Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appeal challenged the Small Claims Court’s dismissal of a claim against CPA Ontario on grounds of statutory immunity and no reasonable cause of action.

• Central issue was whether CPA Ontario acted outside its statutory authority by recognizing university preparatory courses on its website.

• Court affirmed that CPAO acted within its legislative mandate under the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017.

• Allegations of bad faith and overreach by CPAO were rejected as unsupported and speculative.

• The Court also rejected claims of procedural unfairness and reasonable apprehension of bias by the motion judge.

• Appeal was dismissed and costs of $2,000 were awarded against the appellant.

Background and claim against the professional regulator

In Olusegun v. Carleton, 2025 ONSC 2559, the appellant, Isaac Olusegun, appealed a Small Claims Court ruling that struck out his claim against the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPAO). Olusegun had been a student in Carleton University’s Post-Baccalaureate Diploma in Accounting program and had been accused of academic misconduct during a final exam. The course was listed on the CPAO’s website as a qualifying prerequisite for entry into its professional education program. Olusegun sued Carleton University, its professors, and CPAO, alleging that CPAO’s recognition of the course contributed to his academic and professional harm.

Olusegun alleged that CPAO had overstepped its authority by endorsing or validating the course and that this conduct was outside the scope of its statutory mandate. He also alleged that CPAO acted in bad faith and with improper motives, favouring certain institutions and thereby harming students like him. The CPAO moved to strike the claim under Rule 12.02(1) of the Rules of the Small Claims Court, arguing that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was barred by statutory immunity under section 64 of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017.

Decision of the Small Claims Court

Deputy Judge Lise Henrie granted the motion to strike without leave to amend. The judge held that CPAO had not acted outside its mandate, which includes recognizing courses and institutions that meet its minimum academic requirements. There was no evidence of bad faith, and CPAO’s listing of the course did not create legal liability. The Court found that CPAO was protected by statutory immunity and that the allegations did not support a viable cause of action.

The motion judge also declined to allow amendments or grant equitable relief, finding that further pleadings would not cure the deficiencies in the claim. She ordered Olusegun to pay CPAO $100 in costs.

Divisional Court appeal and analysis

Justice S. Nakatsuru of the Divisional Court heard the appeal. The Court applied the standard appellate tests—correctness for legal questions and palpable and overriding error for factual or mixed questions. Olusegun argued that the judge below failed to apply relevant statutes, misinterpreted CPAO’s mandate, and unfairly struck the claim. He asserted that CPAO acted outside its scope by promoting or recognizing preparatory courses, which he claimed were not within the authority granted under the CPAO Act. He also attempted to rely on the Public Accounting Act as the “governing” statute, asserting that CPAO’s involvement with preparatory courses lacked legal basis.

The Court rejected these submissions. Justice Nakatsuru held that the CPAO acted well within its legislative authority in recognizing courses through an approved by-law passed in 2014. Section 65 of the CPAO Act expressly empowers CPAO to set academic standards and recognize course content necessary for entry into its programs. The Public Accounting Act was found to be irrelevant, as it relates to licensing public accountants—not admissions criteria to the CPA designation path.

The appellant’s claim that CPAO acted in bad faith or committed fraud was dismissed as speculative. The Court reaffirmed that statutory immunity under section 64 applies to all actions done in good faith within CPAO’s statutory mandate, and there was no evidence to displace the presumption of good faith.

Claims of bias and broader allegations rejected

Olusegun further alleged that the Small Claims judge demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias during the hearing and failed to fairly consider his submissions. He argued that the judge interrupted him and showed preference for the respondent’s arguments. The Court rejected these claims, emphasizing that judges may ask clarifying questions, and that nothing in the record suggested unfairness or partiality. Moreover, the appellant had not raised bias at the time of the hearing, and his allegations were unsupported by any admissible evidence.

The appellant’s additional claims—including procedural unfairness, disregard for facts, and the ultra vires enactment of CPAO by-laws—were either not raised below or found to have no merit. The Court held that even if statutory immunity had not applied, the claim would still have failed for lack of duty of care and absence of any breach.

Final outcome

The Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Justice Nakatsuru affirmed the motion judge’s findings, ruling that CPAO had not acted outside its mandate, and that the claim was properly struck. The appellant was ordered to pay CPAO $2,000 in costs. The case affirms the high threshold required to overcome statutory immunity and reinforces that courts will not allow speculative or procedurally deficient claims to proceed against professional regulators acting within their lawful authority.