A junior tells a client that "the previous accountant clearly didn't know what they were doing." Judged by this course's tests of professional behaviour, this is:
A junior tells a client that "the previous accountant clearly didn't know what they were doing." Judged by this course's tests of professional behaviour, this is:
Answer
Disparaging a colleague's work without cause — a breach
Options - A. Disparaging a colleague's work without cause — a breach - B. Acceptable, because any professional may criticise a colleague - C. Acceptable, because it is only a disagreement about method - D. Required, as the duty to report a colleague's breach Why - A. Correct — a sweeping judgement of competence, to a client, with no specifics. Documenting specific errors privately with cause would have been due care instead. - B. Criticism with cause, in the right place, is fine. A sweeping remark to the client with no specifics is not criticism; it is disparagement. - C. No method was disagreed with. The junior made a judgement of the person, not of a treatment. - D. The duty to report goes to the professional body through its channel, with facts. A remark to a client is neither.
CPA Ontario Code rules 201, 202, 203, 205, 211 (numbers and titles verified 2026-09-17; text not reproduced); CPA Ontario Student Code rule 301; Smith 10.2.1 (professional behaviours); concept map C10–C12, C19