If a practitioner is registered in two jurisdictions, which should proceed first with the investigation and hearing? This issue arose in Mema v Chartered Professional Accountants of Alberta (Complaints Inquiry Committee), 2022 ABCA 4 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/jlnm0. The practitioner was alleged to have engaged in serious financial misconduct in British Columbia. Most of the witnesses were located there. The practitioner argued that the British Columbia regulator should proceed before the Alberta regulator because this was the most convenient forum to address the matter. However, the Court questioned whether the most convenient forum consideration was even an appropriate one in a regulatory context. The practitioner was registered in Alberta and the Alberta regulator had jurisdiction over the practitioner and had the authority to discipline them for their conduct anywhere in the world. In any event, there was no unfairness due to Alberta proceeding first because the British Columbia regulator had deferred its investigation pending the outcome of the Alberta proceedings and there was also a question about B.C’s jurisdiction since most of the conduct occurred before the practitioner was registered in B.C. (but occurred while registered in Alberta). Also relevant was that some of the conduct (i.e., non-cooperation with the investigation) related solely to the Alberta regulator.
The Court also found that the timeline provisions in the Alberta legislation did not amount to a limitation period and could be extended by the regulator. The Court also maintained the significant costs order imposed by the Alberta regulator for its interim proceedings in the absence of evidence that the order would have a significant impact on the practitioner’s ability to defend themselves at the discipline hearing on the merits.
Regulators can discipline practitioners for conduct occurring in another jurisdiction even where that other jurisdiction has an equivalent regulator.