Chartered Accountants  
Act, 2010 and the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010 on May 17, 2017,  
ss. 17 and 18 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017,  
S.O. 2017, c. 8, Sched. 3, now sets out the professional accounting designations  
and the corresponding initials for these designations that can only be taken or  
used by membersof CPA Ontario, which includes Chartered Professional  
Accountantand Fellow Chartered Professional Accountantand the  
corresponding initials with or without periods of those accounting designations of  
“C.P.A.”, “F.C.P.A.”, as well as use of the predecessor professional accounting  
35  
designations or initials with or without periods such as Chartered Accountant,  
“Associate Chartered Accountant, “Fellow Chartered Accountant, Certified  
Management Accountant, “Fellow Certified Management Accountant,  
Registered Industrial Accountant, Certified General Accountant” and “Fellow  
Certified General Accountant”, “C.A.”, “A.C.A.”, “F.C.A.”, “C.M.A.”, “F.C.M.A.”,  
“R.I.A.”, “C.G.A.”, “F.C.G.A.”, in the public realm in Ontario [emphasis is mine  
below]:  
Designations and initials  
Designations  
17(1) Subject to the by-laws, a member of CPA Ontario is entitled to use the  
following designations:  
1. “Chartered Professional Accountant” and “comptable professionnel  
agréé”.  
2. Any other designation provided for by the by-laws.  
Same, designations of predecessor bodies  
(2) If provided for by the by-laws, a member of CPA Ontario is entitled to use,  
in conjunction with a designation referred to in subsection (1) and in  
accordance with the by-laws, one or more of the following designations:  
1. “Chartered Accountant” and “comptable agréé”.  
2. “Certified Management Accountant” and “comptable en management  
accrédité”.  
3. “Registered Industrial Accountant” and “comptable en administration  
industrielle”.  
4. “Certified General Accountant” and “comptable général accrédité”.  
Initials  
18(1) Subject to the by-laws, a member of CPA Ontario is entitled to use the  
following initials (with or without periods):  
1. C.P.A.”.  
2. “F.C.P.A.”, if the member is a Fellow.  
3. Any other initials provided for by the by-laws.  
Same, initials of predecessor bodies  
(2) If provided for by the by-laws, a member of CPA Ontario is entitled to use,  
in conjunction with initials referred to in subsection (1) and in accordance  
36  
with the by-laws, one or more of the following initials (with or without  
periods):  
1. “C.A.”  
2. “A.C.A.”  
3. “F.C.A.”  
4. “C.M.A.”  
5. “F.C.M.A.”  
6. “R.I.A.”  
7. “C.G.A.”  
8. “F.C.G.A.”  
[88] Furthermore, as set out under s. 29(1) of the Chartered Professional Accountants  
of Ontario Act, 2017, only a “member” of the CPA Ontario are legally permitted to  
take or use the professional accounting designation “Chartered Professional  
Accountant” and “Fellow Chartered Professional Accountant” and the  
corresponding initials with or without periods of those accounting designations of  
“C.P.A.”, “F.C.P.A.”, as well as predecessor designations or initials with or without  
periods such as “Chartered Accountant”, “Associate Chartered Accountant”,  
“Fellow Chartered Accountant”, “Certified Management Accountant”, “Fellow  
Certified Management Accountant” or their corresponding initials with or without  
periods, “C.A.”, “A.C.A.”, “F.C.A.”, “C.M.A.”, or “F.C.M.A.” in the public realm in  
Ontario, or hold themselves out as a “Chartered Professional Accountant”,  
“Chartered Accountant”, “Fellow Chartered Accountant”, “Certified Management  
Accountant”, or “Fellow Certified Management Accountant” to the public in Ontario,  
or practice as a “Chartered Professional Accountant” in Ontario [emphasis is mine  
below]:  
Prohibitions  
Prohibitions, individuals  
29(1) No individual, other than a member of CPA Ontario, shall, through an entity  
or otherwise,  
(a) take or use a designation referred to in section 17 or initials referred to  
in section 18, whether alone or combined or intermixed in any manner  
with any other words or abbreviations;  
(b) take or use any term, title, initials, designation or description implying  
that the individual is a Chartered Professional Accountant, Chartered  
Accountant, Certified Management Accountant, Registered Industrial  
37  
Accountant or Certified General Accountant;  
(c) otherwise hold himself or herself out as a Chartered Professional  
Accountant,  
Chartered  
Accountant,  
Certified  
Management  
Accountant, Registered Industrial Accountant or Certified General  
Accountant; or  
(d) practise as a Chartered Professional Accountant.  
[89] However, under s. 29(2) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act,  
2017, an individual, who is not a “member” of CPA Ontario, may still legally take or  
use their foreign professional accounting designations, “Chartered Accountant”,  
“Fellow Chartered Accountant”, “Certified Management Accountant” or the  
corresponding initials “C.A.”, “CA”, “F.C.A.”, “FCA”, “C.M.A.”, “CMA”, “F.C.M.A.”,  
“FCMA”, in Ontario in 3 specific situations, which are: (1) for the purposes of a  
speech or other presentation given by the individual at a professional or academic  
conference or other similar forum; (2) for the purposes of the individual’s  
application for employment or a private communication respecting the retainer of  
the individual’s services, if the reference is made to indicate the individual’s  
educational background and the individual expressly indicates that he or she is not  
a member of CPA Ontario and is not governed by CPA Ontario; or (3) for the  
purposes of a proposal submitted by the individual in response to a request for  
proposals, if the reference is made to demonstrate that the individual meets the  
requirements for the work to which the request for proposals relates [emphasis is  
mine below]:  
Exception  
29(2) Clauses (1) (a) and (b) do not apply if an individual uses a term, title,  
initials, designation or description when making reference to authentic  
professional accounting qualifications obtained by the individual from a  
jurisdiction other than Ontario in,  
(a) a speech or other presentation given at a professional or academic  
conference or other similar forum;  
(b) an application for employment or a private communication respecting  
the retainer of the individual’s services, if the reference is made to  
indicate the individual’s educational background and the individual  
expressly indicates that he or she is not a member of CPA Ontario  
and is not governed by CPA Ontario; or  
(c) a proposal submitted in response to a request for proposals, if the  
reference is made to demonstrate that the individual meets the  
requirements for the work to which the request for proposals relates.  
38  
[90] And, more importantly, s. 29(3) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario Act, 2017, provides that even stating the name of the jurisdiction from  
which the foreign professional accounting designations or their corresponding  
initials were obtained after the term, title, initials, designation or description is not  
sufficient to expressly indicate that the individual is not a member of CPA Ontario,  
and is not governed by CPA Ontario [emphasis is mine below]:  
29(3) For the purposes of clause (2) (b), stating the name of the jurisdiction from  
which the qualifications were obtained after the term, title, initials,  
designation or description is not sufficient to expressly indicate that the  
individual is not a member of CPA Ontario and is not governed by CPA  
Ontario.  
[91] Furthermore, s. 29(6) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act,  
2017 expressly states that the prohibition under s. 29, which prohibits an individual  
from taking or using their foreign professional accounting designations or their  
corresponding initials in Ontario, does not apply extraterritorially and does not  
apply to the situation where the individual uses those designations or initials  
outside Ontario or outside Canada, as long as the individual does not reside, have  
an office or offer or provide accounting services in Ontario [emphasis is mine  
below]:  
Non-application  
29(6) Nothing in this section affects or interferes with the right of a person to use  
any term, title, initials, designation or description identifying himself or  
herself as an accountant, if the person does not reside, have an office or  
offer or provide accounting services in Ontario.  
(v) The defendant has never been a member of the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario  
[92] Heidi Franken, the Registrar of CPA Ontario has certified in a document dated  
September 28, 2019, that the defendant, Joginder Singh Gujral had been a  
registered student of CPA Ontario as of June 23, 2015 and that on February 12,  
2018, the defendant had been deregistered as a student of CPA Ontario as a  
result of his third unsuccessful attempt in the Common Final Examination (CFE)  
and that the defendant, Joginder S. Gujral, has not been and is not a member of  
CPA Ontario and is therefore not authorized or entitled to use the designations,  
“Certified Management Accountant” or “CMA”, “Chartered Accountant” or “CA” or  
“Chartered Professional Accountant” or “CPA”, nor to hold himself out as a  
member of CPA Ontario (see Exhibit # 7).  
(w) Credibility of Karen Armstrong  
[93] Karen Armstrong, the law clerk in the General Counsel’s Office, who investigated  
the complaint about the defendant, did not have any face-to-face contact,  
39  
communication, or interaction with the defendant. Her investigation consisted of  
doing internet or Google searches in regard to the defendant, discovering and  
finding webpages associated or linked to the defendant and then taking screen  
shots of those internet webpages linked to the defendant and saving them as PDF  
files on her computer. Armstrong then said that she forwarded those webpages to  
Tom Litzgus, Associate General Counsel of the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario. And, when she did a subsequent internet or Google  
searches in respect to a second complaint about the defendant contravening the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, Armstrong testified that  
she made sure to clear or delete her cache files on her computer operating system  
to ensure that any webpages linked to the defendant that she found on her second  
investigation would not be the same webpages that she had previously captured,  
so as to obtain differently dated webpages. Armstrong also testified that she does  
not know the defendant or know of the defendant until her initial investigation.  
[94] Karen Armstrong’s testimony was consistent and not undermined by the  
defendant’s cross-examination. Moreover, Armstrong was a credible witness and  
her testimony was also straightforward, logical, and credible. In addition, there is  
no evidence that she had any enmity or bias towards the defendant.  
(x) Credibility of the defendant  
[95] The defendant’s testimony has not been straight forward nor consistent. When the  
defendant first began his testimony, he initially testified that the webpages linked to  
the defendant and the Kijiji advertisement in question were all fabrications.  
However, under cross-examination the defendant testified that the webpages  
linked to the defendant and the Kijiji advertisement were not fabrications, but that  
he could not recall them.  
3.  
THE CHARGES  
[96] The defendant, Joginder Singh Gujral, has been charged with committing 8  
regulatory offences between March 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018 in Information  
#5539 which was sworn on January 24, 2019, and which was a replacement  
information for Information #7488 that was sworn on June 22, 2018. The older  
Information #7488 had been withdrawn by the prosecution on April 8, 2019. The  
following 8 counts in the newer Information #5539 contain the 8 charges which had  
been proceeded with at trial:  
Joginder Singh Gujral  
5 Keystone Drive,  
Brampton, Ontario  
L6Y 3L2  
Between 1st day of March 2017 and the 30th day of June 2018,  
40  
At the City of Brampton in the Regional Municipality of Peel and elsewhere in  
the Province of Ontario  
did commit the offence of  
(1) taking or using designations or initials or a description implying that he is a  
Certified Management Accountant, or otherwise holding himself out as a  
Certified Management Accountant, while not being a member of the  
Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, to wit: on the website  
http://gujraltutor.com, contrary to section 26 of the Certified Management  
Accountants Act, 2010;  
(2) taking or using designations or initials or a description implying that he is a  
Certified Management Accountant, or otherwise holding himself out as a  
Certified Management Accountant, while not being a member of the  
Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, to wit: in a Kijiji  
advertisement, to section 26 of the Certified Management Accountants Act,  
2010;  
(3) taking or using designations or initials or a description implying that he is a  
Chartered Accountant, or otherwise holding himself out as a Chartered  
Accountant, while not being a member of the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of Ontario, to wit: on the website http://gujraltutor.com, contrary  
to section 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010;  
(4) taking or using designations or initials or a description implying that he is a  
Chartered Accountant, or otherwise holding himself out as a Chartered  
Accountant, while not being a member of the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of Ontario, to wit: in a Kijiji advertisement, contrary to section  
27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010;  
(5) taking or using designations or initials or a description implying that he is a  
Chartered Professional Accountant, Chartered Accountant,  
Certified  
Management Accountant, or Certified General Accountant, or otherwise  
holding himself out as a Chartered Accountant, while not being a member of  
the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, to wit: on a LinkedIn  
profile, contrary to section 29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario Act, 2017;  
(6) taking or using designations or initials or a description implying that he is a  
Chartered Professional Accountant, Chartered Accountant,  
Certified  
Management Accountant, or Certified General Accountant, or otherwise  
holding himself out as a Chartered Accountant, while not being a member of  
the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, to wit: on the website  
http://home.icmai-canada.org., contrary to section 29 of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017;  
(7) taking or using designations or initials or a description implying that he is a  
Chartered Professional Accountant, Chartered Accountant,  
Certified  
Management Accountant, or Certified General Accountant, or otherwise  
holding himself out as a Chartered Accountant, while not being a member of  
41  
the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, to wit: on the website  
http://gujralaccounting.ca, contrary to section 29 of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017; and  
(8) practising as a Chartered Professional Accountant while not a member of  
the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, contrary to section  
29(1)(d) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017.  
4.  
ISSUES  
[97] The following issues have arisen in this proceeding and need to be resolved:  
(a) Has the defendant proven on a balance of probabilities that his rights or  
freedoms guaranteed under ss. 2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 6(2)(b), 7, 11(a), 11(b),  
11(g), and 15 have been infringed by the purpose or effect of the  
applicable legislation or by government action (CPA Ontario)?  
(b) If any of the defendant’s rights or freedoms guaranteed under ss. 2(a),  
2(b), 2(d), 6(2)(b), 7, 11(a), 11(b), 11(g), and 15 have been infringed by  
the purpose or effect of the applicable legislation, is the particular statutory  
provision a reasonable limit under s. 1 of the Charter?  
(c) If any of the defendant’s rights or freedoms guaranteed under ss. 2(a),  
2(b), 2(d), 6(2)(b), 7, 11(a), 11(b), 11(g), and 15 have been infringed by  
government action (CPA Ontario), is a stay of proceedings the appropriate  
remedy that should be granted under s. 24(1) of the Charter?  
(d) Has the prosecution proven that the defendant has committed the 8  
offences set out in Information #5539 beyond a reasonable doubt?  
(e) In particular, has the prosecution proven beyond a reasonable doubt that  
from March 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018, the defendant took or used  
designations or initials or a description implying that he is a Certified  
Management Accountant, or otherwise holding himself out as a Certified  
Management Accountant, while not being a member of the Certified  
Management Accountants of Ontario?  
(f) And, in particular, has the prosecution proven beyond a reasonable doubt  
that from March 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018, the defendant took or used  
designations or initials or a description implying that he is a Chartered  
Accountant, or otherwise holding himself out as a Chartered Accountant,  
while not being a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of  
Ontario?  
42  
(g) And, in particular, has the prosecution proven beyond a reasonable doubt  
that from March 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018, the defendant took or used  
designations or initials or a description implying that he is a Chartered  
Professional Accountant, Chartered Accountant, Certified Management  
Accountant, or Certified General Accountant, or otherwise holding himself  
out as a Chartered Accountant, while not being a member of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario?  
(h) In addition, has the prosecution proven beyond a reasonable doubt that  
from March 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018, the defendant was practicing as a  
Chartered Professional Accountant in Ontario while the defendant was not  
a member of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario?  
(i) Was the defendant’s conduct in using his foreign professional accounting  
designations or their corresponding initials or a description implying that  
the defendant is a Certified Management Accountant, a Chartered  
Accountant, or a Chartered Professional Accountant on the respective  
http://gujral.tutor.com” website, the Kijiji advertisement, the defendant’s  
LinkedIn Profile page, on the http://home.icmai-canada.org. website, and  
on the http://gujralaccounting.ca website, a “private communication” that  
fell within the 3 statutory exceptions that are set out respectively in s. 26(2)  
of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, s. 27(2) of the  
Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, or s. 29(2) of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017?  
(j) Does the prosecution have to prove that the defendant was actually  
providing accounting services to an individual or a company to prove the  
defendant was practising as a Chartered Professional Accountant in  
Ontario from March 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018.  
(k) Does the prosecution have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the  
defendant made any money from his Kijiji advertisements or from his  
webpages or websites to prove that the defendant was practising as a  
Chartered Professional Accountant in Ontario from March 1, 2017 to June  
30, 2018.  
(l) If the prosecution has proven the defendant has committed the actus reus  
of the respective 8 offences set out in Information #5539 beyond a  
reasonable doubt, then has the defendant proven on a balance of  
probabilities that he took all reasonable care for the circumstances to  
avoid committing those 8 offences or that he had held a reasonable  
mistake of fact in respect to those 8 offences that would make his actions  
or omissions innocent, which would entitle him to an acquittal?  
43  
5.  
ANALYSIS  
[98] In this proceeding, the defendant has been charged with committing 8 strict liability  
offences under three Ontario statutes. Two of the 8 charges are for offences  
under s. 26 of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, another two  
charges are for offences under s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010,  
another three charges are for offences under s. 29 of the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, and one charge is for an offence under s.  
29(1)(d) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017.  
[99] The defendant has also brought a Charter application for an infringement of his  
Charter rights and freedoms under ss. 2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 6(2)(b), 7, 11(a), 11(b),  
11(g) and 15 by the action of CPA Ontario and by the purpose and effect of s. 26  
of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, s. 27 of the Chartered  
Accountant Act, 2010, or s. 29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario Act, 2017, which prohibits the defendant from using his foreign  
professional accounting designations, initials, or descriptions publicly in Ontario, or  
from practicing as or holding himself out as a Certified Management Accountant,  
Chartered Accountant, or Chartered Professional Accountant in Ontario, while not  
being a member of the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, the Institute  
of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, and the Chartered Professional Accountants  
of Ontario.  
[100] If the defendant proves on a balance of probabilities that his rights or freedoms  
guaranteed under ss. 2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 6(2)(b), 7, 11(a), 11(b), 11(g), and 15 have  
been infringed by government action, then it will have to be decided what the  
appropriate remedy should be granted under s. 24(1) of the Charter. On the other  
hand if the defendant proves on a balance of probabilities that his rights or  
freedoms guaranteed under ss. 2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 6(2)(b), 7, 11(a), 11(b), 11(g), and  
15 have been infringed by the purpose or effect of s. 26 of the Certified  
Management Accountants Act, 2010, s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act,  
2010, or s. 29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017,  
then CPA Ontario has the burden to prove that the impugned statutory provision is  
a reasonable limit on the infringed right or freedom under s. 1 of the Charter.  
[101] If the defendant’s Charter claims are all dismissed, then it will have to be decided  
whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the  
defendant committed the actus reus for the respective offences in the 8 counts on  
Information #5539. If the prosecution meets its burden, then the defendant has  
the onus to prove on a balance of probabilities that he has the defence of due  
diligence for the respective 8 offences in order to be acquitted of the 8 charges. If  
the defendant fails to prove the defence of due diligence, then convictions will be  
entered against the defendant in respect to the 8 counts in Information #5539.  
[102] In his defence of the 8 charges, the defendant submits that his 8 charges should  
be dismissed for the following grounds:  
44  
(i) For counts #1 and #3 (in respect to the “http://gujral.tutorwebsite)  
The defendant states that he did not earn one dollar from the  
http://gujral.tutorwebsite nor did the defendant charge anyone for  
accounting services or cheat anyone during the period in question, that the  
defendant had 2 full-time jobs, that the defendant’s foreign professional  
accounting designations are authentic, and that the defendant’s conduct  
falls within the private communication exception under s. 26(2)(1)(ii) of  
Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010 and under s. 27(2)(1)(ii) of  
the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010 and that the defendant did not  
provide accounting services in Ontario in regards to the residence in  
Ontario requirement under s. 26(6) of the Certified Management  
Accountants Act, 2010 and under s. 27(6) of the Chartered Accountants  
Act, 2010  
(ii) For counts #2 and #4 (in respect to the Kijiji advertisement)  
The defendant states that the Kijiji advertisementcontained only minor  
issues that were rectified by the defendant after April 3, 2017 and that the  
defendant did not issue the Kijiji advertisement after April 3, 2017 (the date  
of Tom Litzgus’ cease and desist letter sent to the defendant) and that  
Karen Armstrong did not find a Kijiji advertisement after September 25,  
2017, and that the defendant’s foreign professional accounting  
designations are authentic, that the defendant had 2 full-time jobs, and that  
the content and defendant’s conduct in respect to the Kijiji advertisement  
falls within the private communication exception under s. 26(2)(1)(ii) of  
Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010 and under s. 27(2)(1)(ii) of  
the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010 and that the defendant did not  
provide accounting services in Ontario in regards to the residence in  
Ontario requirement under s. 26(6) of the Certified Management  
Accountants Act, 2010 and under s. 27(6) of the Chartered Accountants  
Act, 2010  
(iii) For count #5 (in respect to the defendant’s LinkedIn profile page)  
The defendant states that the defendant’s foreign professional accounting  
designations are authentic on his LinkedIn Profile page and that the  
contents and the defendant’s conduct in respect to the defendant’s  
LinkedIn Profile page falls within the private communication exception  
under s. 26(2)(1)(ii) of Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010 and  
under s. 27(2)(1)(ii) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010 and that the  
defendant did not provide accounting services in Ontario in regards to the  
residence in Ontario requirement under s. 26(6) of the Certified  
45  
Management Accountants Act, 2010 and under s. 27(6) of the Chartered  
Accountants Act, 2010  
(iv) For count #6 (in respect to the website http://home.icmai-canada.org.)  
The defendant states that it can be verified with the Canada Revenue  
Agency that the website http://home.icmai-canada.org. which is associated  
the Toronto Overseas Centre of Cost Accountants of India is a non-profit  
organization and that the defendant did not make any money or earn one  
dollar from the “http://home.icmai-canada.org” website nor did the  
defendant charge anyone for accounting services or cheat anyone during  
the period in question, that the defendant had 2 full-time jobs, and that the  
defendant’s foreign professional accounting designations are authentic,  
and that as soon as the concerns by CPA Ontario were brought to the  
defendant’s attention, the defendant removed those particular concerns  
from the Toronto chapter website.  
(v) For count #7 (in respect to the website http://gujralaccounting.ca)  
The defendant states that the defendant did not have any advertisements  
after March 27th and that in regard to s. 29(6) of the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, the defendant did not practice  
accounting in Ontario,  
(vi) For count #8 (in respect to practicing as a Chartered Professional  
Accountant in Ontario)  
The defendant states that in regard to s. 29(6) of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, the defendant did not  
practice or provide public accounting services in Ontario and that the  
defendant does not recall the logos on the websites.  
(vii) Additional defence submissions  
In addition, the defendant states that after March 17th, that the defendant  
had removed everything and had not done anything else. Moreover, the  
defendant raised concerns that with regards to the webpages screen-  
captured by Karen Armstrong and entered as evidence that Armstrong is  
not a cyber expert, nor an objective and unbiased third-party who can  
vouch for what is on the websites in question. In short, the defendant  
contends that Karen Armstrong can say whatever she wants and that she  
can changed the dates for the webpages and used the same content that  
had been entered as evidence and that the screenshots entered as  
evidence is not the best way to use screenshots, since the screenshots can  
be fabricated or changed and that there are so many shades of grey in this  
case.  
46  
Furthermore, the defendant contends that CPA Ontario had been  
intentionally breached the defendant’s right to privacy by deliberately  
sending the April 4, 2018 letter (Exhibit #23), by Tom Litzgus, Vice-  
President, Associate General Counsel of CPA Ontario addressed to the  
defendant to the wrong address so that someone else had received and  
signed for that letter from Canada Post and that he now seeks a remedy of  
an award of $100,000 for that breach of the defendant’s privacy.  
If the prosecution proves that the defendant has committed the 8 counts on  
Information #5539 beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant will  
have to meet his onus of proving a defence of due diligence on a balance  
of probabilities for not complying with the requirements under s. 26 of the  
Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, two charges for offences  
under s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, three charges for  
offences under s. 29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario  
Act, 2017, and one charge for an offence under s. 29(1)(d) of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, in order to be acquitted of  
committing all 8 of the offences.  
(A) DEFENDANT’S CHARTER APPLICATION  
[103] In his Charter application, the defendant seeks a remedy of a stay of proceedings  
under s. 24(1) for infringement of the defendant’s rights and freedoms guaranteed  
under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The defendant contends that many of  
his Charter rights and freedoms have been infringed upon by the actions of the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, the governing body which  
regulates professional accountants in Ontario, or its representatives or employees.  
The defendant contends that 9 of his guaranteed rights or freedoms under the  
Charter have been infringed. These 9 violations of the Charter include a breach of  
s. 2(a) (freedom of religion); s. 2(b) (freedom of expression), s. 2(d) (freedom of  
association), s. 6(2)(b) (mobility rights), s. 7 (life, liberty, and security of the  
person), s. 11(a) (right to be informed of specific offence without delay), s. 11(b)  
(trial within a reasonably time), s. 11(g) (retroactive offences), and s. 15(1)  
(equality rights).  
[104] The analysis that will be used for the determination of the defendant’s Charter  
application will be purposive and contextual and will consist of two-stages. For the  
first stage, the defendant has the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities to  
establish that a specific Charter right or freedom has been infringed by  
government action or that a particular law’s purpose or effect has infringed one of  
the defendant’s Charter rights or freedoms. In particular, the defendant needs to  
establish that the defendant’s impugned activity falls within the scope of a  
particular Charter right or freedom and that the impugned law or government  
action had infringed on that specific Charter right or freedom.  
47  
[105] If the defendant proves on a balance of probabilities that CPA Ontario’s actions in  
respect to the defendant or that a particular law’s purpose or effect has infringed  
on one of the defendant’s Charter rights or freedoms, then the burden of  
persuasion shifts to the prosecution to uphold the impugned law and justify the  
limit or infringement of a Charter right or freedom. Moreover, the prosecution has  
to persuade the court on a balance of probabilities that the challenged law is a  
“reasonable limit” and that it “can be demonstrably justified in a free and  
democratic society” under s. 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For the  
reasonable limit inquiry of a law that infringes a Charter right or freedom, the  
Supreme Court of Canada has established the 4-step test in R. v. Oakes, [1986]  
S.C.J. No. 7 (S.C.C.), to determine if the impugned law would be saved under s. 1  
of the Charter: (1) sufficient legislative objective, (2) rational connection between  
the means chosen and the legislative objective, (3) least drastic means chosen,  
and (4) proportionality. If the impugned law cannot be saved under s. 1, then the  
law will not apply or operate in particular to the defendant by virtue of s. 52 of the  
Constitution Act, 1982.  
[106] On the other hand, if the defendant proves on a balance of probabilities that it had  
been government action that has infringed on one of the defendant’s Charter rights  
or freedoms then an appropriate remedy under s. 24 of the Charter will have to be  
determined.  
[107] The legislation at issue are s. 26 of the Certified Management Accountants Act,  
2010; s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010; and s. 29 of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017. They are the 3 provincial statutory  
provisions that the defendant has been charged under and the legislative  
provisions that the defendant claims has infringed the defendant’s rights and  
freedoms guaranteed under the Charter. These statutory provisions restrict an  
individual from taking or using their foreign professional accounting designations  
and their corresponding initials or descriptions publicly in Ontario, as well as  
prohibiting an individual from practicing as a Chartered Professional Accountant,  
Chartered Accountant, or Certified Management Accountant in Ontario, unless that  
individual is a member of one of the accounting bodies in Ontario which  
specifically govern and regulate Chartered Accountants, Certified Management  
Accountants, or Chartered Professional Accountants.  
[108] The prosecution in response to the defendant’s Charter application for the remedy  
of a stay of proceedings submits that none of the defendant’s Charter rights or  
freedoms have been infringed by CPA Ontario’s actions, nor does the purpose or  
effect of any of the governing statutory provisions infringe on any of the  
defendant’s Charter rights or freedoms, and as such, the defendant is not entitled  
to the extraordinary remedy of a stay of proceedings. Moreover, the prosecution  
submits that the defendant’s Charter application is frivolous and without merit and  
should be summarily dismissed. In addition, the prosecution submits that it is also  
not clear on what basis the defendant’s Charter application is grounded, since the  
48  
defendant has not asserted or identified any specific law or action that has  
infringed the defendant’s Charter rights or freedoms. Furthermore, the prosecution  
submits that the defendant, who has the burden of proof to establish a Charter  
breach and entitlement to a remedy, has not put forth any supporting evidence or  
even a factual basis to support his claim of a violation of his rights or freedoms  
guaranteed under the Charter. But more importantly, the prosecution contends  
that based on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Walker v. Prince Edward  
Island, [1995] S.C.J. No. 45 which affirmed the P.E.I. Court of Appeal’s decision in  
[1993] P.E.I.J. No. 111 (P.E.I.C.A.), professional licensing requirements, such as  
in the present case, do not infringe ss. 2(b), 6(2)(b), or 7 of the Charter.  
(1) Section 32 of the Charter  
[109] CPA Ontario is the governing body of professional accountants in Ontario and  
have been delegated and given the mandate to administer provincial legislation  
enacted to regulate professional accountants in Ontario. The 3 pieces of  
provincial legislation which apply to the defendant, the Certified Management  
Accountants Act, 2010; the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010; and the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, are public welfare statutes that  
were enacted to protect the public and to regulate 3 categories of professional  
accountants in Ontario. Therefore, since the CPA Ontario is an administrative  
body that has been delegated the provincial power by the Ontario Legislature to  
regulate professional accountants in Ontario and to administer the governing  
legislation enacted by the Province of Ontario, as well as exercising the power  
delegated to it by the province of Ontario, and to implement the government  
objective of regulating professional accountants in Ontario, then by virtue of s. 32  
of the Charter, the Charter applies to the actions of CPA Ontario, as well as to the  
provincial legislation under which the defendant has been charged:  
32.(1) This Charter applies  
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters  
within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the  
Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and  
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all  
matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.  
(1) The Freedom Of Conscience And Religion Under S. 2(a)  
[110] The defendant claims that the defendant’s freedom of conscience and religion  
under s. 2(a) has been infringed because CPA Ontario has prevented the  
defendant from practicing his religion, since CPA Ontario is biased and hand-  
picking on the defendant.  
49  
[111] The prosecution, in response to the defendant’s s. 2(a) freedom of religion claim,  
submits that the defendant’s freedom of religion is not engaged, and that the  
defendant's claim has no evidentiary basis, nor does it disclose a reasonable  
prospect of success. Furthermore, the prosecution submits that s. 2(a) of the  
Charter protects an individual's right to observe his or her religion of choice.  
[112] Section 2(a) of the Charter states:  
Fundamental freedoms  
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:  
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;  
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including  
freedom of the press and other media of communication;  
[113] The purpose of s. 2(a) of the Charter is to prevent interference with profoundly  
held personal beliefs that govern one’s perception of oneself, humankind, nature,  
and, in some cases, a higher or different order of being: R. v. Edwards Books and  
Art Ltd., [1986] S.C.J. No. 70, at para. 97; Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, [2004]  
S.C.J. No. 46, at para. 41; Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, [2009]  
S.C.J. No. 37, at para. 32.  
[114] Furthermore, the Supreme Court has defined the “freedom of religionas the right  
to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare  
religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to  
manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination:  
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] S.C.J. No. 17, at para. 94, Ross v. New  
Brunswick School District No. 15, [1996] S.C.J. No. 40, at para. 72; Multani v.  
Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, [2006] S.C.J. No. 6, at para. 32,  
Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, [2004] S.C.J. No. 46, at para. 40; Reference re  
Same-Sex Marriage, [2004] S.C.J. No. 75, at para. 57; Ktunaxa Nation v. British  
Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), [2017] S.C.J. No.  
54, at para. 63.  
[115] In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada in Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of  
Wilson Colony, [2009] S.C.J. No. 37, at para. 32; Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem,  
[2004] S.C.J. No. 46, at paras. 56 and 57; Multani v. Commission scolaire  
Marguerite-Bourgeoys, [2006] S.C.J. No. 6, at para. 34, Law Society of British  
Columbia v. Trinity Western University, [2018] S.C.J. No. 32, at para. 63, has  
adopted the following test for determining whether there has been an infringement  
of s. 2(a) of the Charter:  
An infringement of s. 2(a) of the Charter will be made out where: (1) the claimant  
sincerely believes in a belief or practice that has a nexus with religion; and (2) the  
50  
impugned measure interferes with the claimant's ability to act in accordance with  
his or her religious beliefs in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial  
[116] Moreover, the Supreme Court has also held that in order to trigger constitutional  
scrutiny, it is sufficient if the effect of the impugned act or statutory provision  
interferes with an individual’s religious activities or convictions: Ross v. New  
Brunswick School District No. 15, [1996] S.C.J. No. 40, at para. 71.  
[117] In addition, the Supreme Court in S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, [2012]  
S.C.J. No. 7, at para 24, held that claimants must provide objective proof of  
interference and not just allude to a subjective belief of interference [emphasis is  
mine below]:  
It follows that when considering an infringement of freedom of religion, the  
question is not whether the person sincerely believes that a religious  
practice or belief has been infringed, but whether a religious practice or  
belief exists that has been infringed. The subjective part of the analysis is  
limited to establishing that there is a sincere belief that has a nexus with  
religion, including the belief in an obligation to conform to a religious  
practice. As with any other right or freedom protected by the Canadian  
Charter and the Quebec Charter, proving the infringement requires an  
objective analysis of the rules, events or acts that interfere with the  
exercise of the freedom. To decide otherwise would allow persons to  
conclude themselves that their rights had been infringed and thus to  
supplant the courts in this role.  
[118] However, in the present case, there is no objective evidence that the purpose or  
the effect of the impugned statutory provisions or its measures interferes with, or  
that the action from anyone acting for CPA Ontario, has interfered with the  
defendant’s ability to act in accordance with his or her religious beliefs in a manner  
that is more than trivial or insubstantial.  
[119] But more importantly, the prohibitions or measures set out in s. 26 of the Certified  
Management Accountants Act, 2010, and s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act,  
2010), and s. 29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017,  
which prohibits the defendant from using the defendant’s foreign professional  
accounting designations, initials, or descriptions publicly in Ontario (except for the  
3 statutory exceptions provided in those 3 pieces of legislation) or from practicing  
as Certified Management Accountant, Chartered Accountant or Chartered  
Professional Accountant in Ontario, does not have any nexus with religion, and  
therefore, their purpose or effect does not interfere with the defendant’s freedom of  
religion guaranteed under s. 2(a) of the Charter. Nor is there any evidence that  
the actions of anyone with CPA Ontario has interfered with the defendant’s ability  
to act in accordance with his religious beliefs in a manner that is more than trivial  
or insubstantial. Furthermore, there is no evidence adduced that would show that  
CPA Ontario's decision to prosecute the defendant is in any way related to the  
defendant’s religion or freedom to practice his religion.  
51  
[120] Ergo, the defendant has not proven on a balance of probabilities that the  
defendant’s freedom to practice his religion has been engaged or limited by any of  
the statutory prohibitions prohibiting the defendant from using the defendant’s  
foreign professional accounting designations, initials, or descriptions publicly in  
Ontario or from practicing as Certified Management Accountant, Chartered  
Accountant or Chartered Professional Accountant in Ontario, or that anyone from  
CPA Ontario has interfered with the defendant’s freedom of religion guaranteed  
under s. 2(a) of the Charter. As such, the defendant’s freedom of religion claim  
under s. 2(a) is dismissed.  
(2) The Freedom Of Expression Under S. 2(b)  
[121] The defendant also claims that the defendant’s freedom of thought, belief, opinion  
and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication  
under s. 2(b) has been infringed because CPA Ontario is not allowing the  
defendant to publish his professional accounting designations and corresponding  
initials or descriptions that he had obtained from India and the United States on his  
Linkedln profile page or in other media.  
[122] In response to the defendant’s s. 2(b) claim, the prosecution submits that in  
Walker v. Prince Edward Island, [1995] S.C.J. No 45 (S.C.C.), the Supreme Court  
of Canada had unanimously held that legislation that had restricted the right of an  
individual to practice as a public accountant and to represent or hold oneself out  
as a public accountant, which is only permitted by members of the Institute of  
Chartered Accountants of P.E.I. to do so, did not infringe or limit the rights of non-  
member individuals under ss. 2(b), 6(2)(b), or 7 of the Charter. As such, the  
prosecution submits that the defendant’s Charter application under ss. 2(b),  
6(2)(b), and 7 must fail on that basis.  
[123] In Walker v. Prince Edward Island, [1993] P.E.I.J. No. 111 (P.E.I.C.A.), which was  
affirmed by the Supreme Court in [1995] S.C.J. No 45, the P.E.I. Court of Appeal  
had been concerned with the practice of accounting itself as expressive activity”  
that was being claimed to have been limited by s. 14(1) of the P.E.I. Public  
Accounting and Auditing Act, which limits the right to practice public accounting for  
compensation in the Province of Prince Edward Island to only the members of the  
Institute of Chartered Accountants of P.E.I. The P.E.I. Court of Appeal had also  
held at para. 14 that any infringement of s. 2(b) of the Charter by s. 14(1) was  
incidental and relatively minor, and as s. 14(1) had met the 4 criteria in the Oakes  
test, it was saved by s. 1 of the Charter:  
… All in all, any infringement of s-s. 2(b) rights caused by s-s. 14(1) is only  
incidental and relatively minor and not too high a price to pay for the protection it  
affords the public. I therefore find that s-s. 14(1) meets the fourth criteria in  
Oakes as well as the three others, and accordingly, it is saved by s. 1 of the  
Charter.  
52  
[124] However, in the present case, the statutory provisions in the 3 governing statutes  
which prohibits the defendant from taking or using publicly in Ontario his foreign  
professional accounting designations, initials, or descriptions would limit the  
freedom of expression much more than the expressive activity that had been  
associated with simply the practice of accounting as mentioned by the P.E.I. Court  
of Appeal in Walker v. Prince Edward Island, [1993] P.E.I.J. No. 111. Ergo, the  
legislative prohibition by these 3 Ontario regulatory statutes of the taking or use of  
the defendant’s foreign professional accounting designations, initials, or  
descriptions publicly in Ontario does affect the defendant ability to express himself  
publicly about his professional and educational accomplishments, and will  
therefore, have to be considered as being activity that is distinct from the activity of  
simply practicing accounting as had been considered by the P.E.I. Court of Appeal  
in Walker v. Prince Edward Island, and will have to be analyzed to determine if the  
statutory provisions which prohibit the defendant from publicizing his foreign  
professional accounting designations in Ontario infringes on the defendant’s  
freedom of expression as guaranteed under s. 2(b).  
[125] However, as had been decided in Walker v. Prince Edward Island, [1993] P.E.I.J.  
No. 111, the prohibition against the activity of practicing public accounting while  
not being a member of the governing professional accounting body of a province  
does not infringe on s. 2(b), which means that the statutory prohibitions in Ontario  
which prohibit the defendant from practicing as a Certified Management  
Accountant, Chartered Accountant or Chartered Professional Accountant in  
Ontario unless he is a member of one of the 3 accounting bodies in Ontario, would  
also not be an infringement of the defendant’s freedom of expression guaranteed  
by s. 2(b) of the Charter.  
[126] Section 2(b) of the Charter states:  
Fundamental freedoms  
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:  
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom  
of the press and other media of communication;  
[127] The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the protection of the freedom of  
expression is premised upon fundamental principles and values that promote the  
search for and attainment of truth, the participation in social and political decision-  
making, and the opportunity for individual self-fulfillment through expression: Irwin  
Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] S.C.J. No. 36, at para. 53 and Ford  
v. Quebec, [1988] S.C.J. No. 88, at para. 56.  
53  
[128] In addition, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the connection between  
freedom of expression and the political process is perhaps the linchpin of s. 2(b)  
protection: R. v. Keegstra, [1990] S.C.J. No. 131; Thomson Newspapers Co.  
(c.o.b. Globe and Mail) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] S.C.J. No. 44; Harper  
v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] S.C.J. No. 28. Moreover, free expression is  
valued above all as being instrumental to democratic governance. Furthermore,  
the Supreme Court has held that the other two rationales for protecting the  
freedom of expression of encouraging the search for truth through the open  
exchange of ideas and fostering individual self-actualization, which directly  
engages individual human dignity, are also key values that animate the s. 2(b)  
analysis.  
[129] But more importantly, the Supreme Court in Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney  
General), [1989] S.C.J. No. 36, has established the following three-part test for  
analyzing s. 2(b):  
(1) Does the activity in question have expressive content, thereby bringing  
it within s. 2(b) protection?;  
(2) Does the method or location of this expression remove that  
protection?; and  
(3) If the expression is protected by s. 2(b), does the government action in  
question infringe that protection, either in purpose or effect?  
(a) Is the defendant’s freedom of expression infringed by the  
statutory provisions prohibiting the defendant from taking or  
using the defendant’s professional accounting designations,  
initials or descriptions publicly in Ontario?  
[130] If the purpose of a government action is to restrict the content of expression, to  
control access to a certain message, or to limit the ability of a person who attempts  
to convey a message to express him or herself, that purpose will infringe s. 2(b):  
Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] S.C.J. No. 36; R. v. Keegstra,  
[1990] S.C.J. No. 131.  
[131] Even if a purpose is compatible with s. 2(b), an individual may still be able to  
demonstrate that the effect of the government action infringes his or her s. 2(b)  
right. In that situation, the individual must show that his or her expression  
advances one or more of the values underlying s. 2(b) of (1) participation in social  
and political decision making, (2) the search for truth, and (3) individual self-  
fulfillment: Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] S.C.J. No. 36;  
Ramsden v. Peterborough (City), [1993] S.C.J. No. 87.  
54  
[132] And, if a court concludes that the government action, in either purpose or effect,  
infringes s. 2(b), the court will then have to consider whether the limit on free  
expression is justifiable under s. 1.  
[133] Furthermore, because of the broad scope of s. 2(b), in most cases the  
constitutionality of the legislation or the government action will depend on the s. 1  
analysis. However, the degree of constitutional protection may vary depending on  
the nature of the expression at issue. Where the expression is of low value it may  
be more easily outweighed by the government’s legislative object for enacting the  
statutory provision: Thomson Newspapers Co. (c.o.b. Globe and Mail) v. Canada  
(Attorney General), [1998] S.C.J. No. 44, at para. 91. Moreover, limits on the  
freedom of expression are easier to justify where the expressive activity only  
tenuously furthers s. 2(b) values, such as in the case of hate speech, pornography  
or marketing of a harmful product: R. v. Keegstra, [1990] S.C.J. No. 131;  
Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, [2013] S.C.J. No.  
11; Canada (Attorney General) v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., [2007] S.C.J. No. 30. On  
the other hand, limits on political speech will generally be the most difficult to justify  
under s. 1: Thomson Newspapers Co. (c.o.b. Globe and Mail) v. Canada  
(Attorney General), [1998] S.C.J. No. 44; Harper v. Canada (Attorney General),  
[2004] S.C.J. No. 28. Restrictions will also be more difficult to justify when they  
capture expression that furthers artistic, scientific, educational, or other useful  
social purposes: R. v. Butler, [1992] S.C.J. No. 15, at para. 113.  
[134] More significantly, the deciding factor in s. 2(b) cases is often whether the limit  
minimally impairs the right to freedom of expression. In other words, a total  
prohibition on a form of expression will be more difficult to justify than a partial  
prohibition: Canada (Attorney General) v. JTI-Macdonald Corp.; Thomson  
Newspapers Co. (c.o.b. Globe and Mail) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998]  
S.C.J. No. 44.  
[135] As for the defendant’s claim of an infringement of his s. 2(b) freedom of expression  
rights, considering that the provisions in s. 26 of the Certified Management  
Accountants Act, 2010; s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010; and s. 29 of  
the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, does prohibit the  
defendant from publicly taking or using his foreign professional accounting  
designations, initials, or descriptions in Ontario (except under 3 statutory  
circumstances), this legislative restriction does infringe upon the defendant’s  
freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2(b), as the prohibition by these 3  
statutory provisions undermines the defendant’s self-worth and human dignity by  
curtailing the ability of the defendant to express to the public his personal  
achievements and professional accomplishments through the use of his foreign  
professional accounting designation, initials, or descriptions, which as a  
consequence, constrains the defendant’s dignity, self-worth, and inhibits his ability  
to achieve self-fulfillment or individual self-actualization.  
55  
[136] Therefore, since the defendant has proven on a balance of probabilities that taking  
or using his foreign professional accounting designations, initials, or descriptions  
publicly in Ontario is expressive activity, as well as expressive activity that his  
protected by s. 2(b), and that his freedom of expression has been limited by the  
purpose or effect of s. 26 of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010; s.  
27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010; and s. 29 of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, the prosecution now has the onus  
to justify the infringement of the defendant’s freedom of expression by those  
statutory provisions is a reasonable limit under s. 1 of the Charter, as can be  
demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society .  
(b) Are the statutory prohibitions in the 3 statutes that limit the  
defendant’s freedom of expression a reasonable limit saved by  
s. 1?  
Section 1. “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees  
the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits  
prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and  
democratic society”.  
[137] For the s. 1 reasonable limit analysis, the Supreme Court adopted a 4-step test in  
R. v. Oakes, [1986] S.C.J. No. 7, which have to be all met in order for the  
impugned legislation to be upheld under s. 1 as a reasonable limit:  
1. It must pursue an objective that is sufficiently important to justify  
limiting a Charter right.  
2. It must be rationally connected to the objective.  
3. It must impair the right no more than necessary to accomplish the  
objective.  
4. It must not have a disproportionately severe effect on the persons to  
whom it applies.  
[138] The Oakes test used for the s. 1 analysis is for determining whether the law which  
limits a Charter protected right or freedom is a reasonable limit demonstrably  
justified in a free and democratic society. If it is not a reasonable limitation on a  
Charter right, then the impugned law will not be upheld under s. 1. In addition, the  
impugned law must pass all 4 steps to be upheld as a reasonable limit under s. 1.  
If a violation of the Charter is saved by s. 1, then the government action can stand  
and is not illegal.  
[139] For step 1 of the Oakes test for the justification of the legislation which limits the  
defendant’s freedom of expression, it is an assessment of the legislative object of  
56  
the legislation in which the inquiry is whether the objective or purpose of the law is  
sufficiently important to justify limiting or overriding the Charter right. The objects  
of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, are provided for in  
s. 5 of that Act and includes promoting and protecting the public interest by  
governing and regulating individuals and entities as Chartered Professional  
Accountants, through establishing, maintaining, developing and enforcing  
standards of qualification, standards of practice, standards of professional ethics,  
and standards of knowledge, skill and proficiency. Furthermore, that Act promotes  
and protects the welfare and interests of CPA Ontario and of the accounting  
profession [emphasis is mine below]:  
Objects  
5.  
The objects of CPA Ontario are,  
(a) to promote and protect the public interest by governing and regulating  
individuals and entities as Chartered Professional Accountants in  
accordance with this Act and the by• laws, including,  
(i) establishing, maintaining, developing and enforcing standards of  
qualification, standards of practice, standards of professional  
ethics, and standards of knowledge, skill and proficiency, and  
(ii) regulating the practice, competence and professional conduct of  
individuals and entities as Chartered Professional Accountants;  
(b) to promote and increase the knowledge, skill and proficiency of  
members of CPA Ontario, firms and students;  
(c) to meet and maintain the standards that CPA Ontario, as a  
designated body within the meaning of the Public Accounting Act,  
2004, is required to meet and maintain in order to be authorized to  
license and govern the activities of its members as public accountants  
under that Act;  
(d) to promote and protect the public interest by licensing members of  
CPA Ontario as public accountants and regulating those members  
and professional corporations as public accountants under the Public  
Accounting Act, 2004, when authorized under that Act to do so, in  
accordance with that Act, this Act and the by-laws; and  
(e) subject to the objects set out in clauses (a) to (d), to promote and  
protect the welfare and interests of CPA Ontario and of the accounting  
profession.  
[140] Ergo, the legislative object of s. 26 of the Certified Management Accountants Act,  
2010; s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010; and s. 29 of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, would be to ensure the public is  
protected from unqualified individuals practicing as Certified Management  
57  
Accountants, Chartered Accountants, Chartered Professional Accountants, which  
is a pressing and substantial goal. Therefore, step 1 has been met.  
[141] For step 2 of the Oakes test for the justification of the legislation which limits the  
defendant’s freedom of expression, it is also an assessment of the legislative  
object of the legislation in which the inquiry is whether there is a rational  
connection between the legislation and its legislative purpose. In the present  
case, there is a rational connection between the means chosen, the prohibition of  
individuals who are not members of the Certified Management Accountants of  
Ontario, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, and the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario from taking or using their foreign professional  
accounting designations, initials, or descriptions publicly in Ontario, would achieve  
the goal of protecting the public by ensuring unqualified individuals cannot practice  
as Certified Management Accountants, Chartered Accountants, Chartered  
Professional Accountants, since members of the public would not be misled that  
an individual taking or using his foreign professional accounting designations,  
initials, or descriptions publicly in Ontario, and who is not a member of one of the  
governing accounting bodies in Ontario, is indeed qualified to practice as a  
Certified Management Accountant, Chartered Accountant, or Chartered  
Professional Accountant in Ontario. Therefore, step 2 has been met.  
[142] For step 3 of the Oakes test for the justification of the legislation which limits the  
defendant’s freedom of expression, it is also an assessment of the legislative  
object of the legislation in which the inquiry is whether the means chosen to  
achieve the legislative object minimally impairs the freedom of expression. In  
other words, does the 3 statutory provisions in question impair the Charter right no  
more than is necessary to accomplish the legislative objective (or that the  
legislative measure chosen is the least drastic way or means to accomplish the  
legislative purpose). Moreover, the measure does not have to be a perfect  
scheme, but sufficient and appropriate within context of the infringed right. In  
addition to the measures chosen of prohibiting individuals, who are not members  
of the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of Ontario, and the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario,  
from taking or using their foreign professional accounting designations, initials, or  
descriptions publicly in Ontario, the Ontario legislature has also provided 3  
statutory exceptions for individuals to take or use their foreign professional  
accounting designations, initials, or descriptions publicly in Ontario when a  
qualifying public statement is included, which states that the individual is not a  
member of or regulated by one of the 3 governing accounting bodies in Ontario.  
Furthermore, this prohibition would only be temporary ban for students of CPA  
Ontario who have foreign professional accounting designations, until such time as  
they pass the qualification exam, fulfill the education and experience criteria and  
become members of CPA Ontario. Therefore, the legislation in question minimally  
impairs the defendant’s freedom of expression. As such, step 3 has been met.  
58  
[143] For step 4 of the Oakes test for the justification of the legislation which limits the  
defendant’s freedom of expression, it is an assessment of the severity of the  
deleterious effects of the measure on individuals or groups, in which the inquiry is  
whether the deleterious (harmful) effects of the measures chosen and the salutary  
(beneficial) effects to society of the measures chosen to achieve the legislative  
objective are proportional. In other words, it is the balancing of the proportionality  
between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter  
right or freedom and the legislative objective which has been identified as of  
sufficient importance. For this step, the salutary effects to society by protecting the  
public from unqualified individuals by preventing them from holding themselves out  
as or from practicing as Certified Management Accountants, Chartered  
Accountants, or Chartered Professional Accountants in Ontario, outweighs the  
deleterious effects to the freedom of expression for an individual possessing  
foreign professional accounting designations. Therefore, step 4 has been met.  
[144] As all 4 steps of the Oakes test has been met, the statutory provisions in question  
are reasonable limits on the freedom of expression that are demonstrably justified  
in a free and democratic society.  
[145] Consequently, even though the purpose of s. 26 of the Certified Management  
Accountants Act, 2010; s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010; and s. 29 of  
the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, limits the  
defendant’s freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter because it prohibits  
the defendant from taking or using his foreign professional accounting  
designations, initials, or descriptions publicly in Ontario, which impairs the  
defendant’s ability to seek self-fulfillment through expressing publicly his  
professional and educational qualifications that he has earned and achieved  
through his life, these statutory provisions are nevertheless a reasonable limit on  
the freedom of expression. Therefore, s. 26 of the Certified Management  
Accountants Act, 2010; s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010; and s. 29 of  
the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017 are all saved by s. 1  
of the Charter. Accordingly, the defendant’s claim under s. 2(b) is dismissed.  
(c) The Freedom Of Association Under S. 2(d)  
[146] The defendant further claims that the defendant’s freedom of association under s.  
2(d) has been infringed by CPA Ontario because of his association or membership  
in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, the Institute of Cost Accountants  
of India, and the Toronto Overseas Chapter of Cost Accountants of India.  
[147] For the defendant’s s. 2(d) claim, the prosecution submits that the statutory  
provisions of the three governing statutes which prohibits the defendant from  
taking or using his foreign professional accounting designations, initials, or  
descriptions publicly in Ontario or from practicing as a Certified Management  
Accountant, Chartered Accountant, or Chartered Professional Accountant in  
59  
Ontario, do not impose any restrictions on, or with whom, or what associations, a  
member or non-member of one of the 3 governing accounting bodies may  
establish, belong to, or maintain. Furthermore, the prosecution submits that the  
defendant’s association with other foreign professional accounting bodies does not  
give him or other members of those foreign professional accounting bodies a right  
to contravene the accounting acts in Ontario or Canada. Therefore, the  
prosecution submits that the statutory provisions in question does not infringe on  
the defendant’s freedom of association guaranteed by s. 2(d) of the Charter.  
[148] Section 2(d) of the Charter states:  
Fundamental freedoms  
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:  
(d) freedom of association.  
[149] The Supreme Court of Canada in Mounted Police Association of Ontario v.  
Canada (Attorney General), [2015] S.C.J. No. 1, at paras. 51 to 54 and 56, has  
explained that the freedom of association guaranteed under s. 2(d) is intended to  
recognize the profoundly social nature of human endeavours and to protect the  
individual from state-enforced isolation in the pursuit of their ends. The Supreme  
Court also held that the freedom of association protects three classes of activities:  
(1) the “constitutive” right to join with others and form associations; (2) the  
“derivative” right to join with others in the pursuit of other constitutional rights; and  
(3) the “purposive” right to join with others to meet on more equal terms the power  
and strength of other groups or entities. Under the constitutive right, the Supreme  
Court explained that the state is prohibited from interfering with individuals meeting  
or forming associations, but is permitted to interfere with the activities pursued by  
an association. Moreover, the Supreme Court also explained that the derivative  
right” protects associations’ activities that specifically relate to other constitutional  
freedoms, but does not protect other activities of the association. And for the  
purposive rightto join with others, the Supreme Court explained that the  
freedom of association protects associations’ activities, including collective  
bargaining and striking, that enable individuals who are vulnerable and ineffective  
to meet on more equal terms the power and strength of those with whom their  
interests interact or conflict [emphasis is mine below]:  
(2) The Content of Section 2(d) Protection  
In his dissenting reasons in the Alberta Reference, Dickson C.J. identified three  
possible approaches to the interpretation of s. 2(d) -- constitutive, derivative and  
purposive. We conclude that section 2(d) protects each of the aspects of freedom  
of association with which these approaches are concerned.  
The narrowest approach, the "constitutive", would protect only the bare right to  
60  
belong to or form an association. The state would thus be prohibited from  
interfering with individuals meeting or forming associations, but would be  
permitted to interfere with the activities pursued by the associations people form.  
This protection, while narrow, is not trivial; history is replete with examples of  
states that have banned associations or prevented people from associating,  
either absolutely or in terms of restrictions on the number of people who can  
associate for a particular purpose.  
The "derivative" approach would protect not only the right to associate, but also  
the right to associational activity that specifically relates to other constitutional  
freedoms. This approach prevails in the United States, where freedom of  
association is recognized insofar as it supports other constitutional rights, like  
freedom of religion and the political rights. Beyond this, however, associational  
activities would not be constitutionally protected.  
The purposive approach, adopted by Dickson C.J. in the Alberta Reference,  
defines the content of s. 2(d) by reference to the purpose of the guarantee of  
freedom of association: "... to recognize the profoundly social nature of human  
endeavours and to protect the individual from state-enforced isolation in the  
pursuit of his or her ends" (Alberta Reference, at p. 365). The object of Dickson  
C.J.'s words is a concrete one, not an abstract expression of a desire for a better  
life. Elaborating on this interpretive approach, Dickson C.J. states that the  
purpose of the freedom of association encompasses the protection of (1)  
individuals joining with others to form associations (the constitutive approach); (2)  
collective activity in support of other constitutional rights (the derivative  
approach); and (3) collective activity that enables "those who would otherwise be  
vulnerable and ineffective to meet on more equal terms the power and strength  
of those with whom their interests interact and, perhaps, conflict": Alberta  
Reference, at p. 366.  
The historical emergence of association as a fundamental freedom -- one which  
permits the growth of a sphere of civil society largely free from state interference  
-- has its roots in the protection of religious minority groups: M. Walzer, "The  
Concept of Civil Society", in M. Walzer, ed., Toward a Global Civil Society  
(1995), 7, at p. 20. More recent history also illustrates how the freedom to  
associate has contributed to the women's suffrage and gay rights movements: J.  
D. Inazu, Liberty's Refuge: The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly (2012), at p. 45;  
and D. Carpenter, "Expressive Association and Anti-Discrimination Law After  
Dale: A Tripartite Approach" (2001), 85 Minn. L. Rev. 1515.  
[150] Moreover, s. 2(d) of the Charter also protects the collective action of individuals in  
pursuit of their common goals: Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees  
Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211, at p. 253. Section 2(d) also functions to protect  
individuals against more powerful entities, thus empowering vulnerable groups and  
helping them work to right imbalances in society: Mounted Police Association of  
Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] S.C.J. No. 1, at para. 58. As well, s.  
2(d) allows the achievement of individual potential through interpersonal  
relationships and collective action: Dunmore v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2001]  
3 S.C.R. 1016, at para. 17.  
61  
[151] In the present case, on review of the statutory provisions of the three governing  
statutes, which prohibits the defendant from publicly taking or using his foreign  
professional accounting designations, initials, or descriptions in Ontario or from  
practicing as a Certified Management Accountant, Chartered Accountant or  
Chartered Professional Accountant in Ontario unless the defendant is a member of  
one of the 3 professional accounting bodies in Ontario, these statutory provisions  
do not infringe on the right of the defendant to join with others and form  
associations, nor do they infringe on the defendant’s ability to achieve individual  
potential through interpersonal relationships and collective action, nor do they  
deny the defendant the right to associational activity that specifically relates to  
other constitutional freedoms.  
[152] Furthermore, there is no evidence that any action by CPA Ontario or the  
application of the statutory provisions in question by CPA Ontario, has prohibited  
or prevented the defendant from associating with, or being a member of, or being  
involved in activities with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, the  
Institute of Cost Accountants of India, and the Toronto Overseas Chapter of Cost  
Accountants of India. Moreover, it is also likely that the defendant’s membership  
of good standing in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India had allowed the  
defendant to apply to become a member of CPA Ontario and receive an  
exemption from taking all the academic courses required to qualify for membership  
in CPA Ontario. Furthermore, there is now a Memorandum of Understanding  
between CPA Canada (on behalf of CPA Ontario and all Canadian provinces) and  
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (signed on November 17, 2018),  
where each of the two accounting bodies recognizes the qualifications of the  
other’s members and specifies the criteria by which members of one body are  
eligible for membership in the other2.  
[153] And, for the defendant to exercise his freedom of association so as to become a  
member of CPA Ontario, the defendant had to meet the education and experience  
requirements, complete the required courses and to pass the Common Final  
Exam, which everyone else who want to become a member of CPA Ontario in  
2
From article entitled, “Canadian CPA bodies sign memorandum of understanding with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of  
India” on CPA Canada website, online: cpacanada.ca website << https://www.cpacanada.ca/en/the-cpa-profession/about-cpa-  
canada/media-centre/2018/november/canadian-cpa-bodies-sign-mou-with-the-institute-of-chartered-accountants-of-india>>:  
Toronto, November 27, 2018 The signing of the first memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Canada’s Chartered  
Professional Accountant (CPA) bodies and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) demonstrates once again the  
accounting profession’s commitment to international mobility.  
The agreement was signed at the Toronto office of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada (CPA Canada) on  
November 17. In attendance were representatives of the Canadian profession and representatives from the ICAI and its Toronto  
chapter.  
“The global economy requires mobility for its finance and accounting professionals,” says Joy Thomas, president and CEO, CPA  
Canada. “Providing a clear path to achieving credential recognition benefits members of both the Indian and Canadian accounting  
professions while giving both countries access to top talent.”  
The Memorandum of Understanding on Reciprocal Membership Arrangements specifies the criteria by which members of one  
body are eligible for membership in the other. It was signed by the Canadian profession’s national body, CPA Canada, on behalf of  
the CPA provincial and territorial bodies and the Chartered Professional Accountants of Bermuda, which has a long affiliation with the  
Canadian CPA profession.  
The MOU ensures that Canadian qualification standards are maintained while recognizing substantial equivalency in the core  
knowledge requirements of both countries. ICAI members looking to become Canadian CPAs are required to pass CPA Canada’s  
Common Final Examination (CFE).  
The MOU also provides access to the growing Indian economy for Canadian CPAs seeking career opportunities in that country.  
62  
order to be legally permitted to practice as a Chartered Professional Accountant in  
Ontario, would have to also legally fulfill.  
[154] Therefore, the defendant has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the  
defendant’s freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter has been infringed  
by the action of CPA Ontario or by the purpose or effect of s. 26 of the Certified  
Management Accountants Act, 2010; s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act,  
2010; and s. 29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017.  
As a consequence, the defendant’s Charter claim under s. 2(d) is dismissed.  
(d) The Right To Move To And Take Up Residence In Any Province And  
To Pursue The Gaining Of A Livelihood In Any Province Under S.  
6(2)  
[155] Furthermore, the defendant claims that the defendant’s right to move to and take  
up residence in any province and to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any  
province guaranteed by s. 6(2) of the Charter has been infringed, by CPA Ontario  
preventing the defendant from using and displaying his international qualifications  
and by preventing the defendant from writing the professional accounting initials  
FCA (India) and FCMA (India) with the defendant’s name on the defendant’s  
LinkedIn profile page, which the defendant contends, prevents the defendant from  
pursuing the gaining of a livelihood in Ontario.  
[156] In respect to the s. 6(2) mobility claim, the prosecution submits that similar to their  
submission on the defendant’s s. 2(b) claim, the Supreme Court of Canada had  
unanimously held in Walker v Prince Edward Island, [1995] S.C.J. No 45 (S.C.C.),  
that legislation that restricted the right of an individual to practice as a public  
accountant and for the individual to represent themselves as a public accountant,  
to only individuals who are members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of  
P.E.I., did not limit the rights of individuals who were non-members of the Institute  
of Chartered Accountants of P.E.I. under ss. 2(b), 6(2)(b), or 7 of the Charter. As  
such, the prosecution submits that the defendant’s Charter application under ss.  
2(b), 6(2)(b), and 7 must fail on that basis.  
[157] Section 6 of the Charter states:  
Mobility of citizens  
6.(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave  
Canada.  
Rights to move and gain livelihood  
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a  
permanent resident of Canada has the right  
63  
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and  
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.  
Limitation  
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to  
(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province  
other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the  
basis of province of present or previous residence; and  
(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a  
qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.  
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity  
that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of  
individuals in that province who are socially or economically  
disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the  
rate of employment in Canada.  
[158] Furthermore, in Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Richardson, [1998] S.C.J. No.  
78, the majority of the Supreme Court held at para. 36, that as a general rule, a  
provision of the Charter may be invoked only by those who enjoy its protection:  
As a general rule, a provision of the Charter may be invoked only by those who  
enjoy its protection. Section 7 of the Charter, for example, extends protection  
only to natural persons: Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1  
S.C.R. 927, at p. 1004. Similarly, corporations cannot invoke those provisions of  
the Charter that provide protection following arrest and detention because  
corporations cannot be arrested and detained.  
[159] In order to claim the protection of s. 6(2) of the Charter, the defendant must either  
be a citizen of Canada or have the status of a permanent resident of Canada.  
There is, however, no evidence that the defendant is either a Canadian citizen or a  
permanent resident of Canada. The only evidence of the defendant’s immigration  
status in Canada is the evidence that the defendant is a citizen of India (see  
Exhibit #5). If the defendant is neither a Canadian citizen nor has the status of a  
permanent resident of Canada, then the defendant has no standing to make a  
claim under s. 6(2) of the Charter. However, for the purposes of resolving the  
defendant’s s. 6(2) Charter claim, it will be assumed that the defendant does  
indeed have the status of a permanent resident of Canada.  
[160] Moreover, s. 6(2) of the Charter is concerned with movement within Canada to  
take up residence or to pursue the gaining of a livelihood. The right of Canadian  
citizens and permanent residents to move about, reside, and work in the province  
64  
of their choice was constitutionalized and protected under the Charter, out of a  
concern with fundamental human rights, and supports the notion of equality of  
treatment and non-discrimination on the basis of residence: Canadian Egg  
Marketing Agency v. Richardson, [1998] S.C.J. No. 78 (S.C.C.).  
[161] The Supreme Court has also held that s. 6(2)(b) does not create a free-standing  
right to work, divorced from the mobility provisions in which it is found. The rights  
in s. 6(2) relate to movement into another province, either for the taking up of  
residence, or to work without establishing residence: Law Society of Upper  
Canada v. Skapinker, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357, at para. 33.  
[162] In Walker v. Prince Edward Island, [1993] P.E.I.J. No. 111 (P.E.I.C.A.) which was  
affirmed by the Supreme Court in [1995] S.C.J. No 45, the P.E.I. Court of Appeal  
at para. 15, held that s. 6(2)(b) does not guarantee a free-standing right to work  
and that s. 6(2)(b) simply guarantees all Canadian citizens and permanent  
residents the right to pursue a livelihood of choice in any province on the same  
terms and conditions as the residents of that province. Moreover, the P.E.I. Court  
of Appeal also determined that the restriction in s. 14(1) of the P.E.I.’s Public  
Accounting and Auditing Act had nothing to do with residency and had subjected  
all non-members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of P.E.I. to the same  
restrictions and conditions whether they reside in the Province of P.E.I. or not. In  
addition, the P.E.I. Court of Appeal held that the decisions of the Supreme Court of  
Canada in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker, [1984] S.C.J. No. 18 and  
Black v. Law Society Alberta, [1989] S.C.J. No. 27, have established that s. 6 of  
the Charter does not prevent a province from regulating a profession so long as it  
does so without discriminating on the basis of place of residence. Moreover, the  
P.E.I. Court of Appeal held that there is nothing in s. 14(1) of the Public Accounting  
and Auditing Act which prevents anyone meeting the specified professional  
qualifications from practicing in the Province of P.E.I, and as such, s. 14(1) did not  
violate s. 6(2)(b) of the Charter [emphasis is mine below]:  
The trial judge also erred in law by ruling that s-s. 14(1) contravened s-s. 6(2)(b)  
of the Charter. He so ruled because he found that:  
... the plaintiffs' rights to gaining a livelihood in the practice of public accounting in  
Prince Edward Island have been substantially restricted by the impugned  
legislation.  
However, that is not the test. Subsection 6(2)(b) does not guarantee a free-  
standing right to work. Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker, [1984] 1  
S.C.R. 357 at pp. 382-3. It simply guarantees all Canadian citizens and  
permanent residents the right to pursue a livelihood of choice in any province on  
the same terms and conditions as the residents of that province. Black v. Law  
Society of Alberta, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 591 at pp. 617-8. The restriction in s-s. 14(1)  
has nothing to do with residency. It subjects all non-members of the Institute to  
the same restrictions and conditions whether they reside in the Province or not.  
The decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in Skapinker and Black have  
established that s. 6 of the Charter does not prevent a province from regulating a  
65  
profession so long as it does so without discriminating on the basis of place of  
residence. There is nothing in s-s. 14(1) of the Public Accounting and Auditing  
Act which prevents anyone meeting the specified professional qualifications from  
practicing in this province. Accordingly, s-s. 14(1) does not violate s-s. 6(2)(b) of  
the Charter.  
[163] Therefore, s. 6 of the Charter does not prevent a province from regulating a  
profession, so long as it does so without discriminating on the basis of place of  
residence. In the Walker case, the law permitted only members of the Institute of  
Chartered Accountants of P.E.I. to practice public accountancy in Prince Edward  
Island, which subjected everyone to the same restrictions that was not related to  
residency.  
[164] And, as in the present case, the 3 statutes which prohibits the defendant from  
taking or using publicly his foreign professional accounting designations, initials or  
descriptions in Ontario (except for the 3 statutory exceptions and by publicly  
stating the required qualifying statement that I am not a member of Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario) and I am not governed by CPA  
Ontario. My services have not been approved or endorsed by CPA Ontario) and  
the prohibition against practicing as or holding himself out as a Chartered  
Accountant, Certified Management Accountant, or Chartered Professional  
Accountant in Ontario, unless the defendant is a member of one of the 3 governing  
accounting bodies of the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, the  
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, and the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario, is not based on residency in Ontario, but based on  
membership in one of the 3 governing accounting bodies in Ontario. Moreover,  
none of the 3 governing statutes prohibits membership in the 3 accounting bodies  
in Ontario based on residency in Ontario. In addition, the prohibition in the 3  
governing statutes against the defendant practicing in Ontario or holding himself  
out as a Chartered Accountant, Certified Management Accountant, or Chartered  
Professional Accountant in Ontario unless the defendant is a member of the 3  
governing accounting bodies would not primarily discriminate against the  
defendant based on province or territory of the defendant’s residence in Canada.  
[165] Furthermore, the 3 statutes under which the defendant has been charged under in  
this proceeding, are laws of general application regulating the professional  
accounting profession and apply to everyone in Ontario.  
[166] In addition, s. 6(3)(a) states that the right of the defendant to pursue the gaining of  
a livelihood in any province guaranteed under s. 6(2)(b) is subject any laws or  
practices of general application in force in a province other than those that  
discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or  
previous residence. The majority of the Supreme Court in Canadian Egg  
Marketing Agency v. Richardson, [1998] S.C.J. No. 78 (S.C.C.) considered the  
relationship between s. 6(2)(b) and s. 6(3)(a) at para. 50 and held that it is  
impossible to ascertain the purpose of the extremely broad statement in s. 6(2)(b)  
without importing the limitation contained in s. 6(3)(a):  
66  
The specific sections of the Charter raised in this case are s. 6(2)(b) and s.  
6(3)(a). A preliminary problem is whether the two paragraphs should be read  
together as establishing a single right which is internally qualified, or whether,  
alternatively, the first paragraph establishes a self-contained right which is  
externally qualified by the second paragraph. Section 6(2)(b) guarantees the right  
to "pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province". Section 6(3)(a) then  
dramatically narrows the ambit of that right, making it subject to laws of general  
application in the province, except those which discriminate against individuals  
"primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence". In our view,  
it is impossible to ascertain the purpose of the extremely broad statement in s.  
6(2)(b) without importing the limitation contained in s. 6(3)(a).  
[167] Ergo, the defendant’s right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province  
guaranteed under s. 6(2)(b) is subject to the 3 governing statutes in this  
proceeding, which are pieces of legislation of general application in Ontario that  
prohibits the defendant from practicing and holding himself out as a Certified  
Management Accountant, Chartered Accountant. or Chartered Professional  
Accountant in Ontario, unless the defendant is a member of one of the 3 governing  
accounting bodies of Ontario at the period in question. These prohibitions in the 3  
governing statutes which limits the defendant’s pursuit of a livelihood in Ontario as  
a Certified Management Accountant, Chartered Accountant, or Chartered  
Professional Accountant in Ontario is not based on the defendant’s province of  
present or previous residence, but on being accepted as a member of the 3  
governing accounting bodies, the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario,  
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, and the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario), which for the defendant would be based on  
educational qualifications, passing the Common Final Exam, and having the  
required amount of experience.  
[168] Accordingly, the defendant has not proven on a balance of probabilities that his s.  
6(2)(b) rights guaranteed under the Charter have been infringed by the purpose or  
effect of s. 26 of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010; s. 27 of the  
Chartered Accountants Act, 2010; and s. 29 of the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017. Therefore, the defendant’s Charter claim under  
s. 2(d) is dismissed.  
(e) The Right To Life, Liberty, And Security Of The Person And The  
Right Not To Be Deprived Thereof Except In Accordance With The  
Principles Of Fundamental Justice Under S. 7  
[169] The defendant also claims that the defendant’s right to life, liberty and security of  
the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the  
principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 has been infringed because the pre-  
trial justice of the peace was biased and did not give the defendant time to be  
67  
heard or to talk during the judicial pre-trial conference, and had therefore infringed  
his right to liberty.  
[170] Section 7 of the Charter states:  
Life, liberty and security of person  
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the  
right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the  
principles of fundamental justice.  
[171] Moreover, s. 7 of the Charter requires that laws or state actions that interfere with  
life, liberty and security of the person conform to the principles of fundamental  
justice, which are the basic principles that underlie our notions of justice and fair  
process: Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] S.C.J. No.  
9, at para. 19.  
[172] To determine if the defendant’s rights under s. 7 have been infringed, the following  
a two-step analysis is required to be undertaken:  
1. Is there an infringement of one of the three (3) protected interests  
under s. 7 of the deprivation of life, liberty or security of the person?  
2. If there has been a deprivation of the life, liberty or security of the  
person, is the deprivation in accordance with the principles of  
fundamental justice?  
[173] Furthermore, there is no independent right to fundamental justice. Accordingly,  
there will be no violation of s. 7 if there is no deprivation of life, liberty or security of  
the person: R. v. Pontes, [1995] S.C.J. No. 70, at para. 47.  
[174] In addition, the liberty interest protected under s. 7 has at least two aspects. The  
first aspect is directed to the protection of persons in a physical sense and is  
engaged when there is physical restraint such as imprisonment or the threat of  
imprisonment: R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] S.C.J. No. 83; or custodial or non-  
custodial detention: R. v. Swain, [1991] S.C.J. No. 32. Section 7 of the Charter  
also protects a sphere of personal autonomy involving “inherently private choices”  
that go to the core of what it means to enjoy individual dignity and independence:  
Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] S.C.J. No. 95.  
[175] And, in respect to whether the denial of an individual from practicing public  
accountancy unless they are a member of the professional accounting body of a  
province, the P.E.I. Court of Appeal in Walker v. Prince Edward Island, [1993]  
P.E.I.J. No. 111 (P.E.I.C.A.), aff’d [1995] S.C.J. No. 45 (S.C.C.), concluded at  
para. 16, that the restriction in s. 14(1) of the P.E.I.’s Public Accounting and  
Auditing Act limiting the right to practice the accounting profession does not  
68  
engage s. 7 of the Charter, since the rights under s. 7 do not extend to the right to  
exercise a chosen profession [emphasis is mine below]:  
The trial judge held that s-s. 14(1) infringes the respondents' right to liberty as  
guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter by denying them the right to practice public  
accountancy in the province. This constitutes an error in law because it stretches  
s. 7 beyond its limits. Section 7 comes under the heading "Legal Rights" in the  
Charter along with ss. 8-14, all of which are mainly concerned with criminal and  
penal proceedings. Section 7 itself speaks of "the principles of fundamental  
justice" which have to do with the means by which one may be brought before or  
within the system of justice and thereafter dealt with by it. Therefore, as Lamer J.  
points out in Re ss. 193 and 195.1 of the Criminal Code, supra, at p. 1173, the  
restrictions on liberty that s. 7 is concerned with are those that occur as a result  
of an individual's interaction with the justice system and its administration. He  
goes on to state at p. 1179 that the rights under s. 7 do not extend to the right to  
exercise a chosen profession. The trial judge dismissed the statement by Lamer  
J. because the profession under consideration in that case was prostitution.  
However, I believe his words apply equally to the accounting or any other  
profession. Accordingly, I must conclude that the restriction in s-s. 14(1) of the  
Public Accounting and Auditing Act limiting the right to practice that profession  
does not engage s. 7 of the Charter.  
[176] In respect to the defendant’s claim of an infringement of the defendant’s right to  
liberty under s. 7, the defendant contends that the presiding justice in the judicial  
pre-trial conference had violated his rights by not listening to the defendant and by  
only listening to the prosecution, by not spending enough time to discuss the  
defendant’s charges during the judicial pre-trial conference, and by not dismissing  
his charges at the judicial pre-trial conference.  
[177] However, Judicial Pre-Trial Conferences are not courts of competent jurisdiction  
for the purposes of granting a remedy for an infringement of the Charter.  
Moreover, a Judicial Pre-Trial Conference, which is a meeting held between a  
judicial officer, a prosecutor, and an accused (if self-represented) or the accused’s  
legal representative to discuss the accused’s case, to resolve procedural issues, to  
determine the number of witnesses to be called for the trial, and to determine the  
amount of time required to complete the trial including whether there are any pre-  
trial motions or Charter applications or experts being called as witnesses. A  
Judicial Pre-Trial Conference can also help narrow the issues and resolve  
disclosure issues. Judicial Pre-Trial Conferences are also a mandatory step  
where the trial is expected to take up a significant amount of court time.  
[178] Moreover, Judicial Pre-Trial Conferences may only last 15 to 30 minutes and are  
not formal trials involving the presentation of evidence or the cross-examination of  
witnesses testifying under oath. The focus of the presiding justice conducting the  
Judicial Pre-Trial Conference may have been on matters related to determining the  
number of witnesses to be called and the amount of time required to complete the  
defendant’s trial and may not include a discussion of whether the defendant had  
committed the offences that the defendant was charged with, which may have  
69  
been the specific concern of the defendant. As such, the defendant may have  
misunderstood the purpose of the Judicial Pre-Trial Conference and it may have  
not been appropriate for the presiding justice to even consider dismissing the  
defendant’s charges when the informal and procedural meeting was not for the  
purposes of determining guilt or innocence.  
[179] Moreover, there is no evidence that the pre-trial justice of the peace deprived the  
defendant of his liberty rights related to physical restraint such as imprisonment or  
the threat of imprisonment or in respect to custodial or non-custodial detention.  
Furthermore, the defendant was not in custody during the Judicial Pre-trial  
Conference. In addition, the penalty sections contained in s. 27 of the Certified  
Management Accountants Act, 2010, s. 28 of the Chartered Accountants Act,  
2010, and in s. 30 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017,  
provide for only a fine as a potential sentence and not imprisonment as a potential  
sentence upon conviction, and as such, the liberty interest would not arise.  
[180] Accordingly, the defendant has not met his burden on a balance of probabilities  
that his right to liberty guaranteed by s. 7 has been infringed. Therefore, the  
defendant’s claim under s. 7 is dismissed.  
(f) The Right To Be Informed Without Unreasonable Delay Of The  
Specific Offence Under S. 11(a)  
[181] In addition, the defendant claims that the defendant’s right under s. 11(a) of the  
Charter to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence has  
been infringed by CPA Ontario, since the defendant had only been informed on  
February 2, 2019, of an alleged offence which had taken place on March 30, 2017,  
which is 23 months after the date of the alleged offence.  
[182] In respect to the defendant’s 11(a) claim, the prosecution disputes the  
unreasonableness of the delay in informing the defendant of his charges and  
submits that the defendant had been advised of the charges within 19 days of the  
charges being laid, which the prosecution contends is a reasonable amount of  
time.  
[183] Section 11(a) of the Charter provides that any person charged with an offence has  
the right to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence:  
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters  
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right  
(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;  
70  
[184] The purpose of the constitutional protection under s. 11(a) of the Charter in  
respect to being informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence is to  
protect an accused's right to make full answer and defence, and to also ensure  
that the accused is able to challenge the authority of the state to subject an  
accused to the criminal or regulatory offences process.  
[185] Furthermore, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held in R. v. Cisar, [2014] O.J. No  
952, at paras. 11 to 15, that the analysis for “unreasonable delayunder s. 11(a) of  
the Charter is similar to the analysis used for s. 11(b), and should therefore take  
into account the (1) length of the delay, (2) waiver of time periods, (3) the reasons  
for the delay and (4) prejudice to the accused, and where there is a lengthy delay,  
prejudice to fair trial rights may be presumed or inferred from the delay. In  
addition, the Court of Appeal held that s. 11(a) provides two forms of constitutional  
protection: the primary protection of s. 11(a) is notice of the specific offence while  
the second right protected by s. 11(a) is the right to be informed without  
unreasonable delay. In respect to the primary protection of s. 11(a), the Court of  
Appeal explained that without notice of the specific offence an accused may be  
deprived of the ability to make full answer and defence, since an accused has to  
make decisions about their defence, assemble evidence and prepare to meet the  
prosecution case. As for the second form of protection under s. 11(a), the Court of  
Appeal explained that the object of the protection against unreasonable delay is  
also primarily to protect the right to make full answer and defence. Moreover, the  
Court of Appeal held that until an accused has been informed of the charge, it is  
only the right to a fair trial that is impacted by delay, and that the right to a fair trial  
is protected by attempting to ensure that proceedings take place while evidence is  
available and fresh [emphasis is mine below]:  
Section 11(a) of the Charter guarantees a person charged with an offence the  
right "to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence". The  
provision thus provides two forms of constitutional protection. The primary  
protection is notice of the specific offence. Without notice of the specific offence  
an accused may be deprived of the ability to make full answer and defence.  
Accused have the right to know with what they are charged so they can make  
decisions about their defence, assemble evidence and prepare to meet the  
prosecution case. This element of s. 11(a) is largely codified in s. 581 of the  
Criminal Code, which sets out the minimum requirements for sufficiency of an  
information: R. v. Cancor Software Corp. (1990), 74 O.R. (2d) 65 (C.A.) and R. v.  
Lucas (1983), 57 N.S.R. (2d) 159 (S.C. App. Div.). In the latter case, Jones J.A.  
referred to this court's pre-Charter decision in R. v. Toth, [1959] O.R. 137 (C.A.),  
which described as a "fundamental principle of our law that an indictment must  
charge an offence in such a manner as clearly to bring home to an accused an  
accurate knowledge of the offence with which he is charged". In Cancor, this  
court also referred to an article by E. Ratushny -- "The Role of the Accused in the  
Criminal Process" -- in W.S. Tarnopolsky & G.A. Beaudoin, eds., The Canadian  
Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Commentary (Toronto: Carswell, 1982), at 352,  
which identifies another reason for this s. 11(a) guarantee. It supports the  
important element of the rule of law that an accused can only be charged with an  
offence known to law:  
71  
A specific accusation presupposes a specific offence in law. It, therefore,  
provides an opportunity at the outset for the accused to challenge the authority of  
the officials of the state to subject him to the criminal process. If no offence exists  
in law, the accusation can be attacked and quashed, thereby terminating the  
proceeding.  
The second right protected by s. 11(a) and the right in issue in this appeal is the  
right to be informed without unreasonable delay. The content of this right must be  
considered in the context in which it is found. In my view, like the right to be  
informed of the specific offence, the object of the protection against  
unreasonable delay is also primarily to protect the right to make full answer and  
defence. This understanding of the objective of s. 11(a) is also consistent with  
the context provided by other parts of s. 11 of the Charter, particularly the related  
right to trial within a reasonable time in s. 11(b). The extensive case law  
considering s. 11(b) has identified the rights protected by that provision as (1) the  
right to security of the person; (2) the right to liberty, and (3) the right to a fair  
trial. In R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771, at p. 786, the court explained how those  
rights are protected:  
The right to security of the person is protected in s. 11(b) by seeking to minimize  
the anxiety, concern and stigma of exposure to criminal proceedings. The right to  
liberty is protected by seeking to minimize exposure to the restrictions on liberty  
which result from pre-trial incarceration and restrictive bail conditions. The right to  
a fair trial is protected by attempting to ensure that proceedings take place while  
evidence is available and fresh.  
Until an accused has been informed of the charge, it is only the right to a fair trial  
that is impacted by delay. If accused are not aware of the charge, they are not  
subject to the anxiety, concern and stigma of exposure to criminal proceedings  
and their liberty is not impacted.  
The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Delaronde, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 213, appears  
to have approved of a form of analysis of s. 11(a) that is similar to s. 11(b)  
analysis. Delaronde was an appeal from a decision of the Quebec Court of  
Appeal reported at [1996] R.J.Q. 591. An English translation of the Court of  
Appeal's decision is reported at 115 C.C.C. (3d) 355. The Supreme Court of  
Canada in oral reasons dismissed the accused's appeal for the reasons of Otis  
J.A. in the Court of Appeal. Later, Lamer C.J.C. in a short addendum left open  
the possibility that s. 11(a) may also protect against prejudice to economic  
interests for which s. 24(1) might provide remedies. As he said at para. 5:  
"Having charges pending against one can affect decisions one must make in  
one's life that are unrelated to the preparation of a defence." This aspect of s.  
11(a) is not an issue in this case, except as a factor the trial judge took into  
consideration at sentencing.  
In her reasons in Delaronde, Otis J.A. held that delay under s. 11(a) should be  
analyzed using the same factors as under s. 11(b), namely: the length of the  
delay, waiver of time periods, the reasons for the delay and prejudice to the  
accused. The findings of fact by the trial judge in this case have simplified the  
analysis. The delay runs from the date the charge was laid until the appellant  
72  
was arrested and informed of the charge; that is, from April 30, 1999 to August  
24, 2007, over eight years. …  
[186] Moreover, the right to be informed under s. 11(a) only arises once a person has  
been charged with an offence: R. v. Heit, [1984] S.J. No. 209 (Sask. C.A.); R. v.  
Cancor Software Corp., [1990] O.J. No. 1287 (Ont. C.A.). In addition, service of a  
summons, information notice or execution of an arrest warrant will meet the  
notification requirement in s. 11(a). Furthermore, the notification requirement does  
not require a formal information process, and that informal methods such as  
communication by fax or telephone will also suffice, so long as it is established that  
the information was properly received: R. v. Delaronde, [1996] Q.J. No. 535 (Que.  
C.A.), aff’d [1997] S.C.J. No. 8.  
[187] In addition, in R. v. Cancor Software Corp. the Court of Appeal for Ontario held  
that s. 11(a) of the Charter does not require that an individual be charged with an  
offence within a reasonable time of the Crown's having knowledge of the offence,  
but does require that once a charge is laid, the accused must be provided without  
unreasonable delay with the information necessary to enable the accused to  
proceed appropriately with their defence. In addition, the Ontario Court of Appeal  
held that once charges have been laid, the Crown can lay additional related  
charges at a later date without offending s. 11(a) [emphasis is mine below]:  
It is clear on the facts of this case that sufficient details were included both in the  
indictments under the I.T.A. and in the draft indictments under the Criminal Code  
to satisfy the provisions of s. 11(a) of the Charter. The real question in this case  
is whether or not once charges are laid with respect to a series of transactions,  
additional charges can be laid at a substantially later time, based on the same  
series of transactions, without offending the "unreasonable delay" provision in s.  
11(a) of the Charter.  
It is my opinion that the simple answer to that question is that s. 11(a) does not  
require that an individual be charged with an offence within a reasonable time of  
the Crown's having knowledge of the offence. It merely requires that once a  
charge is laid, the accused must be provided without unreasonable delay with the  
information necessary to enable him to proceed appropriately with his defence. In  
this case, there is no suggestion that such knowledge was not provided to the  
accused at the time they were made aware that Criminal Code charges were to  
be pursued against them.  
[188] Furthermore, the calculation of time to determine if a delay is unreasonable for the  
purposes of s. 11(a) begins at the time the charge is laid and ends at the time the  
person is informed of the offence: R. v. F.J.H., [1993] A.J. No. 7 (Alta. C.A.).  
Moreover, delay must be assessed according to the circumstances of each case.  
In particular, the delay may be so short that it is manifest that s. 11(a) was not  
infringed, or conversely, it may be manifest that s. 11(a) was infringed in cases of  
egregious delay: R. v. Delaronde, [1996] Q.J. No. 535 (Que. C.A.), aff’d [1997]  
S.C.J. No. 8.  
73  
[189] Therefore, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Cisar, the delay runs from  
the date the charges were laid until the accused is informed of the charges. In the  
defendant’s case, the 8 charges (in the first information) were laid against the  
defendant on June 22, 2018. The summons, containing information on the 8  
charges in respect to the first information (#7588) was issued by the Ontario Court  
of Justice on the same day of June 22, 2018. That summons was served on the  
defendant on July 11, 2018, which was 19 days after the charges were laid.  
Furthermore, the 19 days of delay in attempting to serve the summons on the  
defendant had been attributed to an outdated address for the defendant, which the  
prosecuting arm of CPA Ontario had as the address for the defendant had been  
the address that Tom Litzgus, Associate General Counsel of CPA Ontario, had  
used previously in his communication with the defendant.  
However, the  
prosecuting arm of CPA Ontario had been able to serve the summons on the  
defendant on July 11, 2018, when it obtained an updated address for the  
defendant from the Student Services branch of CPA Ontario, where the defendant  
had provided an update for his address.  
[190] Moreover, there is no evidence that would support a finding of actual or inferred  
prejudice due to the delay of 19 days that it took for the defendant to be informed  
of the 8 charges that would impact on the defendant’s right to a fair trial on account  
of evidence being available and fresh, on account of witness credibility, or on  
account of the defendant's ability to cross-examine witnesses. Therefore, in the  
circumstances, the 19 days of delay that elapsed before the defendant had been  
informed of the 8 charges is not unreasonable, considering CPA Ontario had an  
outdated address for the defendant and because the defendant has not suffered  
any actual prejudice to his right to make full answer and defence as a result of the  
delay of 19 days, nor is the length of the delay of 19 days such that prejudice may  
be inferred.  
[191] Ergo, the defendant has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his s.  
11(a) right to be informed without unreasonable delay of the 8 specific offences  
has been infringed by the delay of 19 days. Accordingly, the defendant’s claim  
under s. 11(a) is dismissed.  
(g) The Right To Be Tried Within A Reasonable Time Under S. 11(b)  
[192] Furthermore, the defendant claims that the defendant’s right to be tried within a  
reasonable time guaranteed by s. 11(b) of the Charter has been infringed, since  
the defendant’s trial was set for September 11, 2019 for an alleged offence that  
had taken place on March 30, 2017, which is over 30 months after the date of the  
alleged offence.  
[193] The prosecution in response to the s. 11(b) claim, submits that the defendant has  
not met the test set out in R. v. Jordan, [2016] S.C.J. No 27 (S.C.C.), so that his  
application under s. 11 (b) must therefore fail.  
74  
[194] Section 11(b) of the Charter states:  
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters  
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right  
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;  
[195] For claims now made under s. 11(b) for unreasonable delay, the Supreme Court of  
Canada in R. v. Jordan, [2016] S.C.J. No 27, has set a presumptive ceiling of 18  
months for cases going to trial in the Provincial Court, after which the delay would  
be presumptively unreasonable. Specifically, at paras. 47 and 48 of R. v. Jordan,  
the Supreme Court set out the following framework for determining whether the  
delay in getting to trial is unreasonable:  
If the total delay from the charge to the actual or anticipated end of trial (minus  
defence delay) exceeds the ceiling, then the delay is presumptively  
unreasonable. To rebut this presumption, the Crown must establish the presence  
of exceptional circumstances. If it cannot, the delay is unreasonable and a stay  
will follow.  
If the total delay from the charge to the actual or anticipated end of trial (minus  
defence delay or a period of delay attributable to exceptional circumstances) falls  
below the presumptive ceiling, then the onus is on the defence to show that the  
delay is unreasonable. To do so, the defence must establish that (1) it took  
meaningful steps that demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the  
proceedings, and (2) the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should  
have. We expect stays beneath the ceiling to be rare, and limited to clear cases.  
[196] The primary purpose of s. 11(b) is to protect the following rights of individual  
accused: (a) the right to security of the person; (b) the right to liberty; and (c) the  
right to a fair trial: R. v. Jordan, [2016] S.C.J. No 27. The provision also serves  
secondary societal interests: (a) the interest in protecting the right of an accused  
person to humane and fair treatment (b) the interest in having laws enforced,  
including through ensuring that those who break the law are tried in a timely  
fashion. As the seriousness of the offence increases, so does the societal  
demand that the accused be brought to trial: R. v. Morin, [1992] S.C.J. No. 25; R.  
v. Askov, [1990] S.C.J. No. 106. Timely trials are also important to maintaining  
overall public confidence in the administration of justice: R. v. Jordan, [2016]  
S.C.J. No 27, at para. 25.  
[197] But more significantly, s. 11(b) is concerned with the period between the laying of  
the charge and the conclusion of the trial: R. v. Morin, [1992] S.C.J. No. 25.  
Therefore, s. 11(b) does not apply to pre-charge delay: R. v. Kalanj, [1989] S.C.J.  
No. 71, and the time period only begins to run from the moment the accused is  
charged: Carter v. The Queen, [1986] S.C.J. No. 36.  
75  
[198] Furthermore, where a charge is laid and withdrawn and then a new charge is laid,  
there are circumstances under which the time period under s. 11(b) will begin to  
run from the date of the initial laying of the charge: R. c. Ketchate, [2019] J.Q. no  
2440, at para. 18; R. v. Scott, [2015] S.J. No. 683 (Sask. C.A.); R. v. Milani, (2014)  
120 O.R. (3d) 641 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 48, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused,  
36095 (15 January 2015).  
[199] Ergo. if the total delay from the charge to the actual or anticipated end of trial  
(minus defence delay) exceeds the 18-month ceiling for the provincial court, then  
the delay is presumptively unreasonable R. v. Jordan, para. 47. To rebut this  
presumption, the prosecution must establish the presence of exceptional  
circumstances. If the delay cannot be attributed to an exceptional circumstance, it  
is unreasonable and a stay of proceedings will follow R. v. Jordan, at paras. 76  
and 80.  
[200] On the other hand, if the total delay from the charge to the actual or anticipated  
end of trial (minus defence delay or a period of delay attributable to exceptional  
circumstances) falls below the presumptive ceiling, then the onus is on the  
defendant to show that the delay is unreasonable. To do so, the defendant must  
establish that he took meaningful steps that demonstrate a sustained effort to  
expedite the proceedings and that the case took markedly longer than it  
reasonably should have R. v. Jordan, [2016] S.C.J. No 27, para. 48.  
[201] Furthermore, delay that is attributable to the defendant is either:  
1. Delay that is implicitly or explicitly waived by the accused. For the  
waiver to be valid, it must be clear and unequivocal, and the defendant  
must have full knowledge of his rights and the effect of the waiver on  
those rights: R. v. Cody, [2017] S.C.J. No. 31, at para. 27; R. v.  
Jordan, at para. 61.  
OR  
2. Delay that is caused solely by the conduct of the defence. The  
only deductible defence delay under this component is that which: (1)  
is solely or directly caused by the accused person, such as defence  
counsel not being ready to proceed to trial, but the court and Crown  
are ready to do so: R. v. Jordan, at paras. 63 and 64; and (2) flows  
from defence action that is illegitimate insomuch as it is not taken to  
respond to the charges: R. v. Cody, [2017] S.C.J. No. 31, at para. 30.  
However the Supreme Court in R. v. Jordan at para. 65 indicated that  
defence actions that are legitimately taken to respond to the charges  
do not constitute defence delay, as an accused person’s right to make  
full answer and defence requires that the defence be permitted time to  
prepare and present its case: R. v. Cody, at paras. 29 and 34.  
76  
Furthermore, the deduction for defence delay is intended to prevent  
the defence from benefitting from its own delay-causing action or  
inaction: R. v. Jordan at para. 113.  
[202] Where the presumptive ceiling has not yet been reached, this court may  
nevertheless find that the delay in this particular case was unreasonable where the  
defendant establishes two conditions on a balance of probabilities:  
1. The defendant took meaningful steps that demonstrate a  
sustained effort to expedite the proceedings, taking into  
consideration what the defendant could have done and what he  
actually did to get the case heard as quickly as possible. To meet this  
criterion, the defendant must demonstrate that he made more than  
token efforts to expedite the process. This could include attempting to  
set the earliest possible hearing dates, being cooperative with and  
responsive to the prosecution  
and the court, and putting the  
prosecution on timely notice when delay was becoming a problem. In  
making this determination, this court will not assess whether each of  
the defendant’s decisions were made perfectly, but whether he acted  
reasonably: R. v. Jordan at paras. 84 and 85.  
AND  
2. The case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.  
This type of assessment will require this court to consider a variety of  
factors, including the complexity of the case, whether the prosecution  
took reasonable steps to expedite the proceedings, and local  
considerations, such as how long a case of that nature typically takes  
to get to trial in light of the relevant local and systemic circumstances.  
This assessment is not based on precise calculations or a focus on  
minutiae, but rather through a bird’s eye view of the case: R. v.  
Jordan at paras. 87 to 90).  
[203] However, where the defendant cannot establish these two conditions, the s. 11(b)  
application must fail: R. v. Jordan, at para. 82.  
[204] Now for the present case, even without subtracting defence delay, the total delay  
in this case is 14.5 months (or 446 days) from the date the initial information  
(#7488) had been sworn on June 22, 2018, to the trial date of September 11,  
2019, which puts the defendant’s trial squarely below the presumptive ceiling of 18  
months. However, in circumstances where the trial takes place below the  
presumptive ceiling, it then falls on the defendant to demonstrate why the delay  
has, nevertheless, been unreasonable.  
[205] On that issue, the defendant has made the opposite of a "sustained effort" to  
expedite the proceedings. Specifically, the defendant has repeatedly and  
77  
deliberately attempted to delay the trial of this matter. At the defendant’s first court  
appearance on October 2, 2018, the defendant’s paralegal, Harpreet Luthra,  
delayed the matter by four months on account of his unavailability. And, by the  
second court appearance on February 5, 2019, the defendant’s legal  
representative, Harpreet Luthra was no longer representing the defendant. Then,  
at the end of the judicial pre-trial conference held on March 26, 2019, the  
defendant refused to agree to any available date between March 26, 2019 and  
July 1, 2019, as the defendant had claimed that he had travel plans. But, when  
Amenta J.P., who was presiding at the judicial pre-trial conference, had asked the  
defendant for proof of those travel plans, the defendant produced airline tickets  
that had been purchased on April 3, 2019, which is a date following the pre-trial  
conference date of March 26, 2019, where the defendant had been asked to agree  
to a trial date. Then, on April 8, 2019, after Amenta J.P. had learned that the  
defendant had only booked his airline tickets after the defendant had refused to  
accommodate a trial at the end of June, Amenta J.P. asked the defendant to  
change his travel plans, but the defendant had refused to do so. Amenta J.P. then  
set the defendant’s trial for September 11, 2019. Then, on August 19, 2019, the  
defendant brought a motion seeking to adjourn his trial scheduled for September  
11, 2019, for the reason that the defendant had a settlement conference on  
September 11th for an unrelated small claims case, but which had only been  
scheduled at a point that was some three months after the defendant’s trial date  
had already been set on April 8, 2019. At the hearing of the adjournment motion  
on September 3, 2019, Bonas J.P. dismissed the defendant’s application for an  
adjournment, calling the defendant’s motion "frivolous" and "lacking in  
truthfulness".  
[206] Ergo, when the period of net delay is calculated by subtracting the 2 months and  
10 days of defence-caused delay, which is the period of delay caused by the  
defendant travelling abroad between April 20, 2019 to July 1, 2019. Therefore, the  
net delay after subtracting the defence delay of 2 months and 10 days from the  
total delay of 14.5 months in this case is 12 month and 5 days, which is not an  
unreasonable period of delay. But more importantly, there is no evidence that the  
defendant had made any effort at all to expedite the proceedings.  
[207] Consequently, as the delay in getting to trial is not unreasonable the defendant’s  
Charter application under s. 11(b) is dismissed.  
(h) The Right To Not To Be Found Guilty On Account Of Any Act Or  
Omission Unless, At The Time Of The Act Or Omission, It  
Constituted An Offence Under Canadian Or International Law Or  
Was Criminal According To The General Principles Of Law  
Recognized By The Community Of Nations Under S. 11(g)  
[208] Moreover, the defendant claims that the defendant’s right not to be found guilty on  
account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it  
78  
constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal  
according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations  
under s. 11(g) has been infringed, since the defendant contends that the  
defendant had only omitted to include a particular statement that CPA Ontario had  
wanted the defendant to include with his foreign professional accounting  
qualifications and their corresponding initials or descriptions when he was taking or  
using them publicly in Ontario.  
[209] In response to the defendant’s s. 11(g) claim, the prosecution submits that s. 11(g)  
has no application in the circumstances, since s. 11(g) of the Charter protects an  
accused's right not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at  
the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence.  
[210] Section 11(g) of the Charter states:  
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters  
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right  
(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at  
the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under  
Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the  
general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;  
[211] Ergo, the defendant’s contention that because he had omitted to do something,  
namely failing to include the qualifying statement, “I am not a member of Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario) and I am not governed by CPA  
Ontario. My services have not been approved or endorsed by CPA Ontario”, as  
required by CPA Ontario, the defendant believes that he has not committed an  
offence. However, that is an erroneous interpretation on the defendant’s part of  
what the guaranteed right is that is set out in s. 11(g) of the Charter, considering  
on the circumstances and the applicable statutory provision, “omissions” by an  
accused person could form the actus reus of an offence. Therefore, omitting to do  
something could be an offence.  
[212] As to the purpose of s. 11(g) of the Charter, the Ontario Court of Appeal explained  
at para. 11 in Lalonde v. Canada (Attorney General), [2016] O.J. No. 6318, that s.  
11(g) of the Charter reflects a constitutional aversion to retrospective criminal  
legislation, since retrospective criminal laws are viewed as unfair and undermining  
the rule of law because they effectively change the rules in the middle of the  
"game", to the detriment of the individual affected by those rules:  
Section 11(i) of the Charter, like s. 11(g) and s. 11(h), reflects a constitutional  
aversion to retrospective criminal legislation. Retrospective criminal laws are  
viewed as unfair and undermining the rule of law because they effectively change  
the rules in the middle of the "game" to the detriment of the individual affected by  
79  
those rules. Fairness and respect for the rule of law require that a person's  
maximum exposure to punishment for a criminal act be fixed as of "the time of  
commission" of the criminal act for which he or she is to be punished: see R. v.  
K.R.J., 2016 SCC 31, 337 C.C.C. (3d) 285, at paras. 20-27.  
[213] Therefore, for the defendant’s s. 11(g) claim, the offences set out under the 3  
governing and applicable statutes in which the defendant has been charged with  
committing, were indeed “offencesat the time or during the period in question.  
Moreover, the prosecution is not seeking to prosecute the defendant under s. 29 of  
the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017 retroactively for the  
defendant’s acts or omissions that had occurred before the offence set out in s. 29  
had become operative on May 17, 2017.  
[214] In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that s. 11(g) is not concerned with  
whether a criminal law was published, but only with whether the law provided that  
the impugned conduct was criminal at the time of its commission: R. v.  
Furtney, [1991] S.C.J. No. 70.  
[215] On the other hand, the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R. v. Ryback, [1996]  
B.C.J. No. 285, held that s. 11(g) does not preclude reliance on evidence that pre-  
dates the time that an offence came into existence in law. The British Columbia  
Court of Appeal’s ruling, therefore, suggests that provided the act or omission for  
which a conviction is obtained had itself took place in the period during which an  
offence existed, evidence from an earlier period, prior to the coming into force of  
the offence, that helps to establish the context of the alleged criminal activity, and  
that may help to prove the offence, may be admitted without violating s. 11(g) of  
the Charter.  
[216] In sum, since there is no evidence that any of the charges laid under the 3  
governing statutes were being applied retroactively, then s. 11 (g) is not engaged,  
and as such, s. 11(g) has no application in or for the defendant’s circumstances.  
Therefore, the defendant’s claim under s. 11(g) of the Charter is dismissed.  
(i) The Right To Be Equal Before And Under The Law And The Right  
To The Equal Protection And Equal Benefit Of The Law Without  
Discrimination And, In Particular, Without Discrimination Based  
On Race, National Or Ethnic Origin, Colour, Religion, Sex, Age Or  
Mental Or Physical Disability Under S. 15(1)  
[217] The defendant also claims that the defendant’s right to the equal protection and  
equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without  
discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or  
mental or physical disability under s. 15 of the Charter has been infringed because  
CPA Ontario has discriminated against the defendant for being of the Sikh religion  
and for being a member of an ethnic group and not from the white race, since  
80  
hundreds of people from the white community are writing their professional  
accounting designations and their corresponding initials or descriptions on  
LinkedIn and the internet and that CPA Ontario is specifically picking on the  
defendant for being a turban-clad Sikh.  
[218] Section 15(1) of the Charter states:  
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of  
law  
15.(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right  
to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without  
discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on  
race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or  
physical disability.  
[219] Furthermore, s. 15 of the Charter applies to government action in the form of  
legislation, regulations, directions, policies, programs, activities and the actions of  
government agents carried out under lawful authority.  
[220] In addition, for s. 15 of the Charter to apply, the alleged inequality must be one  
made by "law". The most obvious form of law is a statute or a regulation.  
However, in certain cases, courts have held that s. 15(1) may also be infringed by  
the exercise of a statutory power or discretion, if that discretion is exercised in a  
manner that discriminates on the basis of an enumerated or analogous ground.  
[221] It is also noteworthy that s. 15(3) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario Act, 2017, contains an obligation on CPA Ontario when exercising powers  
or performing duties under the Act to treat “membersequally and without  
preference for or discrimination against any prior membership in or designation by  
a predecessor body (Certified General Accountants of Ontario, Certified  
Management Accountants of Ontario, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of  
Ontario), unless the Act or the by-laws provide otherwise.  
[222] Hence, the defendant’s claim of discrimination under s. 15 of the Charter is  
grounded on one of the enumerated categories set out in s. 15, namely that the  
defendant is being discriminated against by CPA Ontario because the defendant is  
of the Sikh religion, for being a member of an ethnic group, and for being a turban-  
clad Sikh. And, as with all of the defendant’s Charter claims, the defendant has  
the burden to prove the claimed discrimination and an infringement of s. 15 on a  
balance of probabilities.  
[223] In regards to the defendant’s claim of an infringement of his s. 15 equality rights,  
the prosecution submits that in R. v. Kapp, [2008] S.C.J. No 42, the Supreme  
Court of Canada had explained that s. 15(1) is aimed at preventing discriminatory  
81  
distinctions that impact adversely on members of groups identified by the grounds  
enumerated in s. 15 and on analogous grounds. However, the prosecution  
submits that s. 26 of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010; s. 27 of  
the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010; and s. 29 of the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017 does not engage s. 15, as the distinction in those  
respective statutory provisions are between members of the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario and non-members of the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario, between members of the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of Ontario and non-members of  
the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of Ontario, and between members of the CPA Ontario and non-  
members of CPA Ontario, and are not distinctions based on one of the  
enumerated grounds or analogous grounds for the purposes of s. 15 of the  
Charter.  
[224] The prosecution further submits that the only distinction that the statutory  
provisions in question draws is between members and non-members of the  
relevant governing institutions or bodies. Moreover, the prosecution submits that  
the membership/non-membership distinction created by the legislation applicable  
to the defendant is not an enumerated or analogous ground. As such, the  
prosecution contends that the defendant’s s. 15 infringement claim does not pass  
the first stage of the test in R. v. Kapp, [2008] S.C.J. No 42, and therefore, cannot  
succeed on the theory that any of the statutory provisions for which the defendant  
has been charged under is discriminatory.  
[225] And, as for CPA Ontario's exercise of statutory power, the defendant has  
complained that CPA Ontario is prosecuting him based on his religion, race, and  
national origin because he is Sikh and from India. This contention, submits the  
prosecution, ignores the central fact that the defendant has never been a member  
of CPA Ontario, and as such, there is no factual basis to suggest that CPA  
Ontario's decision to charge the defendant under the 3 statutes in question is  
anything other than as a consequence of the defendant's unlawful conduct as a  
non-member of CPA Ontario. Again, the prosecution emphasizes that the  
membership/non-membership distinction created by legislation regulating  
professional accountants in Ontario is not an enumerated or analogous ground.  
[226] But more importantly, to reduce the number of frivolous Charter claims brought  
under s. 15, the Supreme Court had held in Law Society British Columbia v.  
Andrews, [1989] S.C.J. No. 6, that the discrimination must be only in relation to the  
enumerated classes set out in s. 15 (race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion,  
sex, age or mental or physical disability) or in relation to an analogous class.  
[227] Analogous groundsas the Supreme Court has concluded are ones which  
describe personal characteristics that are either immutable (characteristics that  
people cannot change) or constructively immutable (characteristics that are  
changeable only at unacceptable cost to personal identity). To date, the Supreme  
Court has only identified 4 analogous grounds: (1) Non-citizenship: Law Society  
82  
British Columbia v. Andrews, [1989] S.C.J. No. 6; Lavoie v. Canada, [2002] S.C.J.  
No. 24; (2) Marital status: Miron v. Trudel, [1995] S.C.J. No. 44; Nova Scotia  
(Attorney General) v. Walsh, [2002] S.C.J. No. 84; (3) Sexual orientation: Egan v.  
Canada, [1995] S.C.J. No. 43; Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] S.C.J. No. 29; M. v.  
H., [1999] S.C.J. No. 23; Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada  
(Commissioner of Customs and Revenue), [2007] S.C.J. No. 2; and (4)  
Aboriginality-residence as it pertains to a member of an Indian Band living off  
the reserve: Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, [1999]  
S.C.J. No. 24.  
[228] In addition, the burden of proving an infringement of s. 15 lies with the claimant:  
Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] S.C.J. No. 12, at  
paras. 76 to 83. The amount and nature of the evidence required can vary greatly  
depending on the nature of the claim. Proof of legislative intent to discriminate is  
not required; the claimant must establish that either the purpose or the effect of the  
law or government action is discriminatory: Law v. Canada (Minister of  
Employment and Immigration), at para. 80. In relevant cases, it will be for the  
government to demonstrate that a measure falls within the scope of s. 15(2) and is  
therefore not discriminatory: R. v. Kapp, [2008] S.C.J. No 42, at paras. 39 to 41.  
[229] Moreover, while the courts generally require evidentiary support for a claim of  
discrimination, as a practical matter, the claimant does not have to adduce  
evidence to prove every element of the analysis: Law v. Canada (Minister of  
Employment and Immigration), at para. 82. Nor does the claimant have to adduce  
data or other sophisticated social science evidence not generally available in order  
to establish an infringement of s. 15(1); where appropriate, the courts may rely on  
judicial notice or logic: Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  
at para. 77.  
[230] In addition, the Supreme Court in Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and  
Immigration), had developed a three-step analysis for showing discrimination  
under s. 15(1), which it subsequently rearticulated in R. v. Kapp, [2008] S.C.J. No  
42, as a two-step test. Hence, the present test as set out in para. 17 in R. v. Kapp  
is the following:  
1. Does the law create a distinction based on an enumerated or  
analogous ground?  
2. Does the distinction create a disadvantage by perpetuating prejudice  
or stereotyping?  
[231] Therefore, the purpose of s. 15(1) is to prevent governments from making  
distinctions based on enumerated or analogous grounds that have the effect of  
perpetuating disadvantage or prejudice or imposing disadvantage on the basis of  
stereotyping.  
83  
[232] The first inquiry in the R. v. Kapp test is whether the law creates a distinction  
based on an enumerated or analogous ground. This first step is a threshold  
requirement in that a claim will fail if the defendant cannot demonstrate that a  
government law or action withholds a benefit that is provided to others or imposes  
a burden that is not imposed on others, based on an enumerated or analogous  
ground: Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, [2004] S.C.J. No. 75.  
[233] On the other hand, the second stage of the R. v. Kapp test is generally aimed at  
determining whether the distinction in question amounts to discrimination in the  
substantive sense. Thus, the second stage of the analysis is focused on the  
guiding concepts from Law Society British Columbia v. Andrews, [1989] S.C.J. No.  
6, of “the perpetuation of disadvantage and stereotyping as the primary indicators  
of discrimination”: R. v. Kapp, at para. 23; Withler v. Canada (Attorney General),  
[2011] S.C.J. No. 12, at para. 30.  
[234] Ergo, after a review of s. 26 of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010;  
s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010; and s. 29 of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, it is clear that those statutory  
provisions which prohibit the defendant from being able to publicly take or use his  
foreign professional accounting designations, initials, or descriptions in Ontario,  
and which prohibit the defendant from practicing as a Certified Management  
Accountant, Chartered Accountant or Chartered Professional Accountant in  
Ontario, is not because of a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous  
ground, but because the defendant is not a member of one of the 3 governing  
accounting bodies in Ontario in respect to those 3 statutes.  
[235] Specifically, the 3 pieces of governing legislation only permitted “members” of the  
Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, “members” of the Institute of  
Chartered Accountants of Ontario, or “members” of the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario to legally take or use publicly in Ontario their foreign  
professional accounting designations, initials, or descriptions, or to practice as  
Certified Management Accountant, Chartered Accountant or Chartered  
Professional Accountant in Ontario; while non-members of these three  
professional accounting bodies of Ontario were not so permitted to legally take or  
use publicly in Ontario their foreign professional accounting designations, initials,  
or descriptions (except under the 3 statutory exceptions and by a non-member  
expressly stating, “I am not a member of Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario (CPA Ontario) and I am not governed by CPA Ontario. My services have  
not been approved or endorsed by CPA Ontario”), or to practice as Certified  
Management Accountant, Chartered Accountant or Chartered Professional  
Accountant in Ontario.  
[236] Therefore, the distinction created by these statutory provisions which prohibit the  
defendant from being able to take or use publicly in Ontario his foreign  
professional accounting designations, initials, or descriptions, or to practice as  
Certified Management Accountant, Chartered Accountant or Chartered  
84  
Professional Accountant in Ontario, is between members of one of the  
professional accounting bodies of the Certified Management Accountants of  
Ontario, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, or the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario and those who are non-members of those 3  
professional accounting bodies of Ontario, of which the defendant is a non-  
member of those 3 bodies. And because the defendant is a non-member of those  
3 professional accounting bodies in Ontario, the defendant is denied the benefits  
that are granted to individuals who are members under those 3 governing statutes.  
[237] Hence, the distinction created by 26 of the Certified Management Accountants  
Act, 2010; s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010; and s. 29 of the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017 is one based on  
membership or non-membership in the 3 governing accounting bodies in Ontario,  
which is not an enumerated ground or an analogous ground for the purposes of s.  
15 of the Charter.  
[238] Furthermore, there is a Memorandum of Understanding (November 17, 2018)  
between CPA Ontario and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in which  
members in good standing of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India may  
apply for membership in CPA Ontario and to receive the professional accounting  
designation of “Chartered Professional Accountant” (“C.P.A.”), once they complete  
recommended but not mandatory courses, pass the Common Final Exam, and  
have the necessary experience. Moreover, members of the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of India are now given an exemption from having to take the CPA  
Professional Education Program (CPA PEP) modules provided by CPA Ontario  
and are only encouraged and advised to complete the Capstone 1 and Capstone 2  
modules3. This arrangement between CPA Ontario and the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of India (of which the defendant is a member) demonstrates the  
opposite of the defendant’s contention that CPA Ontario discriminates against  
applicants from India or against individuals who are Chartered Accountants from  
India.  
[239] But more significantly, there is no reliable evidence that has been adduced that  
supports the defendant’s contention that hundreds of people from the white  
community are writing their professional accounting designations and their  
corresponding initials or descriptions on LinkedIn and the internet, to establish that  
there is an air of reality to the defendant’s premise that CPA Ontario has been  
specifically picking on the defendant for being a turban-clad Sikh.  
[240] In sum, there has been no credible evidence that the defendant has been  
discriminated against by CPA Ontario based on one of the enumerated grounds  
under s. 15 of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or  
physical disability, or on the basis of one of the 4 analogous grounds established  
by the Supreme Court of Canada of “citizenship”, “sexual orientation”, “marital  
status” or aboriginality-residence. Ergo, as the defendant has failed to prove on a  
3 See footnotes #1 and #2.  
85  
balance of probabilities that s. 26 of the Certified Management Accountants Act,  
2010, s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, or s. 29 of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017 creates a distinction on the basis of  
an enumerated or analogous ground, as well as failing to prove on a balance of  
probabilities that CPA Ontario has exercised its statutory power in a discriminatory  
way, the defendant’s claim under s. 15 of the Charter is dismissed.  
(B) HAS THE PROSECUTION PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT  
THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS COMMITTED THE ACTUS REUS OF THE  
RESPECTIVE OFFENCES FOR THE 8 COUNTS IN INFORMATION  
#5539?  
(1) Count #1 - the website http://gujraltutor.com(Exhibit #9)  
(Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010.)  
[241] For count #1, the defendant has been charged with committing the offence  
between March 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018, at the City of Brampton in the  
Regional Municipality of Peel and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, of taking  
or using designations or initials or a description implying that he is a Certified  
Management Accountant, or otherwise holding himself out as a Certified  
Management Accountant, while not being a member of the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario, to wit: on the website http://gujraltutor.com, contrary to s.  
26 of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010.  
[242] Section 26 of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010 provides that no  
individual, other than a member of the Certified Management Accountants of  
Ontario is legally permitted take or use the designation “Certified Management  
Accountant” or the initials “C.M.A.”, “CMA”, “F.C.M.A.”, or “FCMA” or take or use  
any term, title, initials, designation or description implying that the individual is a  
Certified Management Accountant, or otherwise hold himself or herself out as a  
Certified Management Accountant, regardless of whether he or she provides  
services as a Certified Management Accountant:  
26(1) No individual, other than a member of the Corporation, shall, through an  
entity or otherwise,  
(a) take or use the designation “Certified Management Accountant”,  
“comptable en management accrédité”, “Registered Industrial  
Accountant” or “comptable en administration industrielle”, or the initials  
“C.M.A.”, “CMA”, “F.C.M.A.”, “FCMA”, “R.I.A.” or “RIA”, alone or in  
combination with other words or abbreviations;  
(b) take or use any term, title, initials, designation or description implying  
that the individual is a Certified Management Accountant or a  
Registered Industrial Accountant;  
86  
(c) practise as a Certified Management Accountant or Registered Industrial  
Accountant; or  
(d) otherwise hold himself or herself out as a Certified Management  
Accountant or a Registered Industrial Accountant, regardless of whether  
he or she provides services as a Certified Management Accountant or  
Registered Industrial Accountant to any individual or entity.  
Exceptions  
(2) Clauses (1) (a) and (b) do not apply to an individual in any of the following  
circumstances:  
1. The individual uses a term, title, initials, designation or description  
when making reference to authentic professional accounting  
qualifications obtained by the individual from a jurisdiction other than  
Ontario in,  
i. a speech or other presentation given at a professional or  
academic conference or other similar forum,  
ii. an application for employment or a private communication  
respecting the retainer of the individual’s services, if the reference  
is made to indicate the individual’s educational background and  
the individual expressly indicates that he or she is not a member  
of the Corporation and is not governed by the Corporation, or  
iii. a proposal submitted in response to a request for proposals, if the  
reference is made to demonstrate that the individual meets the  
requirements for the work to which the request for proposals  
relates.  
2. The individual uses a term, title, initials, designation or description as  
authorized by the by-laws.  
Same  
(3) For the purposes of subparagraph 1 ii of subsection (2), stating the name  
of the jurisdiction from which the qualifications were obtained after the  
term, title, initials, designation or description is not sufficient to expressly  
indicate that the individual is not a member of the Corporation and is not  
governed by the Corporation.  
[243] For both counts #1 and #3, the defendant states that he did not earn one dollar  
from the “http://gujral.tutor” website nor did the defendant charge anyone for  
accounting services or cheat anyone during the period in question, that the  
defendant also had 2 full-time jobs, that the defendant’s foreign professional  
accounting designations are authentic, and that the defendant’s conduct falls  
within the private communicationexception under s. 26(2)(1)(ii) of Certified  
87  
Management Accountants Act, 2010 and under s. 27(2)(1)(ii) of the Chartered  
Accountants Act, 2010 and that the defendant did not provide accounting services  
in Ontario in regards to the residence in Ontario requirement under s. 26(6) of the  
Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010 and under s. 27(6) of the Chartered  
Accountants Act, 2010.  
[244] After CPA Ontario received a complaint in March of 2017 about the defendant  
Joginder Singh Gujral’s misuse of designations that could impact CPA Ontario  
from the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, Karen Armstrong, a law  
clerk with the General Counsel’s Office of CPA Ontario, commenced an  
investigation of the defendant. On March 23, 2017, Armstrong found the website  
“http://gujraltutor.com(Exhibit #9), which any member of the public in Ontario can  
easily access and where the defendant had used his foreign professional  
accounting designations, initials, or descriptions of “Chartered Accountant” from  
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India”; “CMA” from the Institute of Cost  
and Management Accountants of India, “Fellow Member of Cost and Management  
Accountant (FCMA)”; “CMA (Certified Management Accountant) from IMA ( USA  
)”; and “fellow of the Institute of Cost Accountants of India (FCMA) where I am a  
Certified Management Accountant”.  
[245] Moreover, as the defendant had taken or used designations, initials, or  
descriptions on the website “gujraltutor.com” (Exhibit #9) that are equivalent to  
ones issued by CPA Ontario (namely “CMA”, “Certified Management Accountant”,  
“CA”, “Chartered Accountant”, “Fellow Chartered Accountant”, “FCA”, “Chartered  
Professional Accountant” or “CPA”), Armstrong opined that the public could be  
misled that the defendant is a member of CPA Ontario and the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Canada and qualified as a Chartered Professional  
Accountant due to the defendant using those professional accounting  
designations, initials, or descriptions publicly in Ontario when the defendant was  
not a member of the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, the Institute of  
Chartered Accountants of Ontario, and the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario (CPA Ontario ). In addition, the defendant had included on the website  
“gujraltutor.com” (Exhibit #9) the following statement, My sixth designationis [sp]  
CPA(Certified Public Accountant), CA(Chartered Accountant) (Candidate) from  
CPA Canada”. At the time that Karen Armstrong found the “gujraltutor.com”  
website on March 23, 2017, the defendant was not a member of any of the 3  
governing accounting bodies in Ontario, yet a member of the public in Ontario  
could misconstrue that the defendant is a Chartered Professional Accountant  
(CPA) or a Chartered Accountant (CA) with CPA Canada. In addition, the  
designation or description of “CA(Chartered Accountant) (Candidate)utilized by  
the defendant on the “gujraltutor.com” website is not a designation or description  
that is issued by CPA Ontario or any of the accounting bodies in Ontario or  
Canada.  
[246] The contents of the website gujraltutor.com(Exhibit #9) is substantially  
reproduced below:  
88  
Exhibit #9  
Joginder Gujral website: http://gujraltutor.com/about  
______________________________________________________________________________________________  
1-647-629-3862 Emailus: [email protected]_  
______________________________________________________________________________________________  
“logo”  
HOME ABOUT SERVICES COURSES WORK WITH US SUBMIT ASSIGNMENT CONTACT  
Gujral  
_______________________________________________________________  
About us  
Home About Us  
____________________________________________________________________________  
Why Choose Gujral Tutor  
Our offices are located in Ontorio, Canada. My name is Jogi Gujral and I have 25 years experience  
in accounting and taxation where I have held various positions in different companies such as  
Deloitte and have experience in dealing with a large number of clients.  
“Photo of  
Joginder  
Singh  
My firm provides the following professional services to broad range of small or medium sized  
entrepreneurial clients. I am serving the Greater Toronto Area including Brampton, Mississauqa,  
Toronto, Thornhill, Richmond Hills, Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke.  
Gujral”  
My aim Is to provide Accounting and Tax Services at reasonable rates to clients and to exercise  
due car and due diligence in my work In creating various accounting solutions for you and your  
company, which may also improve your standing with the federal revenue government.  
At Gujral Accounting, I hold 3 professional designations and I hold 3 other professional designations in the process of  
setting up shop in Ontario. During my period In India, I received my 1st professional accounting designation as a Chartered  
Accountant from Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in 1995 and still hold a position of Fellow Member of Chartered  
Accountant (FCA)  
At about the same time I embarked on a new journey in Accounting and got my second professional Cost and Management  
Accounting designation as a CMA from Institute of Cost and Management Accountants of India in 1995 where I still currently  
hold a position of Fellow Member of Cost and Management Accountant (FCMA).  
After earning these two designations, I worked for the Legal and Corporate Affairs position as a third designation of  
Company Secretary(lnter) in 2002. These Included working as a Legal Issues pertaining to Companies Act for Corporate  
position and posturing the company in all these matters and also include activities in Legal incorporations.  
My fourth designation was an MBA from IIM Bangalore in 2004 where I got an MBA In Strategy, Marketing, Human  
Resources and Finance and worked with many teams during and after the degree to provide for services in these industries.  
My fifth designation was CMA (Certified Management Accountant) from IMA ( USA ) and also a fellow of the Institute of  
Cost Accountants of Indla (FCMA) where I am a Certified Management Accountant and working towards making a change  
In the profession through my years or experience.  
My sixth designationis CPA(Certified Public Accountant), CA(Chartered Accountant) (Candidate) from CPA Canada.  
89  
[247] Tom Litzgus, Associate General Counsel of CPA Ontario, then sent a “cease and  
desist” letter dated March 30, 2017 (Exhibit #10) to the defendant at the  
defendant’s address of 18 Tustin Road, Brampton, which had informed the  
defendant that the defendant had been identifying himself to the public in Ontario  
as a CPA, CAand CMA, but because the defendant is only a student with the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario ("CPA Ontario"), then the  
defendant is, in fact, not a member with CPA Ontario or the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario ("CMA Ontario"). Litzgus also included copies of the Kijiji  
advertisement” (Exhibit #8) and the “http://gujraltutor.comwebpage (Exhibit #9)  
where the defendant had been improperly using the professional accounting  
designations and initials of “CPA, “CAand “CMA”. In addition, Litzgus had  
included proof that the designation "CPA" is owned by CPA Ontario and is  
protected as an official mark held by CPA Ontario and that it may only be used  
with CPA Ontario’s permission. Furthermore, Litzgus had informed the defendant  
that individuals are indeed permitted to reference designations earned from  
accounting bodies outside of Ontario, but only in the limited circumstances  
described in ss. 27(2) and (3) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010. Moreover,  
Litzgus explained to the defendant that simply adding "Candidate" or the  
jurisdiction from which a foreign accounting designation was obtained is not  
sufficient to avoid the requirements in ss. 27(2) and (3). Litzgus then requested  
that the defendant remove all references to "CPA", "CA", and "CMA" from all of the  
defendant’s documents, business cards, letterhead, websites, e-mails, social  
media or other advertising or communication materials. The March 30, 2017  
cease and desistletter (Exhibit #10) by Tom Litzgus is reproduced substantially  
below:  
90  
EXHIBIT #10  
BY REGISTERED MAIL  
March 30, 2017  
Mr. Joginder Gujral  
18 Tustin Road  
Brampton, ON L6P 3K9  
Dear Mr. Gujral:  
It has come to our attention that you are currently identifying yourself to the public in Ontario as a CPA, CA  
and CMA. Our records indicate that while you are a student with Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario ("CPA Ontario") you are not, in fact, a member with CPA Ontario or the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario ("CMA Ontario"). Enclosed is a copy of your website pages showing use of those  
initials.  
Under the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, (the "Act") only members of CPA Ontario may  
take or use the designation "Chartered Accountant" or the initials "C.A.", or "CA", alone or in combination  
with other words or abbreviations, or take or use any term, title, initials, designation or description implying  
that the individual is a Chartered Accountant.  
Similarly, under the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, only members of CMA Ontario may take  
or use the designation "Certified Management Accountant" or the initials "CMA" or "C.M.A.", alone or in  
combination with other words or abbreviations, or take or use any term, title, initials, designation or description  
implying that the individual is a Certified Management Accountant, or otherwise hold himself out as such in  
Ontario.  
In addition, "CPA" is protected as an official mark held by CPA Ontario and may only be used with our  
permission. Proof of our ownership is enclosed for your reference.  
Individuals are permitted to reference designations earned from accounting bodies outside of Ontario only in  
the limited circumstances described in subsections 27(2) and (3) of the Act. Adding "Candidate" or the  
jurisdiction from which a foreign accounting designation was obtained is not sufficient to avoid the  
requirements noted above.  
We seek your cooperation in respecting the provisions of the Act and our proprietary rights in the official  
mark. Accordingly, we require that you remove all references to "CPA", "CA", and "CMA" all on documents,  
business cards, letterhead, websites, e-mails, social media or other advertising or communication materials.  
Please respond to this letter by April 14, 2017 confirming that you have taken these steps.  
Yours truly,  
“Signature”  
Tom Litzgus  
Associate General Counsel  
Phone: (416) 969-4153  
Enclosures  
Private and Confidential  
91  
[248] Therefore, as of April 3, 2017, the defendant was aware that the taking or use of  
his foreign professional accounting designations, initials, or descriptions, or the  
taking or use of the designation of “CPA” which is a registered mark of CPA  
Ontario, publicly in Ontario while not a member of any of the 3 Ontario Accounting  
bodies was not legally permitted, since the defendant had acknowledged and  
replied to Tom Litzgus’s cease and desist letter dated March 30, 2017 (Exhibit  
#10), by an e-mail dated April 3, 2017 at 11:24 a.m. (Exhibit # 11) informing Tom  
Litzgus that the defendant had modified his Kijiji advertisement, removed reference  
to “Candidate” and that the defendant had promised to abide by all the guidelines  
and respect the provisions of the Act:  
Monday, April 03, 2017 11:24 AM  
Hello Tom,  
I have just received your letter dated March 30, 2017.  
I have always mentioned jurisdiction India after my designations. Moreover, the  
fact that I am a student with CPA Ontario, I have mentioned Candidate. I have  
seen this practice by all the students of CPA Ontario. You may see on Linkedin,  
and other social media too. For now, I have removed it all together.  
To co-operate with CPA Ontario, I have modified my advertisements in Kijiji.  
Kindly approve, whether this is by the guidelines. Extract for your reference.  
I at this moment propose to modify the content of my website. Enclosed extract  
of the modification. Kindly approve whether this is in accordance with the  
guidelines.  
I hereby, promise to abide by all the guidelines and respect the provisions of the  
Act. Would sincerely appreciate if you respond to my email at the earliest.  
Yours truly,  
Joginder Gujral  
18 Tustin Road  
Brampton ON  
[249] Moreover, the defendant had also been informed subsequently in writing by Tom  
Litzgus by an e-mail dated April 3, 2017 at 4:41 p.m. (Exhibit #11), that as a non-  
member of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (the governing  
accounting body of Certified Management Accountants, Chartered Accountants,  
Certified General Accountants, and Chartered Professional Accountants in Ontario  
after the amalgamation of the 3 accounting bodies), that if the defendant was “not  
providing [not] accounting services to the public (but only teaching, tutoring or  
other services), then it would be permissible to describe the defendant’s foreign  
92  
designations to indicate the defendant’s educational background, but that in order  
to avoid confusion by the public the defendant must also include the following  
statement wherever the defendant does so: I am not a member of Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario) and I am not governed  
by CPA Ontario. My services have not been approved or endorsed by CPA  
Ontario:  
On Apr 3,20174:41 PM, "Tom Litzgus" <[email protected]> wrote:  
Mr. Gujral,  
Thank you for your email. You cannot use your foreign designations to advertise  
providing accounting services to the public in Ontario. It does not matter if you  
include the foreign jurisdiction from which you received the designation.  
If you are not providing not accounting services to the public (but only teaching,  
tutoring or other services), it is okay to describe your foreign designations to  
indicate your educational background, but in order to avoid confusion by the  
public you must also include the following statement wherever you do so:  
I am not a member of Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA  
Ontario) and I am not governed by CPA Ontario. My services have not been  
approved or endorsed by CPA Ontario.  
[250] The requirement to include and express the statement to the public in Ontario of  
non-membership in any of the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, the  
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, and the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario is derived from ss. 26(2)(1)(ii) and 26(3) of the Certified  
Management Accountants Act, 2010, of ss. 27(2)(1)(ii) and 27(3) of the Chartered  
Accountants Act, 2010, and of ss. 29(2)(b) and s. 29(3) of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017.  
[251] Therefore, as of April 3, 2017, the defendant was aware that he could not legally  
take or use his foreign professional accounting designations, initials, or  
descriptions, or take or use the designation of “CPA” which is a protected mark of  
CPA Ontario, publicly in Ontario, unless the defendant was a member of any one  
of the 3 Ontario accounting bodes of the Certified Management Accountants of  
Ontario, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, and the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario, and that if the defendant was not providing  
accounting services to the public and only teaching, tutoring or providing other  
services, then it would be permissible for the defendant to describe the  
defendant’s foreign designations to indicate the defendant’s educational  
background, and in order to avoid confusion by the public that the defendant had  
to include the required statement, I am not a member of Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario) and I am not governed  
by CPA Ontario. My services have not been approved or endorsed by CPA  
Ontario.”  
93  
[252] Furthermore, in respect to count #1, the prosecution has proven beyond a  
reasonable doubt that the website page at http://gujraltutor.com/about(Exhibit  
#9) is connected to the defendant through the name used on the website page of  
“Jogi Gujral”, which is a short form for Joginder Singh Gujral” and the name “Jogi”  
is specifically mentioned as a short form name on the defendant’s student profile  
with CPA Ontario (Exhibit #4); through the photograph on the website page at  
http://gujraltutor.com/aboutwhich matches the defendant’s face and the passport  
photograph on the passport page provided by the defendant to CPA Ontario  
(Exhibit #5); through the telephone number “647-629-3862” provided on the  
website page at http://gujraltutor.com/aboutwhich matches the telephone  
number associated with the defendant (see Exhibit #6, p. 7 in respect to e-mail  
chain between the defendant and Audrey Lubowitz, the Admissions Coordinator  
with CPA Ontario, in which the defendant had provided his telephone number of  
647-629-3862 in the e-mail dated January 18, 2016 at 12:26 p.m.).  
[253] The defendant, Joginder Singh Gujral, had been a registered student of CPA  
Ontario as of June 23, 2015 and that on February 12, 2018, he been deregistered  
as a student of CPA Ontario.  
[254] Moreover, the defendant was not a member of the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario prior to May 17, 2017 or a member of the Institute of the  
Chartered Accountants of Ontario prior to May 17, 2017, nor after May 17, 2017, a  
member of CPA Ontario, and that as a student studying and preparing for the  
qualification exam for membership in CPA Ontario, the defendant is not a member  
of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario, nor of CPA Ontario (see Exhibit #7).  
[255] Furthermore, the defendant’s public-facing use of his foreign accounting  
designations and their corresponding initials or descriptions on the  
“http://gujraltutor.com” website (Exhibit #9) do not fall within the statutory  
exceptions set out in s. 26(2)(1) of the Certified Management Accountants Act,  
2010.  
Specifically, the defendant was not using his foreign accounting  
designations and corresponding initials or description in (1) a speech or other  
presentation given at a professional or academic conference or other similar  
forum, (2) in an application for employment or a private communication respecting  
the retainer of the individual’s services, if the reference is made to indicate the  
individual’s educational background and the individual expressly indicates that he  
or she is not a member of the Corporation and is not governed by the Corporation,  
or (3) in a proposal submitted in response to a request for proposals, if the  
reference is made to demonstrate that the individual meets the requirements for  
the work to which the request for proposals relates.  
[256] Although the defendant contends that the contents in the http://gujraltutor.com”  
website is a private communication, the contents of the http://gujraltutor.com”  
webpage that was captured by Karen Armstrong on March 23, 2017, was,  
94  
however, available to be seen by the public in Ontario, and is therefore, not a  
private communication for the purposes of the private communication exception  
under s. 26(2)(1)(ii) of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, since the  
contents of the http://gujraltutor.comwebpage was not a specific application to a  
specific employer for employment or a private communication with a specific party  
respecting the retainer of the defendant’s services (if the reference is made to  
indicate the individual’s educational background and the individual expressly  
indicates that he or she is not a member of the Certified Management Accountants  
of Ontario and is not governed by the Certified Management Accountants of  
Ontario).  
[257] But, more importantly, 26(3) of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010  
states that for the purposes of s. 26(2)(1)(ii), even stating the name of the  
jurisdiction from which the qualifications were obtained after the term, title, initials,  
designation or description is not sufficient to expressly indicate that the individual  
is not a member of the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario and is not  
governed by the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario. Although the  
defendant, in this public-facing use of his foreign accounting designations and  
corresponding initials or descriptions on the http://gujraltutor.comwebsite (Exhibit  
#9), which was aimed at the public in Southern Ontario and the Greater Toronto  
Area, did on some occasions refer to India and the United States as the foreign  
jurisdiction where he received those professional accounting designations, but he  
did not refer to the foreign jurisdiction for all of his professional accounting  
designations, which could as a consequence of that omission then lead a member  
of the public to believe that the defendant had obtained some of those professional  
accounting designations from CPA Ontario and qualified to practice public  
accounting in Ontario as a Certified Management Accountant, Chartered  
Accountant or Chartered Professional Accountant.  
[258] In addition, the defendant did not include a statement on the “http://gujraltutor.com”  
website (Exhibit #9) that expressly indicates that the defendant is not a member of  
the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario and is not governed by the  
Certified Management Accountants of Ontario and that his services have not been  
approved or endorsed by the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario as  
required under ss. 26(2)(1)(ii) and 26(3) of the Certified Management Accountants  
Act, 2010.  
[259] In his defence, the defendant contends that he did not practice public accounting,  
and did not make any money, nor did he cheat anyone. However, s. 26 of the  
Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010 does not require actual proof that  
the defendant was practicing public accounting in Ontario, as s. 26 prohibits  
anyone from taking or using the designation “Certified Management Accountant” or  
the initials “C.M.A.”, “CMA”, “F.C.M.A.”, “FCMA” publicly in Ontario or holds  
themselves out as or implies that they are a Certified Management Accountant,  
unless they are members of Certified Management Accountants of Ontario. In  
particular, s. 26(1)(d), expressly states, “regardless of whether the defendant  
95  
provides services as a Certified Management Accountant to any individual or  
entity”, which means that proof of the defendant actually providing such services to  
someone is not required to establish the defendant had been holding himself out  
as or implying that he is a Certified Management Accountant.  
[260] Moreover, practicing as a Certified Management Accountant in Ontario when not  
licenced in Ontario as a Certified Management Accountant is a different offence  
and since the defendant’s public-facing use of his foreign accounting designations  
and their corresponding initials did not fall within the 3 exceptions set out under s.  
26(2) of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, and since the  
defendant is not a member of Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, and  
since the defendant did not expressly and specifically indicate on the  
“http://gujraltutor.com” website (Exhibit #9) that the defendant is not a member of  
the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario and is not governed by the  
Certified Management Accountants of Ontario and that his services have not been  
approved or endorsed by the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario as  
required under ss. 26(2)(1)(ii) and 26(3) of Certified Management Accountants Act,  
2010, then the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the  
defendant committed the actus reus of the offence under s. 26 of Certified  
Management Accountants Act, 2010 for count #1 of “taking or using designations  
or initials or a description implying that he is a Certified Management Accountant,  
or otherwise holding himself out as a Certified Management Accountant, while not  
being a member of the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario.  
(2) Count #2 Kijiji Advertisement (Exhibit #8) (Certified Management  
Accountants Act, 2010)  
[261] For count #2, the defendant has been charged with committing the offence  
between March 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018, at the City of Brampton in the  
Regional Municipality of Peel and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, of taking  
or using designations or initials or a description implying that he is a Certified  
Management Accountant, or otherwise holding himself out as a Certified  
Management Accountant, while not being a member of the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario, to wit: in a Kijiji advertisement, contrary to s. 26 of the  
Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010.  
[262] For both counts #2 and #4, the defendant states that the “Kijiji advertisement”  
contained only minor issues that were rectified by the defendant after April 3, 2017  
and that the defendant did not issue the Kijiji advertisement after April 3, 2017 (the  
date of Tom Litzgus’ cease and desist letter sent to the defendant) and that Karen  
Armstrong did not find a Kijiji advertisement after September 25, 2017, and that  
the defendant’s foreign professional accounting designations are authentic, that  
the defendant also had 2 full-time jobs, and that the content and defendant’s  
conduct in respect to the Kijiji advertisement falls within the private communication  
exception under s. 26(2)(1)(ii) of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010,  
under s. 27(2)(1)(ii) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, and under s. 29(2)(b)  
96  
of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, and that the  
defendant did not provide accounting services in Ontario in regards to the  
residence in Ontariorequirement under s. 26(6) of the Certified Management  
Accountants Act, 2010, under s. 27(6) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010,  
and under s. 29(6) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act,  
2017.  
[263] For the Kijiji advertisement, Karen Armstrong testified that she had observed the  
Kijiji advertisement on March 23, 2017 during her internet and Google search of  
the defendant, and then captured a screenshot of the Kijiji advertisement (Exhibit  
#8) using the Microsoft Office Suite software application. Armstrong also testified  
that she kept the Kijiji advertisement as a PDF file and the copy of the Kijiji  
advertisement entered as Exhibit #8 is the Kijiji advertisement that she had  
observed on March 23, 2017. She also said that the Kijiji advertisement contained  
the same Gujral logo as she had observed on the gujraltutor.comwebpage  
(Exhibit #9). Moreover, she said that she was able to link the Kijiji advertisement  
to the defendant through the use of the e-mail address of “jogi@gujral.com and the  
telephone number of 647-629-3862. Armstrong also said that the telephone  
number 647-629-3862 was the same telephone number provided by the defendant  
to CPA Ontario Student Services for his contact information while the defendant  
was a student with CPA Ontario (see Exhibit #6, p. 7 in respect to e-mail chain  
between the defendant and Audrey Lubowitz, the Admissions Coordinator with  
CPA Ontario, in which the defendant had provided his telephone number of 647-  
629-3862 in the e-mail dated January 18, 2016 at 12:26 p.m.). “Jogi” in the e-mail  
address of [email protected]is the short form of the defendant’s first name  
“Joginder” which the defendant had used as his “informal” name in information  
provided for his student profile with Student Services of CPA Ontario (see Exhibit  
#4).  
[264] The Kijiji advertisement (Exhibit #8) is reproduced substantially below:  
97  
Exhibit #8  
Joginder Gujral Kijiji ad  
___________________________________________________________________________________________________  
“Kijiji logo”  
____________________________________________________________________________________________________  
Search for anything  
All ads  
Toronto (GTA)  
____________________________________________________________________________________________________  
Ontario > Toronto (GTA) > City of Toronto > services > tutors, languages in City of Toronto > Ad ID 1215708051 Back to result list I Next >  
“Ads”  
Accounting and Finance Tuitions / Assignments by CPA, CA, CMA  
Favourite Print Report Ad  
share       
About  
the  
Poster  
Date Listed  
Address  
14-Feb-17  
Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, 120 St. George St, Toronto, ON M5S 1A5,  
Canada  
“logo”  
_____  
Gujral  
View map  
Accounts tuition and help with assignments  
EXPERIENCE OF TEACHING ACCA, CMA, CA, CPA Core, Elective, CFE (Management  
Accounting), MBA  
View larger image  
I am qualified CPA, CA (Canada Candidate), CMA (USA), CA(I), CMA(I), MBA(IIM-B) and CS  
(I)  
Courses in all the central Canadian colleges and universities like York University, Humber  
College, George Brown University College, OCAD University, Ryerson University, Centennial  
College, Seneca College, University of Toronto  
All subjects in the field of Accounting, Taxation, and Finance covered including but not limited  
to the following  
Business Accounting  
Financial Accounting  
Management Accounting  
Taxation  
Financial Reporting  
Audit and Assurance  
Managerial Finance  
Decision making, simulation exercises, online quizzes  
Classes can be held at library also  
Weekend Classes also available  
Please email at [email protected] or call 647-629-3862  
www.gujraltutor.com  
Locations: Brampton, Burlington, Caledon, London, Markham, Mississauga, Richmond Hill,  
Toronto, Vaughan, Waterloo  
98  
[265] Moreover, the defendant had admitted that the Kijiji advertisement (Exhibit #8) was  
his advertisement.  
[266] To reiterate, the defendant was not a member of the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario or a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of  
Ontario prior to May 17, 2017, nor a member of CPA Ontario after May 17, 2017,  
but during the period in question was a student studying and taking CPA Ontario  
courses and preparing for the qualification exam for membership in CPA Ontario.  
But more importantly, students of these 3 Ontario accounting bodies, such as the  
defendant, are not members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario,  
the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, nor of CPA Ontario.  
[267] In the Kijiji advertisement (Exhibit #8), the defendant had taken or used the  
following professional accounting designations, initials, or descriptions of  
Assignments by CPA, CA, CMA”, of “EXPERIENCE OF TEACHING ACCA, CMA,  
CA, CPA – Core, Elective, CFE (Management Accounting), MBA”, and of “I am  
qualified CPA, CA (Canada Candidate), CMA (USA), CA(I), CMA(I), MBA(IIM-B)  
and CS(I)”. Hence the defendant had taken or used the following designations,  
initials, or descriptions, “CPA”, “CA”, “CMA”, “CA(Canada Candidate), CMA, CMA  
(USA), CA(I), CMA(I), when the defendant was not a member of one of the 3  
Ontario accounting bodies of the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario,  
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, and the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario, and which is prohibited by s. 26 of the Certified  
Management Accountants Act, 2010, s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act,  
2010, and s. 29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017  
[268] Moreover, by using his foreign professional accounting designations, initials, or  
descriptions in the Kijiji Advertisement (Exhibit #8), even with a reference to the  
country of their origin could still lead a member of the public to believe the  
defendant is a qualified Certified Management Accountant, Chartered Accountant,  
or Chartered Professional Accountant and qualified to providing professional  
accounting services to the public in Ontario. Furthermore, the use of (I)”, which is  
the letter “I” in parentheses, after the designation “CMA” may confuse a member of  
the public that the defendant is a Certified Management Accountant qualified in  
Ontario. Moreover, the defendant’s use of the professional accounting description  
“CMA(I)” in the Kijiji advertisement may be misconstrued by a member of the  
public in Ontario, since a member of the public may not know that particular  
description used by the defendant refers to a Certified Management Accountant  
from India or that he is only qualified to practice as a Certified Management  
Accountant in India and not in Ontario. In short, the use of (I)”, which is the letter  
“I” in parentheses, is not a clear indication that this particular description refers to  
the country of India. It could also refer to any word beginning with the letter “i”  
such as “interim”, “international”, “impeccable, or even “instructor”.  
99  
[269] In addition, the defendant did not include a statement in the Kijiji advertisement  
(Exhibit #8) that expressly indicates that the defendant is not a member of the  
Certified Management Accountants of Ontario and is not governed by the Certified  
Management Accountants of Ontario and that his services have not been  
approved or endorsed by the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario as  
required under ss. 26(2)(1)(ii) and 26(3) of the Certified Management Accountants  
Act, 2010.  
[270] Again, in his defence, the defendant contends that he did not practice public  
accounting, and did not make any money, nor did he cheat anyone. However, s.  
26 of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010 does not require actual  
proof that the defendant was practicing public accounting in Ontario, as s. 26  
prohibits anyone from taking or using the designation “Certified Management  
Accountant” or the initials “C.M.A.”, “CMA”, “F.C.M.A.”, “FCMA” publicly in Ontario,  
or holds themselves out as or implies that they are a Certified Management  
Accountant, unless they are members of Certified Management Accountants of  
Ontario. In particular, s. 26(1)(d), expressly states, “regardless of whether the  
defendant provides services as a Certified Management Accountant to any  
individual or entity”, which means that proof of the defendant actually providing  
such services to someone is not required to establish the defendant had been  
holding himself out as or implying that he is a Certified Management Accountant.  
[271] Furthermore, the defendant’s Kijiji advertisement was aimed at the public in  
Ontario and the defendant’s public-facing use of his foreign accounting  
designations, descriptions and their corresponding initials did not fall within the 3  
exceptions set out under s. 26(2) of the Certified Management Accountants Act,  
2010, and since the defendant is not a member of Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario, and since the defendant did not expressly and specifically  
indicate on the Kijiji advertisement that the defendant is not a member of the  
Certified Management Accountants of Ontario and is not governed by the Certified  
Management Accountants of Ontario and that his services have not been  
approved or endorsed by the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario as  
required under ss. 26(2)(1)(ii) and 26(3) of Certified Management Accountants Act,  
2010, then the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the  
defendant committed the actus reus of the offence under s. 26 of Certified  
Management Accountants Act, 2010 for count #2 of “taking or using designations  
or initials or a description implying that he is a Certified Management Accountant,  
or otherwise holding himself out as a Certified Management Accountant, while not  
being a member of the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario.  
(3) Count #3 - the website http://gujraltutor.com(Exhibit #9) (Chartered  
Accountants Act, 2010)  
[272] For count #3, between March 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018, at the City of Brampton  
in the Regional Municipality of Peel and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, the  
defendant is charged with taking or using designations or initials or a description  
100  
implying that he is a Chartered Accountant, or otherwise holding himself out as a  
Chartered Accountant, while not being a member of the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of Ontario, to wit: on the website http://gujraltutor.com, contrary to s.  
27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010.  
[273] Section 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010 provides that no individual,  
other than a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario is legally  
permitted take or use the designation "Chartered Accountant" or the initials "C.A.",  
"CA", "F.C.A.", or "FCA" or take or use any term, title, initials, designation or  
description implying that the individual is a Chartered Accountant, or otherwise  
hold himself or herself out as a Chartered Accountant, regardless of whether he or  
she provides services as a Chartered Accountant [emphasis is mine below]:  
Prohibitions  
Prohibition, individuals  
27(1) No individual, other than a member of the Institute, shall, through an entity  
or otherwise,  
(a) take or use the designation “Chartered Accountant” or the initials  
“C.A.”, “CA”, “A.C.A.”, “ACA”, “F.C.A.” or “FCA”, alone or in  
combination with other words or abbreviations;  
(b) take or use any term, title, initials, designation or description implying  
that the individual is a Chartered Accountant;  
(c) practise as a Chartered Accountant; or  
(d) otherwise hold himself or herself out as a Chartered Accountant,  
regardless of whether he or she provides services as a Chartered  
Accountant to any individual or entity.  
Exceptions  
(2) Clauses (1) (a) and (b) do not apply if an individual uses a term, title,  
initials, designation or description when making reference to authentic  
professional accounting qualifications obtained by the individual from a  
jurisdiction other than Ontario in,  
(a) a speech or other presentation given at a professional or academic  
conference or other similar forum;  
(b) an application for employment or a private communication respecting  
the retainer of the individual’s services, if the reference is made to  
indicate the individual’s educational background and the individual  
expressly indicates that he or she is not a member of the Institute  
and is not governed by the Institute; or  
(c) a proposal submitted in response to a request for proposals, if the  
reference is made to demonstrate that the individual meets the  
101  
requirements for the work to which the request for proposals relates.  
Same  
(3) For the purposes of clause (2) (b), stating the name of the jurisdiction from  
which the qualifications were obtained after the term, title, initials,  
designation or description is not sufficient to expressly indicate that the  
individual is not a member of the Institute and is not governed by the  
Institute.  
[274] For count #3, the prosecution is relying on the same website  
http://gujraltutor.com(Exhibit #9) as had been relied upon by the prosecution to  
prove count #1. Because the defendant had made the following reference at the  
bottom of the http://gujraltutor.comwebpage: “My sixth designationis [sp]  
CPA(Certified Public Accountant), CA(Chartered Accountant) (Candidate) from  
CPA Canada.”, a member of the public could misconstrued from this professional  
accounting description and initials “CA(Chartered Accountant) (Candidate) from  
CPA Canada, that the defendant is a qualified Chartered Accountant in Ontario  
and qualified by CPA Canada when the defendant is in fact not a member of the  
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario.  
[275] For both counts #1 and #3, the defendant states that he did not earn one dollar  
from the “http://gujral.tutor” website nor did the defendant charge anyone for  
accounting services or cheat anyone during the period in question, that the  
defendant also had 2 full-time jobs, that the defendant’s foreign professional  
accounting designations are authentic, and that the defendant’s conduct falls  
within the private communication exception under s. 26(2)(1)(ii) of Certified  
Management Accountants Act, 2010 and under s. 27(2)(1)(ii) of the Chartered  
Accountants Act, 2010 and that the defendant did not provide accounting services  
in Ontario in regards to the residence in Ontario requirement under s. 26(6) of the  
Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010 and under s. 27(6) of the Chartered  
Accountants Act, 2010.  
[276] Again, in his defence, the defendant contends that he did not practice public  
accounting and did not make any money nor did he cheat anyone. However, s. 27  
of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010 does not require actual proof that the  
defendant was practicing as a Chartered Accountant in Ontario, as s. 27 prohibits  
anyone from taking or using the designation “Chartered Accountant” or the initials  
“C.A.”, “CA”, “F.C.A.”, “FCA” publicly in Ontario, or holds themselves out as or  
implies that they are a Chartered Accountant, unless they are members of the  
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario. In particular, s. 27(1)(d), expressly  
states, “regardless of whether the defendant provides services as a Chartered  
Accountant to any individual or entity”, which means that proof of the defendant  
actually providing such services to someone is not required to establish the  
defendant had been holding himself out as or implying that he is a Chartered  
Accountant.  
102  
[277] And, for count #3, as similarly decided in count #1, which also involved the  
defendant’s website http://gujraltutor.com(Exhibit #9), the taking or use by the  
defendant of his foreign professional accounting designations, initials or  
descriptions, did not fall within the 3 exceptions set out under s. 27(2) of the  
Chartered Accountants Act, 2010. Therefore, since the defendant is not a member  
of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, and since the defendant did  
not expressly and specifically indicate on the “http://gujraltutor.com” website  
(Exhibit #9) that the defendant is not a member of the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of Ontario and is not governed by the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of Ontario and that his services have not been approved or endorsed  
by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, as required under ss.  
27(2)(1)(ii) and 27(3) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, then the prosecution  
has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the actus  
reus of the offence under s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010 for count  
#3 of “taking or using designations or initials or a description implying that he is a  
Chartered Accountant, or otherwise holding himself out as a Chartered  
Accountant, while not being a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of  
Ontario”.  
(4) Count #4 - Kijiji advertisement (Exhibit #8) (Chartered Accountants  
Act, 2010)  
[278] For count #4, between March 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018, at the City of Brampton  
in the Regional Municipality of Peel and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, the  
defendant is charged with taking or using designations or initials or a description  
implying that he is a Chartered Accountant, or otherwise holding himself out as a  
Chartered Accountant, while not being a member of the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of Ontario, to wit: in a Kijiji advertisement, contrary to s. 27 of the  
Chartered Accountants Act, 2010.  
[279] In addition, the prosecution for count #4 is also relying on the same Kijiji  
advertisement (Exhibit #8) that had been relied upon by the prosecution to prove  
count #2. Therefore, because the defendant had made reference publicly in  
Ontario in the Kijiji advertisement to being a qualified Chartered Accountantand  
in using the corresponding initials “CA”, when the defendant was not a member of  
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, the defendant has contravened  
s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010.  
[280] For both counts #2 and #4, the defendant states that the “Kijiji advertisement”  
contained only minor issues that were rectified by the defendant after April 3, 2017  
and that the defendant did not issue the Kijiji advertisement after April 3, 2017 (the  
date of Tom Litzgus’ cease and desist letter sent to the defendant) and that Karen  
Armstrong did not find a Kijiji advertisement after September 25, 2017, and that  
the defendant’s foreign professional accounting designations are authentic, that  
the defendant had 2 full-time jobs, and that the content and defendant’s conduct in  
103  
respect to the Kijiji advertisement falls within the private communication exception  
under s. 26(2)(1)(ii) of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, under s.  
27(2)(1)(ii) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, and under s. 29(2)(b) of the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, and that the defendant  
did not provide accounting services in Ontario in regards to the “residence in  
Ontario” requirement under s. 26(6) of the Certified Management Accountants Act,  
2010, under s. 27(6) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, and under s. 29(6) of  
the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017.  
[281] To reiterate, the defendant had admitted that the Kijiji advertisement (Exhibit #8)  
was his advertisement.  
[282] Furthermore, the defendant was not a member of the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario or a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of  
Ontario prior to May 17, 2017, nor a member of CPA Ontario after May 17, 2017,  
but during the period in question was a student studying and taking CPA Ontario  
courses and preparing for the qualification exam for membership in CPA Ontario.  
But more importantly, students of these 3 Ontario accounting bodies, such as the  
defendant, are not members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario,  
the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, nor of CPA Ontario.  
[283] In the Kijiji advertisement (Exhibit #8), the defendant had taken or used the  
following professional accounting designations, initials, or descriptions of  
“Assignments by CPA, CA, CMA”, of “EXPERIENCE OF TEACHING ACCA, CMA,  
CA, CPA – Core, Elective, CFE (Management Accounting), MBA”, and of “I am  
qualified CPA, CA (Canada Candidate), CMA (USA), CA(I), CMA(I), MBA(IIM-B)  
and CS(I)”. Hence the defendant had taken or used the following designations,  
initials, or descriptions, “CPA”, “CA”, “CMA”, “CA(Canada Candidate)”, “CMA”,  
CMA (USA), CA(I), CMA(I)”, when the defendant was not a member of one of  
the 3 Ontario accounting bodies of the Certified Management Accountants of  
Ontario, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, and the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario, and which is prohibited by s. 26 of the  
Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants  
Act, 2010, and s. 29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act,  
2017  
[284] Moreover, by using his foreign professional accounting designations, initials, or  
descriptions in the Kijiji Advertisement (Exhibit #8), even with a reference to the  
country of their origin could still lead a member of the public to believe the  
defendant is a qualified Certified Management Accountant, Chartered Accountant,  
or Chartered Professional Accountant and qualified to provide professional  
accounting services to the public in Ontario. Furthermore, the use of (I)”, which is  
the letter “I” in parentheses, after the designation “CA” may confuse a member of  
the public that the defendant is a Chartered Accountant qualified in Ontario.  
Moreover, the defendant’s taking or use of the professional accounting description  
“CA(I)” in the Kijiji advertisement may be misconstrued by a member of the public  
104  
in Ontario, since a member of the public may not know that particular description  
used by the defendant refers to a Chartered Accountant from India or that he is  
only qualified to practice as a Chartered Accountant in India and not in Ontario. In  
short, the use of (I)”, which is the letter “I” in parentheses, is not a clear indication  
that this particular description refers to the country of India. It could also refer to  
any word beginning with the letter “i” such as “interim”, “international”,  
“impeccable”, or even “instructor”.  
[285] Furthermore, the defendant used the designation or description “in the Kijiji  
Advertisement (Exhibit #8), of “CA(Canada Candidate)” which is not a designation  
that is issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario or by CPA  
Ontario, but when used publicly in Ontario could also confuse a member of the  
public that the defendant is a Chartered Accountant qualified to practice in Ontario.  
[286] In addition, the defendant did not include a statement in the Kijiji advertisement  
(Exhibit #8) that expressly indicates that the defendant is not a member of the  
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario and is not governed by the Institute  
of Chartered Accountants of Ontario and that his services have not been approved  
or endorsed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario as required under  
ss. 27(2)(1)(ii) and 27(3) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010.  
[287] Again, in his defence, the defendant contends that he did not practice public  
accounting, and did not make any money, nor did he cheat anyone. However, s.  
27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010 does not require proof that the  
defendant was practicing public accounting in Ontario, as s. 27 prohibits anyone  
from taking or using the designation “Chartered Accountant” or the initials “C.A.”,  
“CA”, “F.C.A.”, “FCA” publicly in Ontario, or holds themselves out as or implies that  
they are a Chartered Accountant, unless they are members of Institute of  
Chartered Accountants of Ontario. In particular, s. 27(1)(d), expressly states,  
“regardless of whether the defendant provides services as a Chartered Accountant  
to any individual or entity”, which means that proof of the defendant actually  
providing such services to someone is not required to establish the defendant had  
been holding himself out as or implying that he is a Chartered Accountant.  
[288] Furthermore, the defendant’s Kijiji advertisement (Exhibit #8) was aimed at the  
public in Ontario and the defendant’s public-facing use of his foreign accounting  
designations, descriptions and their corresponding initials did not fall within the 3  
exceptions set out under s. 27(2) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, and  
since the defendant is not a member of Institute of Chartered Accountants of  
Ontario, and since the defendant did not expressly and specifically indicate on the  
Kijiji advertisement that the defendant is not a member of the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of Ontario and is not governed by the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of Ontario and that his services have not been approved or endorsed  
by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario as required under ss.  
27(2)(1)(ii) and 27(3) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, then the prosecution  
has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the actus  
105  
reus of the offence under s. 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010 for count  
#4 of “taking or using designations or initials or a description implying that he is a  
Chartered Accountant, or otherwise holding himself out as a Chartered  
Accountant, while not being a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of  
Ontario”.  
(5) Count #5 - LinkedIn profile page (Exhibit #12) (Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017)  
[289] For count #5, between March 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018, at the City of Brampton  
in the Regional Municipality of Peel and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, the  
defendant is charged with taking or using designations or initials or a description  
implying that he is a Chartered Professional Accountant, Chartered Accountant,  
Certified Management Accountant, or Certified General Accountant, or otherwise  
holding himself out as a Chartered Accountant, while not being a member of the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, to wit: on a LinkedIn Profile,  
contrary to s. 29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017.  
[290] As set out under s. 29(1) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario  
Act, 2017, only a “member” of the CPA Ontario is legally permitted to take or use  
the professional accounting designation “Chartered Professional Accountant” and  
“Fellow Chartered Professional Accountant” and the corresponding initials with or  
without periods of those accounting designations of “C.P.A.”, “F.C.P.A.”, as well as  
predecessor designations or initials with or without periods such as “Chartered  
Accountant”, “Associate Chartered Accountant”, “Fellow Chartered Accountant”,  
“Certified Management Accountant”, “Fellow Certified Management Accountant” or  
their corresponding initials with or without periods, “C.A.”, “A.C.A.”, “F.C.A.”,  
“C.M.A.”, or “F.C.M.A.” in the public realm in Ontario, or hold themselves out as a  
“Chartered Professional Accountant”, “Chartered Accountant”, “Fellow Chartered  
Accountant”, “Certified Management Accountant”, or “Fellow Certified  
Management Accountant” to the public in Ontario, or practice as a “Chartered  
Professional Accountant” in Ontario [emphasis is mine below]:  
Prohibitions  
Prohibitions, individuals  
29(1) No individual, other than a member of CPA Ontario, shall, through an entity  
or otherwise,  
(a) take or use a designation referred to in section 17 or initials referred to  
in section 18, whether alone or combined or intermixed in any manner  
with any other words or abbreviations;  
(b) take or use any term, title, initials, designation or description implying  
that the individual is a Chartered Professional Accountant, Chartered  
Accountant, Certified Management Accountant, Registered Industrial  
Accountant or Certified General Accountant;  
106  
(c) otherwise hold himself or herself out as a Chartered Professional  
Accountant, Chartered Accountant, Certified Management  
Accountant, Registered Industrial Accountant or Certified General  
Accountant; or  
(d) practise as a Chartered Professional Accountant.  
[291] However, under s. 29(2) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act,  
2017, an individual, who is not a “member” of CPA Ontario, may still legally take or  
use their foreign professional accounting designations, “Chartered Accountant”,  
“Fellow Chartered Accountant”, “Certified Management Accountant” or the  
corresponding initials “C.A.”, “CA”, “F.C.A.”, “FCA”, “C.M.A.”, “CMA”, “F.C.M.A.”,  
“FCMA”, in Ontario in 3 specific situations, which are: (1) for the purposes of a  
speech or other presentation given by the individual at a professional or academic  
conference or other similar forum; (2) for the purposes of the individual’s  
application for employment or a private communication respecting the retainer of  
the individual’s services, if the reference is made to indicate the individual’s  
educational background and the individual expressly indicates that he or she is not  
a member of CPA Ontario and is not governed by CPA Ontario; or (3) for the  
purposes of a proposal submitted by the individual in response to a request for  
proposals, if the reference is made to demonstrate that the individual meets the  
requirements for the work to which the request for proposals relates [emphasis is  
mine below]:  
Exception  
29(2) Clauses (1) (a) and (b) do not apply if an individual uses a term, title,  
initials, designation or description when making reference to authentic  
professional accounting qualifications obtained by the individual from a  
jurisdiction other than Ontario in,  
(a) a speech or other presentation given at a professional or academic  
conference or other similar forum;  
(b) an application for employment or a private communication respecting  
the retainer of the individual’s services, if the reference is made to  
indicate the individual’s educational background and the individual  
expressly indicates that he or she is not a member of CPA Ontario  
and is not governed by CPA Ontario; or  
(c) a proposal submitted in response to a request for proposals, if the  
reference is made to demonstrate that the individual meets the  
requirements for the work to which the request for proposals relates.  
[292] And, more importantly, s. 29(3) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario Act, 2017, provides that even stating the name of the jurisdiction from  
107  
which the foreign professional accounting designations or their corresponding  
initials were obtained after the term, title, initials, designation or description is not  
sufficient to expressly indicate that the individual is not a member of CPA Ontario,  
and is not governed by CPA Ontario [emphasis is mine below]:  
29(3) For the purposes of clause (2) (b), stating the name of the jurisdiction from  
which the qualifications were obtained after the term, title, initials,  
designation or description is not sufficient to expressly indicate that the  
individual is not a member of CPA Ontario and is not governed by CPA  
Ontario.  
[293] Furthermore, s. 29(6) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act,  
2017 expressly states that the prohibition under s. 29, which prohibits an individual  
from taking or using their foreign professional accounting designations or their  
corresponding initials in Ontario, does not apply extraterritorially and does not  
apply to the situation where the individual uses those designations or initials  
outside Ontario or outside Canada, as long as the individual does not reside, have  
an office or offer or provide accounting services in Ontario [emphasis is mine  
below]:  
Non-application  
(6) Nothing in this section affects or interferes with the right of a person to use  
any term, title, initials, designation or description identifying himself or  
herself as an accountant, if the person does not reside, have an office or  
offer or provide accounting services in Ontario.  
[294] In addition. s. 18(2) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act,  
2017, permits members of CPA Ontario to continue use their previous professional  
accounting designations, initials, or descriptions such as Certified Management  
Accountant, CMA, C.M.A., Fellow Certified Management Accountant, FCMA,  
F.C.M.A., Chartered Accountant, CA., C.A., Fellow Chartered Accountant, FCMA,  
or F.C.M.A along with the new designations, initials and descriptions of Chartered  
Professional Accountant, CPA, or C.P.A.  
[295] For count #5, the defendant states that the defendant’s foreign professional  
accounting designations are authentic on his LinkedIn Profile page and that the  
contents and the defendant’s conduct in respect to the defendant’s LinkedIn Profile  
page falls within the private communication exception under s. 29(2)(b) of the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017 and that the defendant  
did not provide accounting services in Ontario in regards to the residence in  
Ontario requirement under s. 29(6) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario Act, 2017.  
[296] In respect to count #5, after another complaint had been received that the  
defendant was contravening the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario  
108  
Act, 2017 by misuse of his foreign professional accounting designations, initials or  
descriptions, Karen Armstrong, a law clerk with the General Counsel’s Office of  
CPA Ontario, was asked again to investigate the defendant. On March 20, 2018,  
Karen Armstrong conducted another internet and Google search of the defendant.  
To ensure that she would not be mistakenly looking at previous websites or  
webpages in respect to the defendant that she had previously found and saved on  
her computer, Armstrong said she had cleared her cache memory on her  
operating system on her computer, so that any previous webpages she had  
captured and saved on her computer would not appear as a default file. This  
clearing of her cache memory Armstrong said, was to ensure that any new  
webpages or websites she would find in relation to the defendant would not be  
websites or webpages that she already had saved on her computer, and that any  
new websites or webpages related to the defendant would be indeed new ones  
and not the ones that she had previously saved or captured on her computer on  
March 23, 2017.  
[297] On March 20, 2018, Armstrong found the defendant’s LinkedIn profile page  
(Exhibit #12) during her internet and Google search. Armstrong then took a  
screenshot of the defendant’s LinkedIn profile page and kept it as a PDF file and  
testified that the copy of the LinkedIn profile page entered as Exhibit #12 is the  
same LinkedIn profile page that she had observed on March 20, 2018.  
[298] Pages 1 and 2 of the defendant’s LinkedIn Profile page (Exhibit #12) is reproduced  
substantially below:  
109  
Exhibit #12 -- Defendant’s LinkedIn Profile page:  
3/20/2018  
Joginder Gujral FCA, FCMA, CMA (USA) I Linkedln  
Joginder Gujral FCA, FCMA, CMA (USA)  
Fellow Chartered Accountant  
Gujral Finance Inc., Canada, USA and India Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario …  
Toronto, Canada Area ● 500+ &&  
Connect  
Experienced Director with a demonstrated history of working in the accounting industry. Skilled in Cash  
Flow, Budgeting, Internal Audit, Strategic Planning, and Accounting.  
Currently implementing IFRS 15 by reviewing 340 contracts for the reputed publicly listed company.  
Performed Canadian SOX and Internal Controls in Canadian Company. Inventoried and analyzed material  
revenue contracts to identify missed opportunities?  
Show less ^  
+ Follow  
Joginder Gujral's Articles  
1,436 followers  
IFRS 15 implementation  
January 1, 2018  
Roadmap from  
CMA INDIA To  
CPA CANADA CERTIFICATION  
ROADMAP FROM CMA INDIA TO CPA  
CANADA CERTIFICATION  
Joginder Gujral FCA, FCMA, CMA (USA) on LinkedIn  
November 1, 2017  
IFRS 15 implementation  
Joginder Gujral FCA, FCMA, CMA (USA) on LinkedIn  
October 29, 2017  
See all articles  
Experience  
Finance and Accountng Professional  
Gujral Finance Inc., Canada, USA and India  
Aug 2015 - Present 2 yrs 8 mos  
GTA, Canada  
Implementation of IFRS 15, and reviewing of 340 contracts in Publicly Listed Company.  
Director (Volunteer)  
Toronto Overseas Centre of Cost Accountants Of India  
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jogigujral/  
(page 1 of 4)  
___________________________________________________________________________________  
3/20/2018  
Joginder Gujral FCA, FCMA, CMA (USA) I Linkedln  
110  
111  
Guiding new entrants to Canada and potential new entrants understand and navigate the  
landscape.  
Development of businesses and professionals.  
Director Of Finance And Accounting  
AI Habtoor Group and Others  
Apr 2011 - Jul 2015 • 4 yrs 4 mos  
UAE  
A. Vice President - Finance and Accounting  
AL FARAA CONSTRUCTION AND INDUSTRIAL GROUP  
Sep 2008 - Dec 2010 • 2 yrs 4 mos  
UAE  
AI Fara'a with revenue of $lB has 10 group companies and strength of 15,000 workforces.  
Financial Controller  
ITT Inc.  
Oct 2005 - Jul 2008 • 2 yrs 10 mos  
United States  
ITT is $10.9B high-technology engineering and manufacturing company.  
Project Management through the project's lifecycle; from conception to implementation and  
training.  
Show more  
___________________________________________________________________________  
Education  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Canada)  
CPA  
CPA, CA (Candidate), Finance, Strategy, Assurance  
CANADA  
2015 - 2016  
Chartered Accountant  
Institute of Management Accountants  
CMA (USA), Management Accounting  
2015 - 2015  
Activities and Societies: Certified Management Accountant (USA)  
Show more   
_____________________________________________________  
Volunteer Experience  
Fund raising  
HelpAge  
India Social Services  
______________________________________________________  
Skills & Endorsements  
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jogigujral/  
(page 2 of 4)  
[note: pages 3 and 4 include more of the defendant’s work experience]  
112  
[299] On page 1 of the defendant’s LinkedIn profile page (Exhibit #12), which any  
member of the public can easily access in Ontario, is where the defendant had  
used the professional accounting designations, initials, or descriptions of “FCA,  
FCMA, CMA (USA)” beside his name and “Fellow Chartered Accountant” under  
his name. But more importantly, there is no clear indication that the professional  
accounting designations “FCA” and “FCMA” were granted or obtained in India, so  
that a member of the public in Ontario could be misled about the defendant being  
a “Fellow Chartered Accountant” or “Fellow Certified Management Accountant”  
and permitted to practice as a Chartered Accountant or Certified Management  
Accountant in Ontario, especially when a member of the public looks at page 2 of  
the defendant’s LinkedIn profile page (Exhibit #12) where the defendant also  
included under the category “Education” that he had the following education,  
“Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Canada) CPA, CA  
(Candidate), Finance, Strategy, Assurance 2015 2016”. Ergo, the defendant’s  
use of the professional accounting designations, initials, or descriptions of “CPA,  
CA (Candidate)” in conjunction with the reference to the accounting body of  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Canada), could also be  
misconstrued by a member of the public in Ontario that the defendant is a  
Chartered Professional Accountant or Chartered Accountant and qualified and  
authorized by CPA Ontario or CPA Canada to practice as a Chartered  
Professional Accountant, Chartered Accountant, or Certified Management  
Accountant in Ontario, when the defendant in fact is not a member of CPA Ontario.  
[300] Moreover, the defendant had used the designation or description on page 2 of the  
defendant’s LinkedIn profile page (Exhibit #12) where the defendant also included  
under the category “Education” that he had the following education, “Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Canada) CPA, CA (Candidate), which  
is not a designation that is issued by the by CPA Ontario, but when used publicly  
in Ontario could also confuse a member of the public that the defendant is a  
Chartered Professional Accountant or Chartered Accountant qualified to practice in  
Ontario.  
[301] Furthermore, the defendant, Joginder Singh Gujral, had been a registered student  
of CPA Ontario as of June 23, 2015 and that on February 12, 2018, he been  
deregistered as a student of CPA Ontario.  
[302] In addition, the defendant was not a member of the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario prior to May 17, 2017 or a member of the Institute of the  
Chartered Accountants of Ontario prior to May 17, 2017, nor after May 17, 2017, a  
member of CPA Ontario, and that as a student studying and preparing for the  
qualification exam for membership in CPA Ontario, the defendant is not a member  
of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario, nor of CPA Ontario (see Exhibit #7).  
113  
[303] Furthermore, the defendant’s LinkedIn profile page (Exhibit #12) was not a private  
communication, but had been aimed at the general public in Ontario. To be a  
private communication for the purposes of the exception under s. 29(2)(b) of the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, which legally permits the  
defendant to take or use his professional accounting designations, initials, or  
descriptions in Ontario, the defendant would have to be applying for employment  
to a particular person or company with the application addressed specifically to  
that individual or company or the defendant had been communicating directly with  
a specific individual or company in respect to the retainer of the defendant’s  
services, in which the defendant’s professional accounting designations, initials, or  
descriptions can be used in reference to the defendant’s educational background if  
the defendant had expressly indicated that he is not a member of CPA Ontario and  
is not governed by CPA Ontario. The statement that the defendant is not a  
member of CPA Ontario and is not governed by CPA Ontario was not expressly  
stated on the defendant’s Linked In Profile page. Instead, the defendant implied  
that he was a member of CPA Ontario on page 2 by including the following  
statement under the category “Education” that he had the following education:  
“Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Canada) CPA, CA  
(Candidate), Finance, Strategy, Assurance 2015 2016”  
[304] In addition, a public-facing resume listing the defendant’s education, experience,  
and professional designations and positions held in which any member of the  
public has easy and complete access does not meet the definition of a private  
communication.  
[305] Ergo, because the defendant’s LinkedIn Profile page stated, “Joginder Gujral FCA,  
FCMA, CMA (USA) -- Fellow Chartered Accountant” without clearly identifying that  
the professional accounting designation, initials, or description of “FCA”, “FCMA”  
and “Fellow Chartered Accountant” were obtained in India or granted in India, a  
member of the public in Ontario may misconstrue that the defendant is a Certified  
Management Accountant, a Chartered Accountant, and a Chartered Professional  
Accountant that is qualified in Ontario by CPA Ontario, especially since under the  
heading “Education” in the defendant’s LinkedIn Profile page the following  
statement beside the CPA Canada logo is indicated: “Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario (CPA Canada) CPA, CA (Candidate), Finance, Strategy,  
Assurance 2015 - 2016”. The designation “CPA” and CA (Candidate) (which does  
not exist as a professional designation or description issued by CPA Ontario)  
under the Educationheading could be easily misconstrued by a member of the  
public in Ontario that the defendant is a Chartered Accountant and a Chartered  
Professional Accountant that has been qualified by CPA Ontario.  
[306] In addition, the defendant did not include a statement on the defendant’s LinkedIn  
profile page (Exhibit #12) that expressly indicates that the defendant is not a  
member of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario) and  
is not governed by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA  
Ontario) and that his services have not been approved or endorsed by the  
114  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario) as required under  
ss. 29(2)(b) and 29(3) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010.  
[307] Again, in his defence, the defendant contends that he did not practice public  
accounting, and did not make any money, nor did he cheat anyone. However, s.  
29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017 does not  
require actual proof that the defendant was practicing as a Chartered Accountant  
in Ontario, Chartered Accountant, Certified Management Accountant, or Certified  
General Accountant, as s. 29 prohibits anyone from taking or using the designation  
“Chartered Professional Accountant” or the initials “C.A.”, “CA”, “F.C.A.”, “FCA”  
publicly in Ontario or of any of the predecessor designations, initials or  
descriptions, or from holding themselves out as or implying that they are a  
Chartered Professional Accountant, unless they are members of the CPA Ontario.  
Moreover, proving the defendant had been holding himself out as or implying that  
he is a Chartered Professional Accountant may be fulfilled without proof that the  
defendant had actually provided such services of a Chartered Professional  
Accountant to an individual or an entity. Such proof can be from proven by  
screenshots of websites where the defendant expressly states that he is providing  
services of Chartered Professional Accountant to the public or implies that he is  
providing services of a Chartered Professional Accountant to the public.  
[308] Furthermore, the defendant’s public-facing use of his foreign accounting  
designations, descriptions and their corresponding initials did not fall within the 3  
exceptions set out under s. 29(2) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario Act, 2017, and since the defendant is not a member of CPA Ontario, and  
since the defendant did not expressly and specifically indicate on the defendant’s  
LinkedIn profile page (Exhibit #12) that the defendant is not a member of  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario) and is not governed  
by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario ) and that his  
services have not been approved or endorsed by the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario ) as required under ss. 29(2)(b) and 29(3) of  
the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, then the prosecution  
has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the actus  
reus of the offence under s. 29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario Act, 2017 for count #5 of “taking or using designations or initials or a  
description implying that he is a Chartered Professional Accountant, Chartered  
Accountant, Certified Management Accountant, or Certified General Accountant,  
or otherwise holding himself out as a Chartered Accountant, while not being a  
member of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario”.  
(6) Count #6 - the website http://home.icmai-canada.org.(Exhibit #15)  
(Chartered Accountants Act, 2010)  
[309] For count #6, between March 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018, at the City of Brampton  
in the Regional Municipality of Peel and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, the  
115  
defendant is charged with taking or using designations or initials or a description  
implying that he is a Chartered Professional Accountant, Chartered Accountant,  
Certified Management Accountant, or Certified General Accountant, or otherwise  
holding himself out as a Chartered Accountant, while not being a member of the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, to wit: on the website  
http://home.icmai-canada.org, contrary to s. 29 of the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017.  
[310] In respect to count #6, Karen Armstrong testified that when she did the internet  
and Google search of the defendant on March 20, 2018, she came across the pop-  
up window for the website http://home.icmai-canada.org/(Exhibit #15). She also  
said she took a screenshot of the pop-up window and testified that the copy of the  
pop-up window page for website http://home.icmai-canada.org/entered as is  
Exhibit #15 is what she had observed on March 20, 2018.  
[311] The pop-up window page for the website http://home.icmai-canada.org/(Exhibit  
#15) is reproduced substantially below:  
116  
Exhibit #15:  
Pop-up window on the Toronto Overseas Centre of Cost Accountants of India  
http://home.icmai-canada.org/  
“Photo of  
Joginder  
Gujral”  
JOGINDER GUJRAL  
_______________  
Director, Corporate Development  
    
Joginder has been CMA member since  
1995 and is also CMA from USA. He  
is also Chartered Accountant from  
India and Candidate CPA, CA,  
Canada. He has successful career,  
spanning over 20 years with Fortune  
500 companies and has accomplished  
start-up operations, implemented SAP  
and availed financing solutions  
[312] For count #6, the defendant states that it can be verified with the Canada Revenue  
Agency that the website http://home.icmai-canada.org.(Exhibit #15), which is  
associated the Toronto Overseas Centre of Cost Accountants of India is a non-  
profit organization, and that the defendant did not make any money or earn one  
dollar from the “http://home.icmai-canada.org” website, nor did the defendant  
charge anyone for accounting services or cheat anyone during the period in  
question; that the defendant had 2 full-time jobs; that the defendant’s foreign  
117  
professional accounting designations are authentic; and that as soon as the  
concerns by CPA Ontario were brought to the defendant’s attention, the defendant  
removed those particular concerns from the Toronto chapter website. In addition,  
the defendant submits that the website http://home.icmai-canada.org.(Exhibit  
#15) is aimed at India.  
[313] On the other hand, the prosecution submits that the website http://home.icmai-  
canada.org.(Exhibit #15) has nothing to do with India except in relation to people  
from India who reside in Toronto.  
[314] In the “http://home.icmai-canada.org” website (Exhibit #15), just below the  
defendant’s photograph the following statement was made, “Joginder has been  
CMA member since 1995 and is also CMA from USA. He is also Chartered  
Accountant from India and Candidate CPA, CA, Canada”. The use of the  
professional accounting designations, initials, or description in that statement of  
“CMA member since 1995” does not make reference to India as the country in  
which the defendant had obtained that particular professional accounting  
designation, so that a member of the public in Ontario could misconstrue that the  
defendant is a Certified Management Accountant qualified and authorized to  
practice in Ontario. As for the statement, “Candidate CPA, CA, Canadathat was  
also on the “http://home.icmai-canada.org” website, the reference to the defendant  
being a “CPA, CA, Canadaalso could be misconstrued by a member of the public  
in Ontario that the defendant is a Chartered Professional Accountant or a  
Chartered Accountant qualified in Canada when in fact the defendant has not been  
qualified as a Chartered Professional Accountant or a Chartered Accountant in  
Canada or Ontario, or is a member of CPA Ontario, or that the defendant is  
authorized to practice as a Chartered Professional Accountant or a Chartered  
Accountant in Ontario.  
[315] In addition, the defendant, Joginder Singh Gujral, had been a registered student of  
CPA Ontario as of June 23, 2015 and that on February 12, 2018, he been  
deregistered as a student of CPA Ontario.  
[316] Moreover, the defendant was not a member of the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario prior to May 17, 2017 or a member of the Institute of the  
Chartered Accountants of Ontario prior to May 17, 2017, nor after May 17, 2017, a  
member of CPA Ontario, and that as a student studying and preparing for the  
qualification exam for membership in CPA Ontario, the defendant is not a member  
of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario, nor of CPA Ontario (see Exhibit #7).  
[317] Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that the website http://home.icmai-  
canada.org.(Exhibit #15) is targeted only at India. On the other hand, the web  
address is related to a Canadian organization or entity and the title name of the  
organization of Toronto Overseas Centre of Cost Accountants of Indiain respect  
to the webpage is linked to Toronto and is more aligned with Cost Accountants of  
118  
India who actually reside in Toronto, and that the website is available to the  
general public in Ontario to view.  
[318] In addition, the defendant did not include a statement in the website  
http://home.icmai-canada.org.(Exhibit #15) that expressly indicates that the  
defendant is not a member of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario  
(CPA Ontario) and is not governed by the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario (CPA Ontario) and that his services have not been approved or endorsed  
by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario) as required  
under ss. 29(2)(b) and 29(3) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario  
Act, 2017.  
[319] Again, in his defence, the defendant contends that he did not practice public  
accounting, and did not make any money, nor did he cheat anyone. However, s.  
29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017 does not  
require actual proof that the defendant was practicing as a Chartered Accountant  
in Ontario, Chartered Accountant, Certified Management Accountant, or Certified  
General Accountant, as s. 29 prohibits anyone from taking or using the designation  
“Chartered Professional Accountant” or the initials “C.A.”, “CA”, “F.C.A.”, “FCA”  
publicly in Ontario or of any of the predecessor designations, initials or  
descriptions, or from holding themselves out as or implying that they are a  
Chartered Professional Accountant, unless they are members of the CPA Ontario.  
Moreover, proving the defendant had been holding himself out as or implying that  
he is a Chartered Professional Accountant may be fulfilled without proof that the  
defendant had actually provided such services of a Chartered Professional  
Accountant to an individual or an entity. Such proof can be from proven by  
screenshots of websites where the defendant expressly states that he is providing  
services of Chartered Professional Accountant to the public or implies that he is  
providing services of a Chartered Professional Accountant to the public.  
[320] Furthermore, the defendant’s website http://home.icmai-canada.org.” (Exhibit #15)  
was aimed at the public in Ontario and the defendant’s public-facing use of his  
foreign accounting designations, descriptions and their corresponding initials did  
not fall within the 3 exceptions set out under s. 29(2) of the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, and since the defendant is not a member of  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario), and since the  
defendant did not expressly and specifically indicate on the website  
http://home.icmai-canada.org.(Exhibit #15) that the defendant is not a member  
of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario) and is not  
governed by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario) and  
that his services have not been approved or endorsed by the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario), as required under ss. 29(2)(b)  
and 29(3) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, then  
the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant  
committed the actus reus of the offence under s. 29 of the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017 for count #6 of “taking or using designations or  
119  
initials or a description implying that he is a Chartered Professional Accountant,  
Chartered Accountant, Certified Management Accountant, or Certified General  
Accountant, or otherwise holding himself out as a Chartered Accountant, while not  
being a member of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario”.  
(7) Count #7 - the website http://gujralaccounting.ca(Exhibit #14)  
(Chartered Accountants Act, 2010)  
[321] For count #7, between March 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018, at the City of Brampton  
in the Regional Municipality of Peel and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, the  
defendant is charged taking or using designations or initials or a description  
implying that he is a Chartered Professional Accountant, Chartered Accountant,  
Certified Management Accountant, or Certified General Accountant, or otherwise  
holding himself out as a Chartered Accountant, while not being a member of the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, to wit: on the website  
http://gujralaccounting.ca, contrary to s. 29 of the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017.  
[322] In respect to count #7, Karen Armstrong testified that when she did the internet  
and Google search of the defendant on March 20, 2018, she came across the pop-  
up window for website http://gujralaccounting.ca(Exhibit #14). She also said she  
took a screenshot of the pop-up window page and testified that the copy of the  
pop-up window page for website http://gujralaccounting.caentered as is Exhibit  
#14 is what she had observed on March 20, 2018.  
[323] Pages 1 and 2 for the website http://gujralaccounting.ca(Exhibit #14) is  
reproduced substantially below:  
120  
Exhibit #14:  
page 1  
Gujral Finance Inc. – “Home” website page (under www.gujralaccounting.ca)  
Welcome To The Gujral Finance Inc.  
“logo”  
“logo”  
“logo”  
Business Plan Development  
Cash Flow Management  
Professional Back office  
Operations  
Attract the capital you need by providing Establish your business credentials with  
a statement of your business goals, quality planning of future cash  
reasons they are attainable, and plans requirements and payment staging.  
Finance, Accounts, HR, IT,  
Administration: make them profit  
centres by reducing cost and  
measuring there productivity.  
for reaching them  
Interactive business plan models,  
including cash flow forecasts and  
working capital requirements,  
“CMA  
USA  
wording  
and  
“CPA Chartered Professional  
“CA Chartered Accountants  
“CMA The Institute of Cost  
Accountants  
wording  
and logo”  
of Canada  
wording  
and logo”  
Accountants of India  
wording  
and logo”  
logo”  
________________________________________________________________________________________________  
page 2  
Gujral Finance Inc. - "About Us" website page (under www.gujralaccounting.ca)  
Our offices are located in Ontorio, Canada. My name is Jogi Gujral and I presently have 25 years experience  
in accounting and taxation where I have held various positions in different companies such as Deloitte and have  
experience in dealing with a large number of clients. My firm provides the following professional services to  
broad range of small or medium sized entrepreneurial clients. I am serving the Greater Toronto Area including  
Brampton, Mississauqa, Toronto, Thornhill, Richmond Hills, Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke.  
Photo of  
Joginder  
Singh Gujral  
My aim Is to provide Accounting and Tax Services at reasonable rates to clients and to exercise due car and  
due diligence in my work in creating various accounting solutions for you and your company, which may also  
improve your standing with the federal revenue government.  
At Gujral Accounting, I hold 3 professional designations and I hold 3 other professional designations in the  
process of setting up shop in Ontario. During my period In India, I received my 1st professional accounting designation as a Chartered  
Accountant from Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in 1995 and still hold a position of Fellow Member of Chartered Accountant  
(FCA).  
At about the same time I embarked on a new journey in Accounting and got my second professional Cost and Management Accounting  
designation as a CMA from Institute of Cost and Management Accountants of India in 1995 where I still currently hold a position of  
Fellow Member of Cost and Management Accountant (FCMA).  
After earning these two designations, I worked for the Legal and Corporate Affairs position as a third designation of Company  
Secretary(lnter) in 2002. These included working as a Legal Issues pertaining to Companies Act for Corporate position and posturing  
the company in all these matters and also include activities in Legal incorporations.  
My fourth designation was an MBA from IIM Bangalore in 2004 where I got an MBA In Strategy, Marketing, Human Resources and  
Finance and worked with many teams during and after the degree to provide for services in these industries.  
My fifth designation was CMA (Certified Management Accountant) from IMA ( USA ) and also a fellow of the Institute of Cost Accountants  
of Indla (FCMA) where I am a Certified Management Accountant and working towards making a change In the profession through my  
years or experience.  
My sixth designationis CPA(Certified Public Accountant), CA(Chartered Accountant) (Candidate) from CPA Canada.  
With that being said, I personally will be responsible for handling all of your work concerns and also that all my staff members are  
qualified and we pride ourselves on our personal approach, our professionalism and our excellent staff. We have extensive experience  
assisting consultants and professionals with incorporation, setting up their new business or providing accounting services for their  
existing businesses.  
Mission  
We work with small to medium size businesses to create business solutions which are Tailor made for use in their functioning, our  
mission is “Your focus on Your business, we will do the rest”. We provide sound financial advice, advanced bookkeeping services, tax  
consultation, payroll services, and business mitigation processes. With these services and more we employ our highly skilled  
professional to take care of your business through ledgers and create workable solutions for your needs.  
Chartered  
CPA Professional  
“maple leaf  
logo”  
Accountants  
Ontario  
121  
[324] For count #7, the defendant states that the defendant did not have any  
advertisements after March 27th and that in regard to s. 29(6) of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, the defendant did not practice  
accounting in Ontario,  
[325] In addition, the defendant, Joginder Singh Gujral, had been a registered student of  
CPA Ontario as of June 23, 2015 and that on February 12, 2018, he been  
deregistered as a student of CPA Ontario.  
[326] Furthermore, the defendant was not a member of the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario prior to May 17, 2017 or a member of the Institute of the  
Chartered Accountants of Ontario prior to May 17, 2017, nor after May 17, 2017, a  
member of CPA Ontario, and that as a student studying and preparing for the  
qualification exam for membership in CPA Ontario, the defendant is not a member  
of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, the Certified Management  
Accountants of Ontario, nor of CPA Ontario (see Exhibit #7).  
[327] In page 1 of the website http://gujralaccounting.ca(Exhibit #14), there is visible  
the CPA Ontario logo and wording, as well as the Chartered Accountants of  
Canada logo and wording, which would imply to a member of the public in Ontario  
that there is a connection between Gujral Accounting and those governing  
accounting bodies, or that Gujral Accounting has been approved of and  
recognized by CPA Ontario or by the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Canada, even though the defendant is not a member of CPA Ontario or of the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada. Also, in page 2 of the website  
http://gujralaccounting.ca(Exhibit #14), in the first paragraph beside the  
defendant’s photograph there is a statement that the offices of Jogi Gujral (the  
defendant) are located in Ontorio [incorrect spelling for Ontario] and that his firm  
provides the following professional services to a broad range of small or medium-  
sized entrepreneurial clients and that he serves the Greater Toronto Area including  
Brampton, Mississauga, Toronto, Thornhill, Richmond Hills, Scarborough, North  
York and Etobicoke. Also, on page 2, the defendant states that his aim is to  
provide Accounting and Tax Services at reasonable rates to clients and to exercise  
due care and due diligence in his work in creating various accounting solutions for  
the client and their company, which may also improve their standing with the  
federal revenue government. The defendant also states on page 2 that he  
personally will be responsible for handling all of their work concerns and also that  
all his staff members are qualified and that they pride themselves on their personal  
approach, their professionalism and their excellent staff. It also states on page 2  
that the defendant and his staff have extensive experience assisting consultants  
and professionals with incorporation, setting up their new business or providing  
accounting services for their existing businesses [emphasis is mine below]:  
Our offices are located in Ontorio, Canada. My name is Jogi Gujral and I  
presently have 25 years experience in accounting and taxation where I have held  
various positions in different companies such as Deloitte and have experience in  
122  
dealing with a large number of clients. My firm provides the following  
professional services to broad range of small or medium sized entrepreneurial  
clients. I am serving the Greater Toronto Area including Brampton, Mississauga,  
Toronto, Thornhill, Richmond Hills, Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke.  
My aim Is to provide Accounting and Tax Services at reasonable rates to clients  
and to exercise due car and due diligence in my work in creating various  
accounting solutions for you and your company, which may also improve your  
standing with the federal revenue government.  
With that being said, I personally will be responsible for handling all of your work  
concerns and also that all my staff members are qualified and we pride ourselves  
on our personal approach, our professionalism and our excellent staff. We have  
extensive experience assisting consultants and professionals with incorporation,  
setting up their new business or providing accounting services for their existing  
businesses.  
[328] Also, on page 2 of the www.gujralaccounting.cawebsite (Exhibit #14), the  
following statement is contained on page 2 below the photograph of the defendant:  
My sixth designationis [sp] CPA(Certified Public Accountant), CA(Chartered  
Accountant) (Candidate) from CPA Canada.” Furthermore, on page 1 there are  
logos and names of the professional accounting bodies for the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario) and for the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Canada (CPA Canada) for which the defendant was  
not given legal permission to use and when the defendant was not a member of  
either professional organization or body.  
[329] Therefore, a member of the public could misconstrue from this professional  
accounting description and initials “CA(Chartered Accountant) (Candidate) from  
CPA Canada” on page 1 coupled with the logos and names of the professional  
accounting bodies for the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA  
Ontario) and for the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada (CPA Canada)  
on page 2, that the defendant is a qualified Chartered Accountant or a Chartered  
Professional Accountant in Ontario and qualified and authorized by CPA Canada  
or CPA Ontario to practice as Chartered Accountant or a Chartered Professional  
Accountant in Ontario, when the defendant is in fact not a member of the Institute  
of Chartered Accountants of Ontario or CPA Ontario.  
[330] In addition, the defendant did not include a statement on the defendant’s website  
http://gujralaccounting.ca(Exhibit #14) that expressly indicates that the  
defendant is not a member of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario  
(CPA Ontario) and is not governed by the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario (CPA Ontario) and that his services have not been approved or endorsed  
by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario) as required  
under ss. 29(2)(b) and 29(3) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010.  
123  
[331] Again, in his defence, the defendant contends that he did not practice public  
accounting, and did not make any money, nor did he cheat anyone. However, s.  
29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017 does not  
require actual proof that the defendant was practicing as a Chartered Accountant  
in Ontario, Chartered Accountant, Certified Management Accountant, or Certified  
General Accountant, as s. 29 prohibits anyone from taking or using the designation  
“Chartered Professional Accountant” or the initials “C.A.”, “CA”, “F.C.A.”, “FCA”  
publicly in Ontario or of any of the predecessor designations, initials or  
descriptions, or from holding themselves out as or implying that they are a  
Chartered Professional Accountant, unless they are members of the CPA Ontario.  
Moreover, proving the defendant had been holding himself out as or implying that  
he is a Chartered Professional Accountant may be fulfilled without proof that the  
defendant had actually provided such services of a Chartered Professional  
Accountant to an individual or an entity. Such proof can be from proven by  
screenshots of websites where the defendant expressly states that he is providing  
services of Chartered Professional Accountant to the public or implies that he is  
providing services of a Chartered Professional Accountant to the public.  
[332] Furthermore, the defendant’s public-facing use of his foreign accounting  
designations, descriptions and their corresponding initials did not fall within the 3  
exceptions set out under s. 29(2) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario Act, 2017, and since the defendant is not a member of CPA Ontario, and  
since the defendant did not expressly and specifically indicate on the defendant’s  
website http://gujralaccounting.ca(Exhibit #14) that the defendant is not a  
member of Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario) and is  
not governed by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario )  
and that his services have not been approved or endorsed by the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario), as required under ss. 29(2)(b)  
and 29(3) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, then  
the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant  
committed the actus reus of the offence under s. 29 of the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017 for count #7 of “taking or using designations or  
initials or a description implying that he is a Chartered Professional Accountant,  
Chartered Accountant, Certified Management Accountant, or Certified General  
Accountant, or otherwise holding himself out as a Chartered Accountant, while not  
being a member of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario”.  
(8) Count #8 practicing as Chartered Professional Accountant  
(Chartered Accountants Act, 2010)  
[333] For count #8, between March 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018, at the City of Brampton  
in the Regional Municipality of Peel and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, the  
defendant is charged with practising as a Chartered Professional Accountant while  
not a member of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, contrary to s.  
29(1)(d) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017.  
124  
[334] For count #8, the defendant submits that in regards to s. 29 of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, the defendant did not practice or  
provide public accounting services in Ontario, that the entity of “Gujral Accounting”  
was a “non-profit entity”, and that the defendant does not recall the logos on the  
websites.  
[335] On the other hand, the prosecution submits that the whole body of evidence  
proves the defendant was practicing as a Chartered Professional Accountant in  
Ontario while not being a member of CPA Ontario. Furthermore, even though the  
prosecution did not adduce video evidence or people who were clients of the  
defendant, the prosecution submits the evidence which proves beyond a  
reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed the actus reus of the offence  
set out in count #8 is based on circumstantial evidence, which are contained in  
Exhibit #14, the www.gujralaccounting.cawebsite, Exhibit #8, the Kijiji  
advertisement, Exhibit #12, the defendant’s LinkedIn profile page, and Exhibit #9,  
the website “http://gujraltutor.com”.  
[336] Section 29(1)(d) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017  
provides that no individual, other than a member of the Chartered Professional  
Accountants of Ontario shall practise as a Chartered Professional Accountant:  
29(1) No individual, other than a member of CPA Ontario, shall, through an  
entity or otherwise,  
(d) practise as a Chartered Professional Accountant.  
[337] Exhibit #14, the www.gujralaccounting.cawebsite, Exhibit #8, the Kijiji  
advertisement, Exhibit #12, the defendant’s LinkedIn profile page, and Exhibit #9,  
the website “http://gujraltutor.com/about” are websites and webpages found by  
Karen Armstrong on her internet and Google searches of the defendant on March  
23, 2017, and on March 20, 2018. Moreover, Armstrong’s testimony has been  
credible and consistent and has not been shaken or diminished by the defendant’s  
cross-examination. Moreover, Armstrong had no contact or conversations with the  
defendant and there is no evidence that Armstrong has any bias, or that she had  
displayed any acrimony towards the defendant during her testimony. In addition,  
Armstrong took care to ensure that on her March 20, 2018 internet and Google  
searches of the defendant that they were new searches and not copies of previous  
versions of any websites of webpages that Armstrong had taken screenshots of  
and had saved on her computer. Armstrong did so by clearing her cache memory  
on her computer.  
[338] After reviewing the contents of all of the defendant’s webpages and websites that  
has been admitted as exhibits and the Corporation profile for “Gujral Finance Inc.”  
(Exhibit #22), the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the  
defendant did commit the actus reus of the offence of practicing as Chartered  
125  
Professional Accountant in Ontario”, contrary to s. 29(1)(d) of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017.  
[339] In Exhibit #14, the www.gujralaccounting.cawebsite, the following statements  
were contained in the 2 webpages: on page 1 -- Business Plan Development:  
Attract the capital you need by providing a statement of your business goals,  
reasons they are attainable, and plans for reaching them”, “Cash Flow  
Management: Establish your business credentials with quality planning of future  
cash requirements and payment staging. Interactive business plan models,  
including cash flow forecasts and working capital requirements” and “Professional  
Back office Operations: Finance, Accounts, HR, IT, Administration: make them  
profit centres by reducing cost and measuring there productivity, alongside the  
logos and names of the professional accounting bodies for the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario ) and for the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Canada (CPA Canada) when the defendant was not a  
member of either professional organization or body. In addition, the corporate  
name “Gujral Finance Inc.” on page 1 of the www.gujralaccounting.cawebsite is  
registered and associated with the defendant. The defendant (Joginder Singh  
Gujral of 5 Keystone Drive in Brampton) is a director of that federal corporation  
(see Exhibit #22).  
[340] As for the defendant’s contention that “Gujral Finance Inc.” which is expressly  
mentioned on page 1 of the www.gujralaccounting.cawebsite, is a non-profit  
entity, the Federal Corporation Information Report (Exhibit #22) for “Gujral Finance  
Inc.” does not indicate that it is a charity or a non-profit entity, but an active  
corporation that has been registered as a “non-distributing corporation with 50 or  
fewer shareholders”. Moreover, if the corporation is a non-profit entity then it  
would have been governed by the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, S.C.  
2009, c. 23 and not the Canada Business Corporations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-44,  
under which “Gujral Finance Inc.” has been incorporated on June 16, 2016 (see  
Exhibit #22). In addition, a corporation with shareholders is usually indicative of a  
“for-profit corporation or entity”. Furthermore, the statements on page 2 of the  
www.gujralaccounting.cawebsite (Exhibit #14) are not indicative of a non-profit  
corporation. The statements are more indicative of a for-profitcorporation.  
Those statements on page 2 expressly state, “My firm provides the following  
professional services to broad range of small or medium sized entrepreneurial  
clients. I am serving the Greater Toronto Area including Brampton, Mississauga,  
Toronto, Thornhill, Richmond Hills, Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke. My  
aim Is to provide Accounting and Tax Services at reasonable rates to clients and  
to exercise due car and due diligence in my work in creating various accounting  
solutions for you and your company, which may also improve your standing with  
the federal revenue government.” The defendant’s reference to “Entrepreneurial  
clients” is also indicative of the defendant attempting to attract businesses as  
clients and not for attracting charities, low-income individuals, or non-business  
entities where he would offer bookkeeping, tax form preparation, or simple  
accounting services for no fee.  
126  
[341] Ergo, the statements on page 2 of the www.gujralaccounting.cawebsite (Exhibit  
#14) of My firm provides the following professional services to broad range of  
small or medium sized entrepreneurial clients. I am serving the Greater Toronto  
Area including Brampton, Mississauga, Toronto, Thornhill, Richmond Hills,  
Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke. My aim Is to provide Accounting and Tax  
Services at reasonable rates to clients and to exercise due car and due diligence  
in my work in creating various accounting solutions for you and your company,  
which may also improve your standing with the federal revenue government,  
when coupled with his professional accounting designations, initials, and  
descriptions and the logos and names of the professional accounting bodies for  
the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario) and for the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada (CPA Canada) and the services  
that his firm would supply of “Cash Flow Management: Establish your business  
credentials with quality planning of future cash requirements and payment staging.  
Interactive business plan models, including cash flow forecasts and working capital  
requirements” and “Professional Back office Operations: Finance, Accounts, HR,  
IT, Administration: make them profit centres by reducing cost and measuring there  
productivity”, is more than simple bookkeeping, tax preparation or simple  
accounting services, but professional services provided by a Chartered  
Accountant, Certified Management Accountant or Chartered Professional  
Accountant.  
[342] And, in the website “http://gujraltutor.com” (Exhibit #9), which displays the  
defendant’s photograph and his foreign professional designations, initials, and  
descriptions and the following statements: My firm provides the following  
professional services to broad range of small or medium sized entrepreneurial  
clients. I am serving the Greater Toronto Area including Brampton, Mississauga,  
Toronto, Thornhill, Richmond Hills, Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke. My  
aim Is to provide Accounting and Tax Services at reasonable rates to clients and  
to exercise due car and due diligence in my work In creating various accounting  
solutions for you and your company, which may also improve your standing with  
the federal revenue government, in conjunction with the statement of “My sixth  
designationis [sp] CPA(Certified Public Accountant), CA(Chartered Accountant)  
(Candidate) from CPA Canada, could be misconstrued by the public in Ontario  
that the defendant is a Chartered Accountant, a Certified Management  
Accountant, and Chartered Professional Accountant in Ontario and qualified by  
CPA Canada or Ontario and permitted to practice in Ontario as a Chartered  
Accountant, a Certified Management Accountant, and a Chartered Professional  
Accountant as a member of CPA Canada or Ontario.  
[343] Again, in his defence, the defendant contends that he did not practice public  
accounting, and did not make any money, nor did he cheat anyone. However, s.  
29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017 does not  
require actual proof that the defendant was practicing as a Chartered Accountant  
in Ontario, Chartered Accountant, Certified Management Accountant, or Certified  
127  
General Accountant, as s. 29 prohibits anyone from taking or using the designation  
“Chartered Professional Accountant” or the initials “C.A.”, “CA”, “F.C.A.”, “FCA”  
publicly in Ontario or of any of the predecessor designations, initials or  
descriptions, or from holding themselves out as or implying that they are a  
Chartered Professional Accountant, unless they are members of the CPA Ontario.  
Moreover, proving the defendant had been holding himself out as or implying that  
he is a Chartered Professional Accountant may be fulfilled without proof that the  
defendant had actually provided such services of a Chartered Professional  
Accountant to an individual or an entity. Such proof can be from proven by  
screenshots of websites where the defendant expressly states that he is providing  
services of Chartered Professional Accountant to the public or implies that he is  
providing services of a Chartered Professional Accountant to the public.  
[344] In respect to the defendant’s argument in respect to s. 29(6) of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, that he is not practicing accounting  
in Ontario or providing public accounting services in Ontario, s. 29(6) refers to the  
circumstances where accounting services are not provided in Ontario and where  
the individual does not reside, have an office or offer or provide accounting  
services in Ontario, and in which the prohibition about using foreign professional  
accounting designations, initials or descriptions are not prohibited by s. 29 of the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017. However, the contrary  
is in evidence, that the defendant resides in Ontario, declares he has offices in  
Ontario and is offering his professional accounting services in Ontario as indicated  
by  
the  
www.gujralaccounting.ca”  
website  
(Exhibit  
#14)  
and  
the  
“http://gujraltutor.com” website (Exhibit #9). Moreover, even though there is no  
evidence of the defendant having meetings with accounting clients in Ontario, or  
advising and preparing financial documents for members of the public in Ontario,  
the defendant by publicly advertising for accounting clients in Ontario and by  
informing the public of having small to medium-sized clients and that he charges  
reasonable rates for accounting and taxation services and for preparing business  
plans, as well as informing potential clients of his educational and professional  
accounting background, as well as purposely displaying and advertising a  
connection to CPA Ontario and CPA Canada on his websites, would not be  
someone who had chosen these actions without a reason, but was someone who  
had the specific purpose or intention of practicing accounting as a Chartered  
Professional Accountant or Chartered Accountant in Ontario. Moreover, on both  
his www.gujralaccounting.cawebsite (Exhibit #14) and his “http://gujraltutor.com”  
website (Exhibit #9) the defendant had publicly implied or held himself out as a  
Chartered Accountant, Chartered Professional Accountant, and Certified  
Management Accountant. Accordingly, the defendant’s statements about his  
accounting firm and the accounting and business services he and his accounting  
firm provide to GTA clients on his websites and the implication in his websites that  
the defendant is a Chartered Professional Accountant or Chartered Accountant  
with CPA Ontario is indicia of someone actually practicing as a Chartered  
Professional Accountant in Ontario.  
128  
[345] Therefore, the www.gujralaccounting.cawebsite (Exhibit #14) that had been  
observed by Karen Armstrong on March 20, 2018 and the website  
“http://gujraltutor.com” (Exhibit #9) that had been observed by Karen Armstrong on  
March 23, 2017, is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has  
committed the actus reus of the offence under s. 29(1)(d) of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017 set out in count #8 of “practicing as  
a Chartered Professional Accountant while not a member of the Chartered  
Professional Accountants of Ontario.  
E. If The Prosecution Has Proven That The Defendant Has Committed  
The Actus Reus Of The 8 Offences, Then Has The Defendant Proven  
On A Balance Of Probabilities That He has A Due Diligence Defence,  
Which Would Entitle Him To An Acquittal On His 8 Charges?  
[346] Even though the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the  
defendant has committed the actus reus of the 8 offences set out in Information  
#5539, the defendant is still entitled to an acquittal in a prosecution of a strict  
liability offence, if he can prove on a balance of probabilities that he has a defence  
of due diligence by showing that he had taken all reasonable steps for the  
circumstances to avoid the particular event or to prove that he had reasonably  
believed in a mistaken set of facts, if true, would render his act or omission  
innocent: R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978), 40 C.C.C. (2d) 353 (S.C.C.).  
[347] Consequently, the defendant will be found guilty of committing the 8 offences if he  
is unable to prove on a balance of probabilities either branch of the due diligence  
defence established in R. v. Sault Ste. Marie.  
[348] In respect to the due diligence defence, the defendant contends that he did not  
earn one dollar from any of his websites nor did the defendant charge anyone for  
accounting services or cheat anyone during the period in question, that the  
defendant had 2 full-time jobs, that the defendant’s foreign professional accounting  
designations are authentic, that the defendant did not provide any accounting  
services in Ontario, and that as soon as the concerns by CPA Ontario were  
brought to the defendant’s attention, the defendant removed those particular  
concerns from his websites.  
(1) Has the defendant taken all reasonable care in the  
circumstances to avoid committing the actus reus of the 8  
offences?  
[349] Even though the defendant had been informed by registered mail by Tom Litzgus,  
Associate General Counsel of CPA Ontario, on March 30, 2017, about the  
improper public use of his foreign professional accounting designations,  
corresponding initials or descriptions, the defendant had continued to use his  
foreign professional accounting designations, corresponding initials or descriptions  
129  
publicly in Ontario despite the defendant’s promise he would abide by the Act and  
abide by the guidelines described by Tom Litzgus.  
[350] Ergo, the defendant has not taken all reasonable steps in the circumstances to  
avoid publicly using his foreign professional accounting designations,  
corresponding initials or descriptions in Ontario, especially since the defendant  
had already been warned once by CPA Ontario about the unlawful public use of  
his foreign professional accounting designations, initials or descriptions in Ontario,  
while not being a member of any of the 3 Ontario accounting bodies of the  
Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, the Institute of Chartered  
Accountants of Ontario, and the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario  
(CPA Ontario), and specifically after the defendant had by e-mail dated April 3,  
2017 (Exhibit #11), made a promise to Tom Litzgus to abide by the provisions of  
the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, the Certified  
Management Accountants Act, 2010, and the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010:  
Monday, April 03, 2017 11:24 AM  
Hello Tom,  
I have just received your letter dated March 30, 2017.  
I have always mentioned jurisdiction India after my designations. Moreover, the  
fact that I am a student with CPA Ontario, I have mentioned Candidate. I have  
seen this practice by all the students of CPA Ontario. You may see on Linkedin,  
and other social media too. For now, I have removed it all together.  
To co-operate with CPA Ontario, I have modified my advertisements in Kijiji.  
Kindly approve, whether this is by the guidelines. Extract for your reference.  
I at this moment propose to modify the content of my website. Enclosed extract  
of the modification. Kindly approve whether this is in accordance with the  
guidelines.  
I hereby, promise to abide by all the guidelines and respect the provisions of the  
Act. Would sincerely appreciate if you respond to my email at the earliest.  
Yours truly,  
Joginder Gujral  
18 Tustin Road  
Brampton ON  
[351] Therefore, the defendant has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he  
had taken all reasonable steps or reasonable care in the circumstances to avoid  
committing the actus reus of the 8 offences set out in Information #5539.  
130  
(2) Did the defendant reasonably believe in a mistaken set of  
facts that CPA Ontario had to warn him that his webpages  
were contravening the governing legislation so that he could  
correct his webpages before he could be charged with an  
offence?  
[352] The defendant submits that he would not be here today if CPA Ontario had  
ensured that the April 3, 2018 letter (Exhibit #23) had actually been sent to his  
correct address, then he would have known about CPA Ontario’s concerns and he  
would have remedied CPA Ontario’s concerns immediately as he had done  
previously.  
[353] However, both the common law, as well as s. 81 of the Provincial Offences Act,  
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, have established that ignorance of the lawis not a  
defence:  
Ignorance of the law  
81. Ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offence is not an excuse  
for committing the offence.  
[354] Therefore, the defendant cannot rely on ignorance of the lawor a mistaken belief  
that CPA Ontario had to warn him first about the improper use of his foreign  
professional accounting designations, corresponding initials or descriptions in  
order to give him a chance or an opportunity to correct his websites in respect to  
the improper use of his designations, before the defendant can be charged with  
committing an offence under one of the 3 governing statutes, the Certified  
Management Accountants Act, 2010, the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, and  
the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017.  
[355] Accordingly, the defendant has also failed to prove on a balance of probabilities  
the second leg of the due diligence defence in having a reasonable belief in a  
mistaken set of facts, if true, would render his act or omission innocent.  
(3) Conclusion  
[356] On the totality of the evidence, the prosecution has proven that the defendant has  
committed all 8 counts set out on Information #5539 beyond a reasonable doubt.  
6.  
DISPOSITION  
131  
[357] In respect to the defendant’s Charter application for a remedy of a stay of  
proceedings for contraventions of ss. 2(a), 2(d), 6, 7, 11(a), 11(b), 11(g), and 15 of  
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the defendant’s application on all those  
specific claims of a Charter violation is dismissed. The defendant did not prove on  
a balance of probabilities that ss. 2(a) (freedom of religion), 2(d) (freedom of  
association), 6 (mobility rights), 7 (life, liberty, and security of the person), 11(a)  
(right to be informed of specific offence without delay), 11(b) (trial within a  
reasonable time), 11(g) (retroactive offences), and 15 (equality rights) had been  
infringed by the actions of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario or  
that s. 26 of the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, s. 27 of Chartered  
Accountants Act, 2010, and s. 29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of  
Ontario Act, 2017, had by their purpose or effect infringed on those specific rights  
or freedoms.  
[358] And, in respect to the defendant’s claim of an infringement of his freedom of  
expressionunder s. 2(b) of the Charter, s. 26 of the Certified Management  
Accountants Act, 2010, s. 27 of Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, and s. 29 of the  
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, which prohibits the  
defendant from publicly using his foreign professional accounting designations or  
corresponding initials or descriptions he had earned from India and the United  
States in Ontario, does limit the defendant’s freedom of expression and is  
therefore an infringement of s. 2(b) of the Charter. However, s. 26 of the Certified  
Management Accountants Act, 2010, s. 27 of Chartered Accountants Act, 2010,  
and s. 29 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, are all  
saved under s. 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit that is demonstrably justified  
in a free and democratic society.  
[359] Furthermore, based on the totality of the evidence, the prosecution has fulfilled its  
burden in proving that Joginder Singh Gujral has committed the 8 offences set out  
in Information #5539 beyond a reasonable doubt.  
[360] Therefore, a conviction will be entered against Joginder Singh Gujral for each of  
those 8 counts on Information #5539.  
Dated at the City of Brampton on November 29, 2019.  
____________________________  
QUON J.P.  
Ontario Court of Justice  
132  


© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission