On July 15, 2023, the regulatory body for B.C.’s 40,000 professional accountants issued a public notice stating that Abbotsford accountant Michael Nice was now a “former member.”
This meant Nice was no longer licensed to perform professional accountant services in B.C., but the notice—issued by the Chartered Professional Accountants of BC (CPABC)—gave no indication why.
Nice had served his community for 25 years, his online reviews were great, he had an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau and no history of regulatory problems.
When asked by BIV what prompted the notice, CPABC officials said they couldn’t answer for privacy reasons.
BIV also attempted to reach Nice via two law firms understood to have recently represented him, to understand the circumstances behind his departure from the profession. No response was received.
One of those firms represented Nice in a civil lawsuit wherein Abbotsford businessman Harry Froese had accused Nice of fraud and misrepresentation.
The 71-year-old retired builder and part-time turkey farmer brought concerns about CPABC to BIV’s attention after reading reporting published last year that raised questions about whether CPABC is adequately discharging its duty to protect consumers, given a lack of transparency in its public notices.
Froese said he first took his concerns to CPABC in November 2019, but that after a nearly four-year complaint process, he was left with unanswered questions and distrust in the regulator.
“CPABC is not there to protect the public, it’s there to protect their own guys,” said Froese.
Accountant reached settlement after land deal
In July 2020, Froese alleged in B.C. Supreme Court that Nice, who had been his accountant, and Nice’s now-deceased business partner had defrauded him of $450,000.
Nice, his company Powerblock Management Ltd. and the business partner were planning to develop a subdivision in Maple Ridge, and allegedly approached Froese to invest in one vacant property as a limited partner.
In February 2014, Froese purchased one property for $1.4 million. Though the partnership ultimately failed, Froese kept the property.
According to his claim, Froese later found out that $450,000 of that investment went to Powerblock without Froese’s knowledge. He also claimed that his contract differed from that of the seller.
Nice denied the allegations, which were never proven in court.
Instead, last July, Nice and Froese reached a settlement, with terms that were not disclosed.
CPABC complaint took nearly four years to process
Meanwhile, Froese’s complaint with CPABC proceeded with the help of his son Derek Froese, who acted on his behalf through much of the process.
According to correspondence between Derek and CPABC that was reviewed by BIV, CPABC investigation committee chair Craig Elliot confirmed on March 25, 2020 that an investigation into Nice was proceeding.
Derek claimed he went through long periods of time without hearing from CPABC about the investigation, which proved frustrating for Froese.
“Here we are trying to get an issue solved with a public entity who is refusing to cooperate with us. Sometimes they wouldn’t even respond to us. We had to send numerous emails and we’ve still never met these people,” said Froese.
By March 2022, Derek had escalated matters to CPABC’s director of professional conduct Martin Eady after receiving a letter from the investigations committee indicating it had completed its investigation, and that instructions would be sent to the organization’s disciplinary committee.
Derek told Eady he felt two years was more than sufficient to understand and address the matter and that he did “not feel the public is being adequately protected by CPABC.”
Eady provided few details of the investigation but told Derek “matters must remain confidential while our legal processes take place.”
Eady did, however, disclose to Derek via email on March 8, 2022 the investigation committee “determined grounds exist for a disciplinary action against Mr. Nice for having contravened certain Rules of Professional Conduct. As a result the Investigation Committee has instructed that a Statement of Complaint be delivered to the Disciplinary Committee.”
Derek was informed “matters are proceeding.”
Sixteen months later, on July 26, 2023, Froese and Derek received a brief letter from CPABC vice-president of professional conduct Edward Tanaka advising them that Nice was no longer a member of CPABC.
And, said Tanaka, “as a result of Mr. Nice’s cancelled membership, the discipline proceeding concerning your complaint is now closed.”
Tanaka provided no indication to Froese that Nice’s departure was related to his complaint or, for that matter, any misconduct whatsoever.
Derek said he filed a freedom of information request to gain an understanding of what occurred with his complaint. The request came back almost entirely redacted save for any emails he sent to CPABC, said Derek.
Derek also said he contacted the BC Ombudsperson, which proved “useless.”
“CPABC is not doing their job,” said Froese.
“We never had a face-to-face with them; there’s never been a hearing; there’s been nothing; they hide behind the internet,” said Froese.
Froese and Derek said CPABC declined to properly inform them of the investigation process, leaving them to speculate as to what happened.
It remains unclear if CPABC’s public notice regarding Nice is related to the investigation into Froese’s complaint. There is no public regulatory determination that Nice has breached the CPABC code of conduct.
One of Nice’s attorneys said they were not authorized to speak on the matter.
CPABC anonymizes most of their disciplinary outcomes
CPABC bylaws enable the regulator to limit transparency in its enforcement procedures, often at the request of an accountant.
If the CPABC investigation committee determines there is reason to believe misconduct occurred, it can recommend a sanction.
A respondent accountant may choose to accept the recommended sanction, or proceed to a hearing, which may not necessarily be public should an accountant convince a panel it is in the interest of justice “to avoid unwarranted disclosure.”
In 2024, CPABC published two hearing decisions.
Cases that reach a so-called “determination and recommendation” may be, and often are, anonymized online, upon direction from the investigation committee, with the support of at least two of three CPABC public representatives.
In 2024, 20 of 21 determinations and recommendations were anonymized.
However, an accountant can also avoid this process entirely by reaching a resolution with CPABC “at any time before the respondent’s acceptance of a determination and recommendation of the investigation committee or the issuance of a statement of complaint,” according to bylaws set out by the act.
A resolution could include voluntarily relinquishing CPABC membership and one’s practice licence. All a respondent accountant must then do is consent to publication of any public notice, if the committee thinks one is warranted.
In 2024, CPABC issued four public notices.
Furthermore, CPABC unpublishes or anonymizes public notices after a certain period of time. Current CPABC regulations place a two-year limit on non-anonymized notices, at the discretion of the board.
CPABC did not disclose, when asked, how many accountants are choosing resolutions to bypass disciplinary hearings or recommended sanctions.
Froese contends CPABC is “burying the information” about errant accountants and consumers are not being fully informed of the people providing them accounting services in the province.
Oversight of lies with post-secondary ministry
Although accountancy is a finance-related profession, CPABC does not fall under the oversight of the Ministry of Finance, but rather its Ministry of Post-secondary Education and Future Skills.
Alberta’s post-secondary ministry also oversees the province’s CPA regulator, but oversight in other provinces falls within finance ministries or, in Ontario’s case, the Ministry of the Attorney General.
The B.C. Ministry of Post-secondary Education and Future Skills told BIV it has no plans to alter its oversight, which was originally predicated on the fact CPABC trains and educates accountants.
Until very recently, protection of the public interest did not figure in the profession’s enabling legislation.
It was only in March 2024 that the Chartered Professional Accountants Act was amended to add “protection of the public interest” to CPABC’s legislated objectives.
The amendment brought the act in line with legislation related to other professional regulatory bodies, but was also in response to 10 recommendations that money laundering inquiry commissioner Austin Cullen directed at the CPABC in June 2022.
“Further amendments were made to give the minister new authority to issue guidelines and directives to CPABC, and to request information related to CPABC’s strategic objectives,” the ministry said in a statement to BIV.
Current Minister Anne Kang declined an opportunity to comment.
‘Multitude of factors’ in disciplinary process: Mathison
Steven Salterio, chair of accounting and auditing in the Smith School of Business at Queen’s University, said CPABC “is very much on the less disclosure side with respect to professional complaints and the results of disciplinary hearings compared to other CPA bodies in Canada.”
He added that there is understandable confusion as to who exactly is and should be overseeing accountants in Canada.
“The positioning of CPA provincial bodies as primarily regulators is a relatively recent development,” said Salterio.
In response to multiple interview requests, CPABC CEO Lori Mathison declined to comment on the Nice case and the regulator’s complaints process.
She did state in an emailed response via communications staff, that she and the organization understand what is best for the public.
“CPABC’s disciplinary processes are comprehensive and take the public interest into account at every stage in the process,” Mathison said.
“Like many regulators, CPABC also considers a multitude of factors when determining whether a matter should proceed to a hearing.”
CPABC evaluates the evidence, whether the conduct was willful, whether it was part of a repeated pattern and if there are any mitigating factors—such as health conditions—or aggravating factors, said Mathison.
After four years, however, Derek says he remains unconvinced about the process, which he said appears to protect accountants.
“There’s absolutely no consequences or oversight governing CPABC conduct,” he said.
