We often tell clients that the “Duty to Cooperate” with the regulator is absolute. A recent decision from the College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents (CPATA) the Discipline Committee took the extraordinary step of confirming a finding of professional misconduct against an Agent after he had passed away.
In CPATA v. Fincham, the Discipline Committee not only found an Agent guilty of misconduct for failing to respond to an investigation, but they also took the extraordinary step of confirming that finding after the Agent had passed away.
We often tell clients that the “Duty to Cooperate” with the regulator is absolute. A recent decision from the College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents (CPATA) has illustrated this principle in the most stark and somber terms imaginable.
This case dismantles the common belief that a complaint file will simply “go away” if you ignore it long enough, or even if you are no longer here to answer it.
The “Ghosting” Happened While the Agent Was Still Alive
It is important to understand the timeline of this case. Mr. Fincham was not disciplined for silence after his death; he was disciplined for ignoring the regulator for over a year while he was practicing.
Throughout 2023 and 2024, the College’s investigator and Registrar sent multiple inquiries regarding client complaints. Mr. Fincham did not reply. He ignored deadlines and failed to attend the merits hearing.
On December 10, 2024, while Mr. Fincham was still alive, the Discipline Committee found him guilty of professional misconduct. Crucially, they dismissed the underlying client complaints but convicted him purely on his failure to cooperate.
The Investigator
The case took an unusual turn during the penalty phase in early 2025. The College continued to send notices for the sentencing hearing, which went unanswered.
Unbeknownst to the regulator, Mr. Fincham had passed away in January 2025.
When the College could not reach him, they demonstrated an intense commitment to the integrity of the process. As noted in paragraph 13 of the decision, the Investigation Committee retained a private investigator in May 2025 to locate him. The investigator eventually secured “written confirmation from a funeral home” that the Agent had passed away months earlier.
The “Posthumous” Confirmation
In many administrative proceedings, the death of a respondent leads to an “abatement” which means that the file is closed because there is no one left to punish.
CPATA, however, refused to simply vacate the finding of guilt. On August 21, 2025, they issued an Order explicitly confirming the finding of professional misconduct on the public record.
The Committee’s message was clear: The integrity of the Register matters more than the practical outcome. They wanted it known, permanently, that failing to cooperate is professional misconduct, and that finding stands forever.
What This Means for Patent & Trademark Agents
The Fincham decision serves as a grim warning for any IP professional who feels tempted to “ghost” the College.
- Silence is a Separate Offence: You can be exonerated on the client complaint but still found guilty for failing to reply to the email.
- There is No “Waiting it Out”: If the regulator is willing to confirm a misconduct finding against a deceased member to preserve the integrity of the record, they will certainly not hesitate to pursue a living agent who is simply “too busy” to reply.
Don’t Face the College Alone
If you are overwhelmed by a complaint or facing personal health challenges, do not go silent. There are mechanisms to request accommodation, extensions, and support, but you must ask for them.
At Tamir Litigation, we handle the communication with CPATA so you don’t have to carry that burden alone.
Frequently Asked Questions: The Duty to Cooperate
Q: Can I ignore a CPATA complaint if the client’s allegations are completely false? A: No. Under the Code of Professional Conduct, you have a positive “Duty to Cooperate” (Rule 4). Even if the underlying complaint is meritless, failing to respond to the College’s emails is a separate and serious act of professional misconduct. In Fincham, the agent was found guilty primarily for his silence, not just the original issue.
Q: What happens to a discipline proceeding if the licensee passes away? A: Typically, proceedings are “abated” (closed) because there is no one left to penalize. However, the Fincham decision sets a new precedent: CPATA may choose to confirm a finding of professional misconduct on the public record to preserve the integrity of the Register, even if they cannot issue a fine or suspension.
Q: Why did CPATA hire a private investigator in the Fincham case? A: The College needed to confirm the Respondent’s status with absolute certainty before finalizing the order. The investigator was retained to locate funeral home records and verify the date of passing. This demonstrates the College’s commitment to procedural diligence and ensuring the accuracy of the regulatory record.
Q: Is “health issues” a valid defence for not responding to an investigator? A: Not automatically. While regulators can grant accommodations for health reasons, you must ask for them. Simply going silent (as Mr. Fincham did) is not a defence. If you are too unwell to respond, a representative or legal counsel should notify the College immediately to seek an extension.
Q: What should I do if I missed a deadline from a CPATA investigator? A: Do not panic, but do not wait any longer. Contact the investigator immediately, or have legal counsel do it for you, to explain the delay and provide the requested information. The worst thing you can do is continue to “ghost” them, as this turns a procedural error into an integrity violation.
This commentary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contact Tamir Litigation Law Firm today at 416-499-1676 or visit tamirlitigation.com to learn how you can protect your licence and your reputation. You can also message us on WhatsApp for a free initial chat.