Grey Areas: When Off-Duty Conduct Affects the Professional Standing of a CPA

The grey area between personal autonomy and professional accountability has become one of the more challenging aspects of professional regulation. While CPAs are entitled to private lives, the profession’s public-interest mandate means that certain forms of off-duty conduct can raise legitimate concerns about professional integrity, judgment, and trustworthiness. These concerns may lead to professional discipline if a CPA’s off-duty conduct reflects adversely on the profession or undermines public confidence, regardless of whether the conduct is related to the practice of professional accounting.

In British Columbia, the governing framework for this issue is found primarily in the CPABC Code of Professional Conduct (the CPA Code) and the disciplinary authority granted under the Chartered Professional Accountants Act. Although the CPA Code does not regulate all aspects of a member’s private life, it establishes broad ethical principles that extend beyond direct professional services.

Why off-duty conduct matters

The accounting profession is built on a foundation of trust. Clients, investors, employers, lenders, governments, and the general public rely on CPAs to provide accurate financial information and exercise objective professional judgment. Accordingly, dishonest or unethical conduct—even in a personal context—can call into question the professional fitness of a CPA.

The rationale is straightforward: If a CPA demonstrates dishonesty or misconduct in their private life, the public may question whether the individual can be trusted with responsibilities involving aspects of professional accounting, such as client confidentiality, fiduciary obligations, and financial stewardship.

This does not mean that every personal dispute or mistake becomes a disciplinary matter for CPABC; for example, CPABC has declined to investigate a complaint made against a CPA that related to the breakdown of their marriage. Rather, the key test for CPABC is to distinguish between purely private conduct and conduct that could have an impact on the profession’s reputation. Obviously, the more serious the misconduct, the more likely it is to attract regulatory scrutiny.

The principles of the CPA Code

Rather than serving as an exhaustive list of detailed requirements and prohibitions (which would be impossible), the CPA Code is intentionally designed to serve as a principles-based guide that establishes broad ethical standards to which CPAs must adhere.¹ These standards relate to professional behaviour, integrity and due care, objectivity, professional competence, and confidentiality.

The CPA Code’s preamble clearly states that CPAs are expected to “conduct themselves at all times [our emphasis] in a manner which will maintain the good reputation of the profession and serve the public interest” and thereby “avoid any action that would discredit the profession.”² This same principle is repeated in Rule 201.1, which states that a CPA must “maintain the good reputation of the profession and serve the public interest.”³

Further CPABC guidance emphasizes that ethical obligations may arise in volunteer activities⁴ within employment relationships and in other settings involving professional trust and judgment.

Criminal matters

Criminal conduct is the clearest example of behaviour that can attract both public and regulatory scrutiny. Even where criminal activity is unrelated to the practice of accounting, a criminal conviction likely indicates a lack of integrity incompatible with a CPA’s professional obligations. For this reason, CPAs are required by Rule 102 of the CPA Code (Matters to be reported to CPABC) to “promptly notify CPABC” of any criminal conviction, regardless of its nature or context. This self-reporting requirement enables CPABC to assess the significance of the matter and deal with it appropriately and in a timely manner.

Here’s a real example of off-duty conduct resulting in criminal charges: While intoxicated, a CPABC member became involved in an altercation with an employee of a nightclub. The member was subsequently convicted of “simple assault” under the Criminal Code of Canada. The CPA received a conditional discharge from the Provincial Court of British Columbia and was placed on probation for one year.

CPABC’s Investigation Committee determined that the member had contravened the CPA Code because their behaviour affected the profession’s reputation. The committee recommended that the member receive a reprimand and be required to provide CPABC’s director of professional conduct with written confirmation when they concluded their probationary period.

CPABC publishes the outcomes of disciplinary proceedings online. Visit bccpa.ca and choose Member & Practice Regulation > Ethics and Discipline > Discipline Summaries for details.

Social media and personal expression—a very grey area

One of the emerging problem areas for off-duty conduct involves social media. As of yet, there have been few publicly reported discipline cases specifically involving social media use in BC; however, other professional regulators in Canada and elsewhere are increasingly demonstrating that they view online conduct as a threat to public confidence in a profession.

The legal and ethical tension is obvious. CPAs retain freedom of expression rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 2(b) of the Charter safeguards the freedoms of thought, belief, opinion, and expression,⁵ and Canadian courts have consistently acknowledged that freedom of expression is an essential right of all Canadians.

However, those rights are not absolute in professional settings.

Communications on social media are subject to the same legal limitations as other forms of expression. Statements that involve intentional falsehoods, personal attacks, or offensive and malicious remarks typically receive diminished constitutional protection.⁶ For example, racist, misogynistic, threatening, or deliberately deceptive online conduct could be viewed as inconsistent with a profession’s emphasis on integrity and ethical behaviour. Even social media conduct occurring entirely outside of work hours may become subject to scrutiny if it becomes public and reflects adversely on a profession’s reputation.

At the same time, there are important limits on regulatory authority, as illustrated by the case of Strom v Saskatchewan Registered Nurses’ Association.⁷ In this case, the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan ruled in favour of Carolyn Strom, a registered nurse who’d been sanctioned by her professional body for unprofessional conduct. At issue were comments Strom made on social media criticizing the quality of care her grandfather had received at a Saskatchewan health facility. In its finding, the Court of Appeal stated that Strom was entitled to make such comments under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Generally, Canadian courts require that complainants establish a meaningful connection between the conduct and legitimate regulatory objectives such as integrity, competence, public confidence, and protection of the public.

Summary

The regulation of off-duty conduct remains one of the most nuanced aspects of professional discipline—one that requires a careful balancing of public protection and individual rights.

In British Columbia, the profession’s ethical framework, as expressed in the CPA Code, recognizes that public confidence depends not only on technical competence, but also on integrity and professionalism extending beyond formal client engagements. Not every personal failing will justify discipline. However, where off-duty conduct demonstrates dishonesty, abuse of trust, discrimination, serious criminality, or behaviour likely to undermine public confidence in the profession, CPABC possesses broad authority to act.

For CPAs, the message is clear: You can’t leave your professional obligations at the office door. Integrity is not situational in a trust-based profession. The grey areas of off-duty conduct ultimately turn on a central question: Is the conduct in question consistent with the honesty, judgment, and professionalism the public is entitled to expect from a chartered professional accountant?

Do you need guidance?

CPABC’s professional standards advisors are here to help. You can consult with them for confidential guidance to ensure that you stay compliant with the CPA Code of Professional Conduct and the CPABC Bylaws when navigating difficult situations. Contact our advisors by email.

This article was originally published in the July/August 2026 issue of CPABC in Focus.

Footnotes