A recent decision of the BCHRT serves as a reminder to professional regulatory bodies that their licensing requirements for international applicants are fair, evidence-based, and free from negative assumptions: Singh v. Organization of Chartered and Professional Accountants of British Columbia and others (No.3), 2026 BCHRT 74 CanLII.
Mr. Singh is an accountant who immigrated to Canada from India and is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (“ICAI”). In 2019, he applied to become a chartered professional accountant (CPA) in BC. The Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia (CPABC) is the regulatory body for accountants in BC. Chartered Professional Account of Canada (CPA Canada) is a not-for-profit national organization that supports the accounting profession in Canada. Mr. Singh filed a human rights complaint against CPABC, CPA Canada and others alleging, inter alia, they discriminated against him based on his place of origin by requiring him to write the exam to become a CPA in BC (the “CFE”), 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, 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 exam.
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 must still pass the CFE. 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.
In considering the respondents’ application to dismiss the complaint, the Tribunal noted the case of Bitonti v. British Columbia (Ministry of Health) (No. 3), 1999 CanLII 35189 (BC HRT), in which 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. 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.
CPA Canada argued, and the BCHRT accepted, that to establish discrimination based on the fact that the MOU required Mr. Singh 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.
The Tribunal determined that Mr. Singh had 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, for a number of reasons including that:
- CPA Canada provided evidence that its decision-making was based on an assessment of the ICAI on its own merits, and not the mere fact that it was operating in India.
- In 2004, a committee consisting of representatives of CPA Canada and provincial and territorial regulatory bodies carried out a formal assessment of ICAI. As a result of this assessment, the committee 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 and to pass the uniform final examination.
- In 2016, CPA Canada conducted another review of the ICAI program. The review recommended that ICAI members should continue to be required to write the exam should they wish to join the accounting profession in Canada. 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. Mr. Singh does not deny that ICAI’s training program does not use an integrative approach, like the CFE.
- CPA Canada’s evidence suggests that its 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.
- 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.
The Tribunal determined that Mr. Singh’s allegations have no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed his complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code.
Takeaways:
- Build the assessment record before you need it. Each foreign-credential pathway should rest on a written review that identifies what the foreign program covers, what it omits, and how any gap maps onto the regulator’s licensing requirements.
- Tie the requirement to the gap, not a country. Additional examinations, bridging programs, or supervised practice imposed on foreign-trained applicants should be framed by reference to the specific competencies or methodologies the foreign program lacks.
- Re-assess periodically. Licence committees should build a reassessment cycle into their work plans, or sooner when a foreign program undergoes major reform.
- Negotiate reciprocal agreements where possible. A mutual-recognition agreement in which the foreign regulator itself agrees its members should complete an examination or bridging step helps defeat any inference of unilateral negative assumption.
Singh v. Organization of Chartered and Professional Accountants of British Columbia and others (No.3), 2026 BCHRT 74 CanLII.
Rachel Noble