Singh v. Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia and others (No.3), 2026 BCHRT 74
Date Issued: March 25, 2026
File: CS-003721
Indexed as: Singh v. Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia and others (No.3), 2026 BCHRT 74
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
BETWEEN:
Chiranjiv Singh
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia and Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada and CPA Western School of Business and Shawn Weber
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Andrew Robb
On his own behalf: Chiranjiv Singh
Counsel for the Respondent Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia: Allan A. Soltan
Counsel for the Respondents CPA Western School of Business and Shawn Weber: Jennifer Kwok
Counsel for the Respondent Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada Elizabeth A. Reid
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Chiranjiv Singh is an accountant. He is from India. In 2019, after immigrating to Canada, he applied to become a chartered professional accountant [CPA] in BC.
[2] The Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia [CPABC] is the regulatory body for accountants in BC, under the Chartered Professional Accountants Act. Chartered Professional Accounts of Canada [CPA Canada] is a not for profit, national organization that supports the accounting profession in Canada. CPA Western School of Business [CPAWSB] is an educational institution that delivers a standard certification program for candidates seeking a CPA designation. Shawn Weber is an employee of CPAWSB.
[3] Mr. Singh filed a human rights complaint against CPABC, CPA Canada, CPAWSB, and Mr. Weber [together, the Respondents]. He says one or more of the Respondents discriminated against him based on his disability, by failing to implement an agreed-upon accommodation for Mr. Singh’s disability, during an examination that he was required to pass to become a CPA in BC. Additionally, Mr. Singh says the Respondents discriminated against him based on his place of origin, by requiring him to write the examination to become a CPA in BC, even though he was already qualified as an accountant in India. He says the requirement was based on negative assumptions about accountants trained in India. He also says Mr. Weber made comments to him about accountants from India, which amount to discrimination based on his place of origin. The Tribunal accepted his complaint under s. 8 of the Human Rights Code, which applies to services, and under s. 14, which applies to membership in occupational associations.
[4] The Respondents deny discriminating, and apply to dismiss the complaint. They say they implemented the agreed-upon accommodation during the examination, and Mr. Singh’s allegations to the contrary are speculative and baseless. They deny that the requirement for accountants who were educated and trained in India to write an examination, or the alleged comments by Mr. Weber, are discriminatory.
[5] For the reasons set out below, I allow the Respondents’ applications, and I dismiss the complaint. I find Mr. Singh has no reasonable prospect of proving the Respondents failed to implement his accommodation, during the examination, and they are reasonably certain to prove they fulfilled their duty to accommodate him. Additionally, I find Mr. Singh has no reasonable prospect of proving the requirement for him to write the examination was connected to negative assumptions about his place of origin. I also find that, considering the evidence before me about the context of Mr. Weber’s alleged comments, Mr. Singh has no reasonable prospect of proving those comments were discriminatory.
[6] To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.
II BACKGROUND
[7] Most of the relevant background facts are not in dispute. Mr. Singh was educated and trained as an accountant in India and practiced his profession there for approximately seven years before immigrating to Canada. He is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India [ICAI], which is a professional regulatory body.
[8] CPABC is the sole regulator of professional accountants in BC. It sets standards for admission as a member of the accounting profession. CPA Canada is the national organisation that represents the accounting profession in Canada. It develops professional education programs and contributes to setting accounting standards, among other activities, but it has no regulatory or licensing authority. CPA Canada says it works with Canadian regulatory bodies, including CPABC, to support and standardise recognition of international qualifications for accountants, including by negotiating membership agreements with accounting bodies outside Canada.
[9] CPAWSB is responsible for administering the admissions process for candidates seeking a CPA designation, on behalf of CPABC. Most candidates, including those educated in Canada, must complete a practical experience requirement and educational modules. The modules are known as the CPA Professional Education Program [CPA PEP]. Most candidates must also pass a final examination known as the Common Final Examination [CFE]. There are exceptions to both the CPA PEP and the CFE requirements for some accountants with previous training and experience outside Canada, under the membership agreements negotiated by CPA Canada.
[10] CPAWSB delivers CPA PEP and administers the CFE, on behalf of CPABC and other provincial and territorial regulatory bodies. CPA Canada plays a significant role in the CFE. It sets the examination questions each year, publishes the examination booklets, and is responsible for grading the examination.
[11] Since 2018, there has been a Memorandum of Understanding between CPA Canada and ICAI [the MOU]. Under the MOU, members of ICAI with certain levels of experience and education are not required to complete CPA PEP, to obtain a CPA designation, but they must still pass the CFE. The MOU also provides for an expedited path to ICAI membership for members of CPABC and other Canadian regulatory bodies.
[12] CPA Canada entered the MOU, and other reciprocal membership agreements with other international accounting bodies, on behalf of provincial and territorial regulatory bodies, subject to approval and ratification by those bodies. The MOU provides for annual exchanges of information between ICAI and CPA Canada about any changes to their respective admission processes, and for a review of the MOU every five years.
[13] CPA Canada’s reciprocal membership agreements with accounting bodies in other countries are not all the same. In particular, reciprocal agreements with certain regulatory bodies in the USA, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Ireland, South Africa, and Zimbabwe provide that some accountants trained in those countries are not required to complete CPA PEP or write the CFE, in order to obtain a CPA designation in BC. CPA Canada also has an agreement with an accounting body in Pakistan which is similar to the MOU, in that members of the accounting body in Pakistan must write the CFE, in order to obtain a CPA designation in BC.
[14] CPA Canada says all its international reciprocal agreements are based on a comprehensive assessment of each international regulatory body’s qualifications and are usually subject to a lengthy negotiation process.
[15] In 2019, Mr. Singh contacted CPABC and said he was a member of ICAI. He told CPABC he had experience as an accountant in India, and he wished to pursue the process set out in the MOU to become a CPA in BC. CPABC referred him to CPAWSB, and CPAWSB registered him for the May 2020 sitting of the CFE. This sitting was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and Mr. Singh was automatically re-registered for the September 2020 sitting.
[16] The CFE is an in-person exam that takes place over three consecutive days. On the first and third days, candidates have up to four hours to complete their answers, and on the second day they have up to five hours. Candidates can take as many breaks as they wish, but time does not stop during breaks unless the candidate has been granted timed rest breaks. Timed rest breaks may be granted as an accommodation for a candidate’s disability.
[17] Mr. Singh requested timed rest breaks, to accommodate his disability. He was granted up to 30 minutes of timed rest breaks on the first and third days of the CFE, and up to 37.5 minutes on the second day. This meant he could pause his exam time in order to take breaks, and his breaks did not count towards the time limits.
[18] In September 2020, all candidates writing the CFE wrote the exam in a private hotel room that was assigned to them, on a laptop that was provided to them for writing the exam. The laptops were locked down so that they had no access to the internet and set up to automatically save candidates’ responses to the exam every 15 minutes.
[19] Mr. Singh passed the first day of the CFE, but not the second or third days. He requested a review of his grade, but the review did not change his results.
[20] Mr. Singh says the Respondents did not fulfill their duty to accommodate his disability, during the CFE. He does not take issue with the accommodation he was offered, namely the timed rest breaks. Nor does he deny that he was able to use these rest breaks, when he wrote the CFE. But he says that on days two and three of the CFE, he was not credited for the extra time that he required as a result of the rest breaks. He alleges that in processing and grading his exam, CPAWSB and/or CPA Canada used the version of his exam that was automatically saved on his laptop after the expiration of the standard time for writing the exam, i.e. after five hours on day two and four hours on day three, instead of the final versions of his exam.
[21] The Respondents deny Mr. Singh’s allegation. They say they investigated his concerns and concluded that the correct versions of his exam responses were graded, i.e. the final versions submitted by Mr. Singh, after he received the standard time to complete the examination, plus additional time to account for his rest breaks. The Respondents say they have repeatedly demonstrated this to Mr. Singh. I discuss their investigations below.
[22] Mr. Weber is employed by CPAWSBC. His title is Director, Learner Support. One of his duties is to advise CPA candidates who are unsuccessful in the CFE about their options for attempting it again. He spoke to Mr. Singh in 2020, soon after Mr. Singh found out he had not passed the second and third days of the CFE. Mr. Singh says Mr. Weber asked him if he was from India, and commented that accountants from India have strong technical skills, but the CFE requires different styles of communication, which professionals trained outside of Canada may lack.
[23] There is no evidence before me from Mr. Weber. CPAWS and Mr. Weber say that even if he made the alleged comments, they were not discriminatory.
III Decision
[24] The Respondents apply to dismiss Mr. Singh’s complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code, on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success. Section 27(1)(c) is part of the Tribunal’s gate-keeping function. It allows the Tribunal to dismiss complaints that do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing. The onus is on the Respondents to establish the basis for dismissal.
[25] The Tribunal does not make findings of fact under s. 27(1)(c). Instead, the Tribunal looks at the evidence to decide whether “there is no reasonable prospect that findings of fact that would support the complaint could be made on a balance of probabilities after a full hearing of the evidence”: Berezoutskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2006 BCCA 95 at para. 22. The Tribunal must base its decision on the materials filed by the parties, and not on speculation about what evidence may be filed at the hearing: University of British Columbia v. Chan,2013 BCSC 942 at para. 77.
[26] The threshold to advance a complaint to a hearing is low. In a dismissal application, a complainant does not have to prove their complaint or show the Tribunal all the evidence they may introduce at a hearing. They only have to show that the evidence takes their complaint beyond conjecture: Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49 at para. 27.
[27] To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Singh would have to prove he has characteristics protected by the Code, he was adversely impacted in the services the Respondents provided, or in his membership in an occupational association, and his protected characteristics were a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. If he did that, the burden would shift to the Respondents to justify the impact as a bona fide reasonable justification. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.
[28] Mr. Singh says the Respondents did not fulfill their duty to accommodate his disability during the CFE, as he did not get the benefit of the timed rest breaks because the wrong version of his exam was processed and graded. Regarding his place of origin, he says the requirement for him to write the CFE, to qualify for a CPA designation in BC, amounts to discrimination by CPA Canada. He says the requirement is based on negative assumptions about accountants from India, and there is no legitimate basis for placing more onerous requirements on accountants educated and trained in India, compared to the requirements on accountants from certain other countries, who are not required to write the CFE. Mr. Singh also says Mr. Weber’s comments were discrimination based on his place of origin.
[29] In this application, the Respondents do not deny that Mr. Singh had a disability and was entitled to rest breaks during the CFE, as a form of accommodation, or that he is entitled to the protection of the Code based on his place of origin. But they say they are reasonably certain to prove they accommodated Mr. Singh when he wrote the CFE, and he has no reasonable prospect of proving the requirement for him to write the CFE, or Mr. Weber’s comments, were discriminatory.
[30] I will first address Mr. Singh’s claim that the Respondents failed to accommodate his disability and then turn to his claims based on his place of origin.
A. The Respondents are reasonably certain to prove they accommodated Mr. Singh’s disability
[31] Mr. Singh’s complaint says he believes he did not pass the CFE because the wrong version of his exam was uploaded and submitted to CPA Canada for grading, due to technical problems. He alleges that an unfinished version of his exam was automatically submitted for grading at the expiration of the official time for completing the exam, on days two and three of the CFE, despite his entitlement to additional time to make up for his timed rest breaks.
[32] The Respondents say they have investigated Mr. Singh’s claim that the wrong version of his exam was processed and graded, and there is no basis for it.
[33] For the following reasons, I find the Respondents are reasonably certain to prove they accommodated Mr. Singh’s disability. He has no reasonable prospect of proving the Respondents graded the wrong version of the exam.
[34] There is evidence before me from the Vice-President, Professional Education Program, at CPAWSB [the VP PEP], who investigated Mr. Singh’s concern that the wrong version of his exam was graded. The VP PEP’s evidence includes the following:
a. The VP PEP reviewed the last exam files saved on the laptop used by Mr. Singh, including their time stamps, and noted that the time stamps showed he continued to write after the official time for the exam had ended, as he was entitled to do, to make up for his timed rest breaks.
b. The VP PEP contacted CPA Canada, obtained the versions of Mr. Singh’s electronic answer sheets that were graded by CPA Canada, compared them to the last exam files saved on the laptop used by Mr. Singh, and found they were the same.
c. In the version of the exam graded by CPA Canada, Mr. Singh’s candidate number was written at the bottom of each file. The VP PEP says all exam-writers were instructed to write their candidate number at the end of each file, to indicate that no more content followed.
d. During the VP PEP’s investigation, Mr. Singh provided the total word count for the final version of his exam, which he had recorded in his rough-notes booklet. It was the same as the word count in the version of the exam graded by CPA Canada.
e. Timed rest breaks are one of the most common forms of accommodation requested and offered, in the CFE, and in the VP PEP’s nine years in his role, he is not aware of any case where a candidate was given timed rest breaks, and the wrong version of the candidate’s exam was graded.
[35] There is also evidence before me from CPA Canada staff who manage the grading of the CFE. They say they also investigated Mr. Singh’s concerns and reached the same conclusion as the VP PEP.
[36] In the materials before me, Mr. Singh does not dispute the VP PEP’s evidence set out above. He argues that some of the Respondents’ evidence about their investigation into his concerns is unclear, and the Respondents did not adequately document his accommodations, before and during the CFE. I do not find these arguments persuasive. The Respondents provided ample documentation related to their investigation into Mr. Singh’s concerns, and documentation showing how they reached their conclusion that the correct version of Mr. Singh’s exam was graded.
[37] Mr. Singh says he believes technical problems in the grading of his exam were possible because of well documented technical problems in a previous sitting of the CFE, in 2019. I find it is speculative for Mr. Singh to suggest that problems in the CFE process in previous years mean it is likely that problems occurred when he wrote the exam. Mr. Singh does not explain how any problems in previous years were similar or related to his allegation that the wrong version of his exam was processed and graded, in 2020.
[38] Mr. Singh says other aspects of the accommodation process were flawed, but I am satisfied the Respondents are reasonably certain to prove the process, considered as a whole, was reasonable. He says CPAWSB took too long to respond to his initial request for accommodation, and exam proctors did not diligently document issues related to his accommodation during the exam. But there is no dispute that Mr. Singh received timed rest breaks during the CFE. He does not point to any evidence suggesting he requested or required any other accommodations.
[39] I am satisfied that Mr. Singh has no reasonable prospect of proving the Respondents processed and graded the wrong version of his exam. Based on the undisputed evidence from the VP PEP and staff at CPA Canada, the Respondents are reasonably certain to prove Mr. Singh received the benefit of the timed rest breaks, and the correct, final versions of his exam were graded. On this basis I find the Respondents are reasonably certain to prove they fulfilled their duty to reasonably accommodate him, and the complaint on the ground of disability has no reasonable prospect of success.
B. Mr. Singh has no reasonable prospect of proving the requirement for him to write the CFE was discrimination
[40] I now turn to Mr. Singh’s allegation that the Respondents discriminated against him based on his place of origin. Mr. Singh says CPA Canada established membership criteria that discriminate against accountants trained outside Canada, based on their place of origin. He says CPA Canada’s different types of membership agreements with regulatory bodies in other countries amount to differential treatment based on country or place of origin. I understand him to argue that one or more of the Respondents discriminated against him by requiring him to write the CFE because he received his education and experience in India, whereas if he was trained in certain other countries, he would have been exempted from writing the CFE. Of the four respondents, only CPA Canada responded to this argument. CPA Canada says it has no reasonable prospect of success.
[41] In Bitonti v. British Columbia (Ministry of Health) (No. 3), 1999 CanLII 35189 (BC HRT), the BC Human Rights Council found it was discriminatory to impose a more onerous certification or licensing process on medical professionals trained in certain countries, based on assumptions about the merits of the medical education systems in those countries, as opposed to actual knowledge of those systems (at paras. 176-178). The Council accepted, based on expert evidence and statistics, that there was a high correlation between place of origin and place of education and of medical training.
[42] Since Bitonti, courts and human rights tribunals have found differential (including more onerous) professional certification or licensing requirements, based on a person’s place of training, that are reasonable and legitimate and not based on negative assumptions or irrelevant or prejudicial characteristics or qualities, do not constitute discrimination; see Singh v. Royal College of Physicians, 2024 HRTO 1012 at paras. 25 to 28. CPA Canada says that to establish discrimination based on the fact that the MOU required him to write the CFE, whereas accountants trained in some other countries did not face this requirement, Mr. Singh would have to prove the Respondents’ decision-making about the MOU did not objectively assess the qualifications of accountants trained in India, but was arbitrary or inappropriately based on negative assumptions about India, or about accountants trained there, or otherwise considered his place of origin in an adverse or unfavourable way: Sands v. College of Chiropodists of Ontario, 2024 HRTO 1869 at para. 29. I accept that Mr. Singh would have to prove some other basis for finding discrimination beyond the mere fact that the requirements he faced, to become a CPA in BC, were more onerous than the requirements faced by some applicants trained in other countries.
[43] I note that the list of countries whose accountants can obtain a CPA designation in BC without writing the CFE is very similar to the list of countries whose doctors had a less onerous pathway to practising in Canada, based on assumptions about the education system in place in those countries, in Bitonti. In this context, I understand Mr. Singh’s concerns about the legacy of colonial decision-making. However, for the following reasons, I am satisfied that he has no reasonable prospect of proving the requirement for him to write the CFE, or the Respondents’ decision-making about the MOU generally, did not objectively assess the qualifications of ICAI members, or considered his place of origin in an adverse way.
[44] CPA Canada says its decision-making about the MOU was based on an assessment of ICAI on its own merits, and not the mere fact that it was operating in India. CPA Canada provided a sworn statement by its former Vice-President (Pre-Certification Qualification) [the VP PCQ]. The VP PCQ’s evidence addresses how CPA Canada works with provincial and territorial regulatory bodies to assess international qualifications of individual applicants, and how it investigates and negotiates reciprocal membership agreements with regulatory bodies in other countries.
[45] Regarding the history of the MOU, CPA Canada provided evidence that, in 2004, a committee consisting of representatives of CPA Canada and provincial and territorial regulatory bodies carried out a formal assessment of ICAI. CPA Canada provided a copy of a report by the committee, which includes detailed information about the requirements for ICAI membership, including requirements regarding education and experience, and ICAI’s evaluation process for candidates. The report recommended that Canadian regulatory bodies consider admitting ICAI members as accountants in Canada if they completed the same process as candidates educated in Canada. This meant ICAI members would be required to complete a formal educational program—which I understand to refer to CPA PEP, or a previous version of CPA PEP—and to pass the uniform final examination, which was the previous name for the CFE.
[46] The VP PCQ says there was no formal agreement between ICAI and Canadian accounting bodies before a previous version of the MOU was established in 2011. Her evidence describes the process of completing the 2011 agreement. She says she traveled to India and met with representatives of ICAI in 2009, to review their program. Following the visit, the VP PCQ says she recommended that ICAI members be given advance standing in applying to join the accounting profession in Canada without completing CPA PEP, but that they should still be required to write the uniform final examination.
[47] In 2016 the VP PCQ says she was involved in a review of the ICAI program. CPA Canada provided her report of that review. It shows the review included consideration of ICAI’s Code of Conduct, its professional development policies, its statutory regulatory authority, its recognition by other international bodies, and its professional education program and evaluation processes. The review recommended that ICAI members should continue to be required to write the CFE. The VP PCQ says this was largely because of concerns that ICAI’s professional training and evaluation program did not use a multi-disciplinary, case study approach that integrated candidates’ knowledge, like the CFE.
[48] Mr. Singh does not deny that ICAI’s training program does not use an integrative approach, like the CFE. Based on his own experience and knowledge of ICAI, he says ICAI focuses on a deeper, subject-specific approach, which provides more rigorous technical strength in each subject. He says the exams that he had to pass, to become a member of ICAI, included multi-disciplinary “micro-case studies”.
[49] I understand Mr. Singh to argue that the CFE’s integrated approach is an unnecessary or inappropriate way to assess accountants trained outside Canada, because their experience may focus on specialty issues, instead of integrated approaches to accounting. However, it is not the Tribunal’s role to decide whether there may be better ways to evaluate accountants trained outside Canada. The issue I must decide is whether there is no reasonable prospect Mr. Singh will prove the requirement for him to write the CFE was based on negative assumptions about accountants from India, or that the requirement was not based on an objective assessment of the qualifications of ICAI members, or otherwise considered his place of origin in an adverse way. Mr. Singh has not explained how the CFE’s integrated approach is connected to negative assumptions about accountants trained in India, or how it is inconsistent with an objective assessment of their qualifications, or how it is connected to his place of origin.
[50] The VP PCQ’s 2016 report about ICAI goes into significant detail about the experience and education required for membership in ICAI, and how candidates for membership are evaluated. Mr. Singh’s response to the application to dismiss does not identify any part of the report that is not objective, or that appears to rely on negative assumptions or stereotypes about India or accountants trained there.
[51] The VP PCQ says there are four accounting bodies in India, including the ICAI and including one international organisation that operates in many countries. The VP PCQ says CPA Canada does not have reciprocal agreements with any of them, except ICAI. CPA Canada says the fact that different regulatory bodies in India received different treatment supports a finding that CPA Canada’s decisions about the MOU were based on actual knowledge of ICAI, rather than negative assumptions about India in general.
[52] Mr. Singh says one of the four accounting bodies the VP PCQ refers to is an educational institution, not a regulatory body created by statute. But he does not deny that there are multiple bodies operating in India that regulate and license accountants there, or that ICAI is the only one with which CPA Canada has a reciprocal agreement. In my view, the VP PCQ’s evidence about different treatment of different regulatory bodies in India could support a non-discriminatory explanation for CPA Canada’s decision-making regarding the MOU.
[53] While CPA Canada has reciprocal membership agreements with other international accounting organisations that offer less onerous pathways to a CPA designation than the MOU, the VP PCQ says CPA Canada will only enter into such agreements after an investigative process, to ensure an international regulatory body demands a level of experience and education, and completion of an evaluation process, that are substantially equivalent to the requirements that apply to candidates seeking a CPA designation in Canada.
[54] The VP PCQ says CPA Canada’s agreements with Mexican and American regulators arose during the negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA], and only after comparisons between the three countries’ education, experience, and evaluation requirements. Her evidence also addresses how the other regulatory bodies outside Canada, with which CPA Canada has agreements that provide for exemptions from the CFE, are connected to the Global Accounting Alliance [GAA], an international organisation that previously had reciprocal agreements directly with some Canadian regulatory bodies. CPA Canada’s application to dismiss includes formal investigation reports about American and Mexican accounting bodies that were prepared before entering reciprocal agreements with those countries. It also includes the formal framework used by CPA Canada for assessing reciprocal agreements with accounting bodies in GAA countries. The investigations and framework appear to focus on the experience, education, and evaluation requirements used by accounting bodies outside Canada.
[55] Mr. Singh says CPA Canada prioritised NAFTA and GAA countries in establishing reciprocal membership agreements, and this undermines CPA Canada’s argument that it objectively assesses the education, experience, and evaluation requirements set by international regulatory bodies, in its decision-making about reciprocal agreements. He says it is unfair that CPA Canada prioritises reciprocal agreements with certain countries, and considers such agreements even when there are significant differences between those countries’ licensing requirements for accountants and the requirements in Canada. For example, he says CPA Canada’s evidence show it entered into a reciprocal agreement with Mexico even though its investigation found accounting bodies in Mexico had very different standards for admission than their Canadian counterparts.
[56] I am not persuaded by this argument. Even if CPA Canada prioritised reciprocal membership agreements with NAFTA countries, that does not necessarily mean it discriminated against accountants from other countries. Again, I accept the VP PCQ’s evidence could support a non-discriminatory explanation for CPA Canada’s decision-making regarding the MOU. Her evidence, in combination with the documentary evidence before me about the processes that led to reciprocal agreements with GAA and NAFTA countries, suggests that CPA Canada’s decision-making about reciprocal membership agreements is based not on assumptions about international accounting bodies but objective factors related to their experience, education, and evaluation requirements.
[57] Unlike in Bitonti, the requirement for ICAI members to write the CFE is based on a reciprocal agreement with a foreign regulator. There is no dispute that ICAI agreed with CPA Canada that ICAI members should write the CFE, before being granted a CPA designation in Canada. Mr. Singh suggests the agreement is unfair to ICAI members because CPA Canada negotiated the agreement in an overly aggressive manner, but it is not clear how the evidence he relies on, namely an email he received from ICAI on Aug 12, 2024, supports this argument. I am not persuaded that this evidence, or any other evidence before me, could support an argument that ICAI did not enter the MOU freely.
[58] Mr. Singh’s response to the application to dismiss says the MOU is based, in part, on an assumption that every ICAI member lacks a bachelor’s or graduate degree. For this argument he relies on the terms of the MOU, which explicitly sets out that ICAI members seeking a CPA designation in Canada are not required to have a university degree, but he does not explain how this could support a finding that the Respondents assumed ICAI members do not have a degree. On the materials before me, he has no reasonable prospect of proving that any of the Respondents made this assumption.
[59] Mr. Singh argues that CPA Canada and Canadian regulatory agencies impose more onerous requirements on accountants trained in other countries for financial reasons, in order to gain more revenue. He says the Respondents charge candidates for taking the CFE, and they make more money by requiring more students to write it. I find this argument speculative. There is no dispute that all the institutional respondents are not operated for profit, and no evidence the Respondents’ decision-making about the MOU was motivated by financial considerations. Even if it was, Mr. Singh has not explained how this could establish that the requirement for him to write the CFE was based on negative assumptions or adverse considerations connected to his place of origin.
[60] Mr. Singh says I should draw a negative inference against CPA Canada because of redactions in the evidence it provided. I do not find this argument persuasive. The Tribunal previously allowed an application by CPA Canada to redact some of its evidence for relevance and privilege. The Tribunal’s order provided that Mr. Singh could challenge those redactions, if necessary, and apply for a ruling on whether they were appropriate, but he has not applied for this. On the materials before me, I am not satisfied the redactions are inappropriate, or that CPA Canada has intentionally withheld relevant evidence.
[61] I have considered whether Mr. Weber’s alleged comments, about accountants from India and CFE candidates trained outside Canada in general, could bring the connection between the Respondents’ decision-making about the MOU and Mr. Singh’s place of origin beyond conjecture. But Mr. Weber was employed by CPAWSB. The decisions about the MOU at issue in Mr. Singh’s complaint were made by CPA Canada and provincial and territorial regulatory bodies, including CPABC. There is no evidence before me that Mr. Weber or CPAWSB had anything to do with the MOU. In any event, as described below, I find Mr. Singh has no reasonable prospect of proving Mr. Weber’s comments were discriminatory.
[62] Considering all the evidence before me, I am satisfied CPA Canada is reasonably certain to prove its decision-making about the MOU was based on actual knowledge of the ICAI qualification process, and comparisons with the CPA qualification process in Canada. Mr. Singh has no reasonable prospect of proving CPA Canada’s decision-making was arbitrary or based on negative assumptions about India or about the qualifications of accountants trained there, or that it otherwise considered his place of origin in an adverse or unfavourable way.
[63] For these reasons, I find Mr. Singh has no reasonable prospect of proving a discriminatory connection between his place of origin and the requirement for him to pass the CFE, to obtain a CPA designation in BC.
C. Mr. Singh has no reasonable prospect of proving Mr. Weber’s comments were discrimination
[64] Mr. Singh says Mr. Weber asked him if he was from India, and said professionals trained outside of Canada may lack skills in different styles of communication. The Respondents did not provide any evidence that could contradict Mr. Singh’s allegations about what Mr. Weber said. But they say that even if Mr. Weber made these comments, Mr. Singh has no reasonable prospect of proving they amount to discrimination based on his place of origin.
[65] For the following reasons, I agree with the Respondents, and I am satisfied that Mr. Singh has no reasonable prospect of proving discrimination based on Mr. Weber’s comments.
[66] Not every comment connected to a characteristic protected by the Code is discrimination. To decide whether a single negative comment amounts to discrimination within the meaning of the Code, the Tribunal will consider the full context, including the “egregiousness or virulence of the comment, the nature of the relationship between the involved parties, the context in which the comment was made, whether an apology was offered, and whether or not the recipient of the comment was a member of a group historically discriminated against”: Pardo v. School District No. 43, 2003 BCHRT 71 at para. 12.
[67] The Respondents say, and I do not understand Mr. Singh to dispute, that Mr. Weber made the comments at issue as part of his duties at CPAWSB, which included advising unsuccessful candidates about preparing for their next attempt at writing the CFE. In this context, the comments to not appear to be egregious or virulent. According to Mr. Singh’s account, Mr. Weber’s only reference to Mr. Singh’s place of origin was a question about whether he was from India; his alleged comments about communication styles were about internationally trained professionals generally, not India in particular. This is consistent with the Respondents’ submission that the comments were intended as advice about areas to focus on, in Mr. Singh’s preparations for re-attempting the CFE. The Respondents provided evidence showing that a candidate’s communication skills are a significant factor in grading the CFE.
[68] While there is no evidence before me that CPAWSB or Mr. Weber apologised for the comments with which Mr. Singh takes issue, Mr. Singh’s response to the application to dismiss does not point to any evidence that he notified the Respondents he had concerns about his interaction with Mr. Weber, before he filed this complaint. Moreover, viewed in context, it is not clear to me an apology was warranted.
[69] Mr. Singh says Mr. Weber’s comments reflect a common belief that accountants from India excel in technical knowledge but struggle in the CFE due to communications challenges. I understand him to argue that, as an accountant from India, he is a member of a group that has historically been discriminated against. Mr. Singh does not say what evidence supports his claim that this belief is common. Even if there is such a perception in the accounting community, it is not clear how a perception that accountants from India excel in some areas but not others could amount to historical discrimination.
[70] Considering Mr. Weber’s alleged comments in light of all the contextual information before me, I am satisfied that Mr. Singh has no reasonable prospect of proving they rose to the level of discrimination under the Code.
IV CONCLUSION
[71] Mr. Singh’s allegations have no reasonable prospect of success. His complaint is dismissed under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code.
Andrew Robb
Tribunal Member