Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario v. Choy, 2026 ONCPA 11

CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO ACT, 2017

Citation: Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario v. Choy, 2026 ONCPA 11

Date: April 21, 2026

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

IN THE MATTER OF: Allegations against Peter Choy, CPA, CGA, under Rules 201.1, 203, 205, and 206.1 of the CPA Ontario Code of Professional Conduct.

BETWEEN:

Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario

Professional Conduct Committee

-and-

Peter Choy

APPEARANCES:

For the Professional Conduct Committee:

Kelvin Kucey, Counsel

For Peter Choy:

Not Present and Not Represented

Heard:

March 19, 2026

Decision and Order effective:

March 20, 2026

Release of written reasons:

April 21, 2026

REASONS FOR THE DECISION AND ORDER MADE MARCH 20, 2026

I. OVERVIEW

1The Professional Conduct Committee (“PCC”) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (“CPA Ontario”) made Allegations of professional misconduct against Peter Choy (the “Member”). The Allegations included that he failed to meet his continuing professional development (“CPD”) requirements; failed to implement a quality management system as required; submitted a filing to CPA Ontario containing a false or misleading statement; and while engaged to perform compilations of financial statements for four different companies, failed to perform his professional services in accordance with the generally accepted standards of practice of the profession.

2A hearing was held before this Panel of the Discipline Committee of CPA Ontario to determine whether the Allegations were established and whether the conduct breached Rules 201.1, 203, 205 and 206.1 of the CPA Code of Professional Conduct (the “Code”).

3The onus was on the PCC to prove on a balance of probabilities that the Member’s conduct breached the Code and constituted professional misconduct.

4For the reasons that follow, the Panel found that the Allegations were made out against the Member, that his conduct constituted professional misconduct, and ordered sanctions against him.

II. THE COMPLAINT AND THE ALLEGATIONS

5The Member obtained his CGA designation in 1983. He did not hold a Public Accounting Licence (“PAL”) at the time of the hearing, nor during the time of the alleged misconduct.

6The Allegations against the Member traced their origin to recent practice inspections. Having failed the practice inspection process twice in a row, a complaint against the Member was made to the PCC by the Director of Practice Inspection on behalf of the Practice Inspection Committee (“PIC”). An investigator, Paul Gibel (“Gibel”), was appointed on July 31, 2025, to conduct an investigation.

7For the investigation, Gibel looked at the two files from the most recent practice inspection and selected two additional files that were more current to, among other things, assess whether the Member had implemented any of the recommendations of the PIC. Gibel also investigated the Member’s quality management system as well as his compliance with CPD requirements.

8Following the investigation, the PCC brought the Allegations against the Member. The eight Allegations are summarized as follows:

Between January 1, 2023, and November 30, 2025, the Member failed to conduct himself in a manner that will maintain the good reputation of the profession and serve the public interest, contrary to Rule 201.1 of the Code, in failing to meet his CPD requirements for 2023 and 2024 and failing to implement a quality management system (Allegation #1(a) and #1(b)).
Between January 1, 2023, and November 30, 2025, the Member failed to sustain his professional competence by keeping informed of, and complying with, developments in professional standards contrary to Rule 203 of the Code (Allegation #2).
Between January 1, 2024, and November 30, 2025, the Member submitted a signed, mandatory annual registration filing to CPA Ontario which contained a statement or representation which he knew, or should have known, was false and/or misleading, contrary to Rule 205 of the Code (Allegation #3).
Between August 1, 2024, and December 31, 2024, while engaged to perform a compilation of the financial statements of “25XOnt. Inc.”, for the year ended August 31, 2024, the Member failed to perform his professional services in accordance with the generally accepted standards of practice of the profession, contrary to Rule 206.1 of the Code (Allegation #4).
Between July 1, 2024, and December 31, 2024, while engaged to perform a compilation of the financial statements of “PBGI Inc.”, for the year ended July 31, 2024, the Member failed to perform his professional services in accordance with the generally accepted standards of practice of the profession, contrary to Rule 206.1 of the Code (Allegation #5).
Between January 2, 2025, and July 31, 2025, while engaged to perform a compilation of the financial statements of “KJF Inc.” for the year ended January 31, 2025, the Member failed to perform his professional services in accordance with the generally accepted standards of practice of the profession, contrary to Rule 206.1 of the Code (Allegation #6).
Between November 1, 2024, and February 28, 2025, while engaged to perform the compilation of the financial statements of “RFP Inc.” for the year ended November 30, 2024, the Member failed to perform his professional services in accordance with the generally accepted standards of practice of the profession, contrary to Rule 206.1 of the Code (Allegation #7).
Between December 15, 2023, and November 30, 2025, while engaged in the practice of public accounting, the Member failed to design, implement, operate, and subsequently evaluate a system of quality management as required by Canadian Standards on Quality Management, contrary to Rule 206.1 of the Code (Allegation #8).

III. PRELIMINARY ISSUES

9There were two preliminary issues for the Panel’s determination:

(a) whether to proceed with the hearing in the Member’s absence; and

(b) whether to qualify Gibel as an expert witness.

(a) Proceeding in the Member’s Absence

10The Member did not attend or have a representative attend on his behalf at the hearing.

11In order to proceed in his absence, the Panel had to be satisfied that the Member had been provided notice of the hearing pursuant to Rule 7.02(1) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. The affidavit of Alyssa Girardi (“Girardi”), affirmed March 10, 2026 (Exhibit 1), established that, on December 18, 2025, the Member was served with the Allegations dated December 16, 2025. The Member responded by email on January 13, 2026, to advise that he had read the “memo issued by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario dated December 16, 2025”, that “all the allegations contained in the memo are true and fair”, and he “[was] not planning to attend further meetings of the Discipline Committee of CPA Ontario to save time and cost”. The affidavit of Girardi further established that the Member was served with the Notice of Hearing by email from the Tribunals Office on February 2, 2026.

12At the start of the hearing, while not required to do so, the Panel, as a matter of courtesy, directed the Tribunals Office to contact the Member via email used by him to inform him that the hearing had commenced. The Member neither responded nor attended the hearing.

13Based on this affidavit evidence and the Member’s email response on January 13, 2026 (that he would not be participating further in the process), the Panel was satisfied that the Member had been provided proper notice of the Allegations as well as the hearing and determined to proceed in his absence.

(b) Qualifying Mr. Gibel to Give Expert Testimony

14The PCC put forward one witness for the hearing: Gibel. In addition to being a fact witness as the investigator in this matter, the PCC sought to have him qualified to give expert testimony on generally accepted standards of practice of the accounting profession —specifically:

Canadian Standard on Related Services 4200 (“CSRS 4200”), Compilation Engagements, effective for compiled financial information for periods ending on or after December 14, 2021, and
Canadian Standard on Quality Management 1 (“CSQM 1”), Quality Management for Firms that Perform Audits or Reviews of Financial Statements, or Other Assurance or Related Services Engagements, effective for firms performing only compilation engagements as of December 15, 2023.

15The PCC submitted an Expert Evidence Motion Record. Tabs 1 and 2 of the Expert Evidence Motion Record, comprising Gibel’s signed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty and an executive-summary version of his Curriculum Vitae, were marked as Exhibit 2.

16Gibel obtained his CA designation in 1982 and his FCA designation in 2009. Prior to his retirement on December 31, 2020, he practised as a partner at a national accounting firm. His practice included audit, review and compilation engagements. Per his own oral testimony, Gibel had been qualified to provide expert opinion on accounting standards on 15-20 occasions before the Discipline Committee of CPA Ontario as well as the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

17Although both the CSRS 4200 and CSQM 1 came into effect after Gibel’s retirement from practice, it was clear from Gibel’s answers to questions posed by PCC counsel as well as the Panel that he has kept himself up to date with his specialized knowledge, particularly in relation to these standards. In the Panel’s view, he met the definition of a properly qualified expert as stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 9, namely, “a witness who is shown to have acquired special or peculiar knowledge through study or experience in respect of the matters on which he or she undertakes to testify.”

18In addition to having the necessary knowledge about CSRS 4200 and CSQM 1, the Panel was satisfied that Gibel was willing and able to provide opinion evidence in accordance with the duty of an expert.

19The Panel further determined that the two-step test for the admission of expert opinion evidence as set out in R. v Mohan and clarified in White Burgess Langille Inman v Abbott and Haliburton Co, 2015 SCC 23 at paras 23-24, was met. With respect to step one, we were satisfied that the evidence proposed to be given was:

logically relevant to the Allegations made against the Member;
necessary in the sense of usefully clarifying the applicable standards for the Panel considering the technical nature of the standards;
not contrary to an exclusionary rule; and
proffered by a properly qualified expert.

20Under step two, the Panel considered the potential risks and benefits of admitting the evidence. The Panel determined that the potential helpfulness of the evidence justified the potential risks that might result from its admission. The probative value of the proposed evidence was worth what would cost in terms of time and considering the low risk of misuse.

21The Panel determined that Gibel was qualified to provide expert evidence on CSRS 4200 and CSQM 1 in this hearing.

IV. ISSUES ON CONDUCT

22The two issues for the Panel’s determination were:

(a) Did the evidence establish, on a balance of probabilities, the facts on which the Allegations made by the PCC were based?

(b) If the facts alleged by the PCC were established on the evidence on a balance of probabilities, did the Allegations constitute professional misconduct?

V. DECISION

23The Panel determined that the evidence established, on a balance of probabilities, the facts set out in the Allegations of professional misconduct. In addition to oral evidence by way of Gibel’s testimony and the documentary evidence put forward by the PCC, the PCC pointed out the Member had admitted in his January 13, 2026 email correspondence to the Tribunals Office that the Allegations were true. Having said that, the Panel noted that the burden of proof remained with the PCC. The Panel was satisfied that the Allegations were proven.

24The Panel was satisfied that the proven Allegations constituted breaches of Rules 201.1, 203, 205, 206.1 of the Code, and having breached the Code, the Member committed professional misconduct.

(a) Allegations #2 and #3: Breach of Rules 203 and 205 of the Code

25Rule 203 of the Code requires a member to sustain professional competence by keeping informed of, and complying with, developments in professional standards in all functions in which the member provides professional services or is relied upon because of the member’s calling.

26Rule 205 of the Code prohibits a member from making or associating with any statement or representation that they know, or should know, is false or misleading.

27To comply with Rule 203, a member must, at minimum, meet the CPD requirements set out in Regulation 7-2. According to Regulation 7-2, a member must complete a minimum of 120 hours of CPD every three years (triennial period), with at least 60 hours being verifiable, including four verifiable hours of professional ethics. Annual requirements include a minimum of 20 hours (of which 10 hours must be verifiable).

28Gibel testified that he had asked the Member to provide a log of the CPD that he had completed. The Member failed to produce any log. Subsequently, when he interviewed the Member, he again asked the Member for his CPD log. The Member’s response was that he had not done any CPD, and specifically, he did not complete any coursework in 2023 and 2024. When asked to explain why, the Member indicated that there was no reason for him to do so since he would not remember what would be covered in a course and that his clients had been with him for a long time, and they knew what he was doing for them.

29On May 29, 2025, the Member submitted his Annual Membership Dues and CPD Declaration. His Declaration included a section regarding CPD Obligation Information where the Member indicated that he:

a) complied with the annual CPD requirements for 2024 and completed the annual minimum 20 hours, of which at least 50% was verifiable; and

b) complied with the overall three-year CPD cycle requirements of 120 hours, of which at least 50% was verifiable.

30Gibel testified that upon receipt of the Member’s CPD Declaration from the Registrar’s office (subsequent to his interview with the Member), he noted that the Member’s representation of full compliance with the CPD requirements on his Declaration did not align with what the Member stated during the interview, namely, that he did not complete any CPD. Gibel put this contradiction to the Member in an email and asked how he fulfilled the CPD requirements that he attested to fulfilling on his Declaration. The Member provided a vague response of “through various sources” without providing any details or supporting documentation.

31Considering the absence of any CPD logs provided by the Member and Gibel’s testimony in relation to his communications with the Member on this issue, the Panel concluded that the Member had not met his CPD requirements and had made an attestation on his CPD Declaration that he knew, or should have known, was false and/or misleading.

32The Panel was satisfied that the alleged facts underlying Allegations #2 and #3 were proved on a balance of probabilities and the Member breached Rules 203 and 205 of the Code.

(c) Allegations #4-8: Breach of Rule 206.1 of the Code

33Compliance with CSRS 4200 and CSQM 1 is part and parcel of performing professional services in accordance with the generally accepted standards of practice of the profession under Rule 206.1 of the Code.

34As part of his investigation, Gibel investigated the Member’s compilation engagements for four entities: 25XOnt. Inc., PBGI Inc., KJF Inc. and RFP Inc. Since these compilation engagements pertain to periods after December 14, 2021, compliance with CSRS 4200 was required.

35Gibel testified that based on his review of the documentation provided by the Member for the compilation engagements, the Member failed to comply with several requirements of CSRS 4200.

36Gibel testified to the deficiencies he found in each of the four compilation engagements. As he noted, notwithstanding a few differences, there was an identifiable pattern of non-compliance in the services performed by the Member because his approach to all four engagements was similar. Below is a chart outlining the alleged deficiencies and the engagement(s) in which each deficiency was found:

Deficiency

Engagement

a) Failure to document inquiries of management regarding the intended use of the compiled financial information prior to accepting or continuing the engagement (as required by CSRS 4200.24(a), 4200.41)