Sir, Please explain the result of Canadian Case, <em><span style=”text-decoration: underline”>International Laboratories Ltd. Vs Dewar & Others </span></em> in which the concept of Auditor as being a watch-dog not a bloodhound is criticized ?
Ok now in this case , judge says it is responsiblity of watch dog whenever he sees any unusual activity or threat to do reporting and communications in such manner that etiher 1. Threat is nullified or 2. Owners are alerted about the danger.
So auditor should play active role to save company and not just do formality of doing one time reporting.
So he should go beyond watch dog of just reporting and be be blood hound behind fardusters and wrong doers.
“As I understand it, the useful work of a watch-dog is based on the fact that he is expected,
particularly if he be in the dark, to raise an alarm whenever he sees or hears anything unusual,
and, if a possible marauder appears to be approaching, to continue his combined protests and
threats with two objects in view : (1) that the cause of the fancied threat may be withdrawn; and
(2) that his master may be aroused to his danger; and only when one of these objects has been
accomplished will he be considered to have discharged the duties of the position which he
assumed. He will not have performed the functions of his office if after one howl he retreats
‘under the barn’, or if he confines his protest to a fellow watchdog.”