CM Autumn Template - Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario

Disciplinary Notices
The Discipline Committee has the responsibility of
determining whether a member, firm or student charged
with professional misconduct is guilty or not guilty of the
charge(s). If the determination is guilty, the Discipline
Committee makes an order with respect to sanction. The
Discipline Committee may also approve Settlement
Agreements proposed by the Professional Conduct
Committee and a member.
The Discipline Committee applies the principles of
rehabilitation, specific deterrence and general deterrence
to determine sanctions appropriate to the particular
circumstances of each individual case and in the public
interest.
The Discipline Committee has wide powers to help facilitate
rehabilitation, including the power to order supervised
practice and reinvestigation. Generally, members whom the
Discipline Committee concludes are incapable of being
rehabilitated or are otherwise ungovernable are expelled.
There are also cases where expulsion is thought essential
as a general deterrent to other members.
The written reasons of the Discipline or Appeal Committee in
a specific case may be accessed by visiting the Institute's
website at www.icao.on.ca or obtained from Diane Williamson
at the Institute by e-mail at dwilliamson@icao.on.ca or
telephone at 416-969-4282 or 1-800-387-0735, ext. 282.
Discipline Hearings
Dianne Elizabeth Chandler, Havelock, was found guilty of
one charge under Rule 104 of failing to promptly reply in
writing to any letter from the Institute in which a written
reply is specifically required, and one charge under Rule
203.2 of failing to co-operate with officers, servants or
agents of the Institute who have been appointed to arrange
or conduct a practice inspection or review or an
investigation on behalf of the Professional Conduct
Committee. Mrs. Chandler failed to submit requested
documents to the Director of Practice Inspection and failed
to respond to correspondence from the Associate Director
of Standards Enforcement. Mrs. Chandler was fined $1,000
and ordered to co-operate with Practice Inspection by
providing the requested documentation.
Ronald Edward Day, Thunder Bay, was found guilty of two
charges under Rule 201 of failing to conduct himself in a
manner that will maintain the good reputation of the
profession and its ability to serve the public interest. While
a partner in a firm, Mr. Day, in the name of his consulting
company, prepared cash flow projections on behalf of a
client using firm resources and collected fees outside of
the partnership without informing his partners. Mr. Day
42 CheckMark • Autumn 2009
failed to disclose the fees on his personal income tax
return and failed to collect GST on the fees, thereby
evading payment of tax properly payable. Without his
partners’ knowledge, Mr. Day failed to bill a client for
professional services rendered, but instead used a contra
agreement to pay monies he personally owed the client.
He failed to disclose this benefit received from the client on
his personal income tax return and failed to collect or remit
GST, thereby evading payment of tax properly payable. Mr.
Day was fined $5,000, charged costs of $7,500, and
suspended from membership for six months.
James Edward Horn, Toronto, was found guilty of one
charge under Rule 202 of failing to perform his professional
services with due care. Mr. Horn, while engaged to
conduct a compliance audit of the campaign finances of a
candidate in accordance with the Municipal Elections Act,
1996, failed to: conduct appropriate audit procedures to
enable him to determine the existence of apparent
contraventions of the Act; perform an adequate or
appropriate audit of campaign contributions; perform an
adequate or appropriate audit of expenses related to
campaign banners; identify related apparent
contraventions of the Act in his compliance audit report;
and appropriately disclose a scope limitation related to the
audit of advertising expenses in his compliance audit
report. Mr. Horn was fined $2,500 and charged costs of
$5,000.
Gavin Gershon Lange, Richmond Hill, was found guilty of
two charges under Rule 101 of failing to comply with the
bylaws, regulations and rules of professional conduct of
the Institute, one charge under Rule 201.1 of failing to
maintain the good reputation of the profession and its
ability to serve the public interest, one charge under Rule
204.1 of failing to remain free of any influence, interest or
relationship which would impair professional judgment or
objectivity or which, in the view of a reasonable observer,
would impair professional judgment or objectivity and three
charges under Rule 206.1 of failing to perform professional
services in accordance with generally accepted standards
of practice of the profession. Mr. Lange, while engaged in
public accounting, failed to: apply for or obtain a public
accounting licence; register his practice; pay the annual
practitioner fee; and register or obtain a certificate of
authorization for his professional corporation. Without such
registrations and notifications, Mr. Lange’s practice was not
subject to practice inspection. Further, Mr. Lange signed
and issued a review engagement report attached to the
financial statements for a company of which his brother
was a director and 50 per cent shareholder. The financial
statements contained errors and Mr. Lange failed to
document steps taken to satisfy himself of the plausibility
or accuracy of various assertions in the statements. Mr.
Lange also performed review engagements for two clients