BC Court Compels KPMG Partner Testimony Over Confidentiality

KPMG partner will be examined under oath after a British Columbia judge rejected confidentiality objections, the court said on July 14, 2026.

Judge orders oral testimony in North Vancouver development dispute

Associate Judge Robinson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Vancouver issued the ruling orally, stating the accountant must answer questions in person about a tax transaction he devised. The decision follows a commercial conflict involving a multi‑tower residential project in North Vancouver.

In 2015 a company director agreed to purchase three strata lots in one of the towers, intending to combine them into a single penthouse. The closing was scheduled for January 2019. As the deadline approached, the director arranged a $2.5 million transfer from the developer to himself and to a corporate defendant. Whether the money constituted a loan, an advance on future earnings, or something else will be decided at trial.

The director and the developer were not at arm’s length, creating potential income‑tax implications. To limit exposure, the director retained KPMG, and a partner from the firm crafted a complex tax arrangement. The judge noted there was no allegation of wrongdoing by the partner and made no finding of unlawful conduct.

Confidentiality claims rejected

The developer asked the court to examine the partner under oath before trial. KPMG, representing both the firm and the individual, opposed the move, arguing the accountant was willing to respond to written questions and that a formal order was unnecessary.

Judge Robinson found the partner’s willingness hinged on not breaching the CPABC Code of Professional Conduct, which bars disclosure of client information without consent or a court order. Because the defendants controlled what the partner could reveal, the judge described their assurance as “at best highly equivocal and at worst, illusory.” The court treated the stance as a refusal under the rules governing pre‑trial examinations.

The judge also dismissed the idea that written questions could replace oral testimony, noting the technical nature of the transaction would generate inevitable follow‑up queries. Consequently, the application was granted, and the partner must submit to an oral examination. The developer was ordered to pay the partner’s reasonable costs, which the developer may later claim back as a taxable disbursement. Costs related to the application itself will be resolved after the case concludes.

For professionals bound by confidentiality codes, the ruling makes clear that such obligations yield to a court’s authority. A client’s refusal to waive confidentiality does not automatically protect a professional from being compelled to testify, and limited cooperation may not satisfy a judge seeking access to relevant evidence.