The Appellant submits that he did not go to S.L.’s home with the intention of causing her any harm. The Appellant characterizes the altercation as an “error in judgment” made by both parties, and states that it did not rise to the level of professional misconduct.
 The Appellant submits that the proper test for determining what rises to the level of misconduct was outlined in Barrington v. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario. In Barrington, the Court of Appeal confirmed that such a finding requires that the member a) failed to perform his or her professional duties in accordance with the standards established by the profession, and b) that this failure is “significant”.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.