🚨 ᒥᔅᑌ ᑳ ᑲᓈᐌᔨᐦᑖᑲᓂᐎᒡ ᑭᒋ ᓯᓛ & ᓇᒪᐎᒡ ᐙᐸᓐ — ᐱᓖ-ᑕᐃᒪᓐ ᒣᔅᑲᓇᐤ
Détails →
ᐋᔭᒥᐎᓐ / Language : FR | EN | ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ | ᐄᔨᔨᐤ
NV
NordVoix ᐄᔨᔨᐤ ᐋᒋᒧᐎᓐ
ᑌᓀ ᐊᔅᒌ ᒥᓂᐦᐃᑑᐎᓐ 10 November 2026

NWT Accountant's Appeal Against Disciplinary Hearing Denied by Court

Yellowknife accountant Biswanath Chakrabarty's bid to halt disciplinary hearing rejected by NWT Supreme Court. Court rules case not exceptional for early intervention.

ᐆᑌ ᐅᐦᒋ ᐋᒋᒧᐎᓐ Cabin Radio (Yellowknife / TNO) ᐧᐋᐸᐦᑕ ᑳ ᐅᐦᒋ ᐋᒋᒧᐎᒡ →
📌 ᓀᔥᑖ ᓂᔥᑐ ᐋᒋᒧᐎᓇ
- NWT Supreme Court rejects accountant's request to stop disciplinary hearing - Previous complaint resolved via mediation in 2021 - Court allows double punishment argument to be raised during hearing

NWT Court Upholds Disciplinary Hearing for Yellowknife Accounting Firm

The NWT Supreme Court has dismissed a request by Biswanath Chakrabarty, president of EPR Yellowknife Accounting Professional Corporation, to halt a disciplinary hearing regarding a complaint filed by the Town of Norman Wells.

Justice Annie Piché ruled on Tuesday that Chakrabarty's appeal is premature, as the disciplinary process is still in its early stages. The Chartered Professional Accountants NWT/Nunavut (CPA NWT/NU) had initiated the hearing in November 2025 following a complaint from Norman Wells about a review report completed by EPR between 2015 and 2018.

Historical Context and Previous Complaints

This case builds on a prior dispute that began in 2021 when Catherine Mallon, former administrative officer of Norman Wells, filed a complaint alleging EPR failed to clarify that their report was a review-level document rather than a forensic audit. That complaint was resolved through mediation in 2021, followed by a public apology issued in 2022.

The current complaint, filed by the Town of Norman Wells in 2023, alleges that the town relied on the mischaracterized report in a lawsuit against Mallon—a case that was later abandoned. The town claims it only learned the report was a review, not a forensic audit, through EPR's 2022 press release, which they argue diminished the report's credibility.

Court Ruling and Future Proceedings

Justice Piché emphasized that while Chakrabarty can argue the issue of "double punishment" during the disciplinary hearing, the court cannot intervene at this stage. "This is not one of those rare and exceptional cases where early intervention is necessary to prevent injustice," she stated.

CPA NWT/NU argued that the second complaint involves distinct issues not addressed in the previous resolution. The court has now permitted the disciplinary hearing to proceed, with Chakrabarty's legal team able to present their case on double punishment during the hearing itself.

The ruling comes amid broader legal challenges, including a dismissed $26.6-million lawsuit filed by Chakrabarty and EPR against an unnamed party in September 2025.

💬 ᑲᑫᐧᒋᐦᑌᐎᓇ

Why was the disciplinary hearing allowed to proceed? ↓
The court ruled the case was not exceptional enough for early intervention, as the disciplinary process was still in its early stages.
What was the previous complaint about? ↓
A 2021 complaint by Norman Wells' former administrative officer alleged EPR misrepresented a report as a forensic audit when it was only a review-level document.
Can the accountant argue double punishment? ↓
Yes, the court has allowed Chakrabarty to raise the double punishment argument during the disciplinary hearing itself.

ᑯᑕᑲ ᐋᒋᒧᐎᓇ