Discipline Decisions (July 2025)

• On or about March 11, 2010, he was found guilty of one count of assault, which is an offence contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada;
• On or about September 9, 2009, he engaged in assault, which is an offence contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada, against [relationship], [Name], and in the conduct and acts which form the basis of that finding of guilt;
• Between approximately 2007 and 2009, he harassed and/or sexually harassed his [relationship] [Name], including by:
  • engaging in a course of vexatious comments or conduct that was known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome;
  • attempting to touch her inappropriately; and/or
  • touching her inappropriately on or about September 9, 2009.
• He failed to provide the Registrar with the details of a criminal charge against him relating to the offence of sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada, at any time after the charge was laid on or about September 18, 2009;
• He failed to notify or provide the Registrar with the details of a finding of guilt against him for the offence of assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada, at any time after it was made on or about March 11, 2010, including within 30 days as required, after December 2010, by College By-Laws, as amended;
• He provided false statements to the College in response to questions regarding a criminal charge and/or finding of guilt for an offence on his annual renewal declarations filed on or about February 3, 2010, and/or February 9, 2011; and/or
• He failed to file a report in writing with the Registrar as soon as practicable after he received notice that he found guilty of an offence on or about March 11, 2010.

In particular, the Panel found that the Registrant:

• Was found guilty of an offence relevant to his suitability to practice;
• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession;
• Contravened a term, condition, or limitation imposed on his certificate of registration;
• Contravened the Pharmacy Act, 1991, the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 or the regulations under those Acts, and in particular: section 85.6.1 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991;
• Engaged in conduct or performed an act relevant to the practice of pharmacy that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Panel imposed an Order, as follows:

1. A reprimand;
2. The Registrar shall suspend the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration for a period of 11 months. The suspension shall commence on April 1, 2025, and shall run without interruption until February 28, 2026, inclusive.
3. The Registrar is directed to impose specified terms, conditions or limitations on the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration, as follows:

a. That the Registrant successfully complete at his own expense, and by no later than April 1, 2026, a course with Gail E. Siskind Consulting Services, or another professional ethics consultant acceptable to the College, designed by the consultant with the purpose of addressing the professional misconduct issues raised in this case. The following terms shall apply to the course:

(A) The number of sessions shall be at the discretion of the consultant, but shall be no fewer than five;

(B) The manner of attendance at the sessions (for example, in person, via Zoom, etc.) shall be discussed in advance between the Registrant and the consultant, but ultimately shall be at the discretion of the consultant;

(C) The Registrant shall provide the consultant with the Agreed Statement of Facts and this Joint Submission on Order and Costs or the Panel’s decisions in this case;

(D) Successful completion of the course includes completion of an essay acceptable to the Registrar, which essay shall address the professional misconduct issues arising in this case;

(E) The essay shall be at least 1,000 words in length and the Registrant shall be responsible for the cost of the essay’s review by the consultant to assist the Registrar to determine whether the essay is acceptable, up to a maximum of $500; and

(F) The Registrant shall direct the consultant to report the results of the ethics course to the College, which report shall be made no later than May 1, 2026, to confirm that the Registrant completed the course to the consultant’s satisfaction.

b. That the Registrant shall be prohibited from acting as a Designated Manager until April 1, 2028;

4. The Registrant shall pay the College’s costs in the amount of $10,000.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that the Registrant had compromised the integrity of the profession.

The Panel also noted that public protection is of the utmost importance to both the College and the membership as it establishes trust. By not reporting his criminal charge and conviction, the Registrant compromised public safety, which is of significant concern to both the College and the Public.

The Panel observed that the fact that the Registrant had a charge, which eventually led to a criminal conviction, should indicate the seriousness of his actions. The Panel noted that by not reporting the charge and criminal conviction, the Registrant clearly violated the professional and ethical standards required of pharmacists and put the public in harm’s way. The Panel conveyed that this kind of behaviour undermines the public’s trust in the profession and cannot be tolerated.

The Panel noted that this reprimand should serve as a solemn reminder of the duties and responsibilities inherent in the professional role and the critical importance of ensuring that such behaviour is never repeated.

The Panel expressed its expectation that the Registrant’s involvement in these discipline proceedings has impressed upon him the seriousness of his actions, and that he will not appear before a Panel of the Discipline Committee again.

• Failed to adequately manage the Pharmacy, supervise staff, implement policies and procedures, and/or otherwise fulfill the obligations required of a Designated Manager, including but not limited to, with respect to:
  • ensuring unregulated staff do not perform controlled acts;
  • ensuring the Pharmacy is not open without a pharmacist present;
  • management of controlled substances and/or narcotics;
  • opioid agonist therapy (“OAT”) medication procedures and processes;
  • maintaining complete and/or accurate records;
  • cancelling or reversing prescriptions that were not picked up or dispensed;
  • appropriately labelling medication packaging and/or containers;
  • ensuring medications are refrigerated where necessary;
  • ensuring dispensed prescriptions are supported by a valid authorization from a prescriber;
• Instructed (or permitted, consented to, or approved, expressly or by implication) unregulated staff to measure, verify, dispense, and/or witness prescriptions for OAT medications;
• Instructed (or permitted, consented to, or approved, expressly or by implication) unregulated staff to sign records and/or process prescriptions to falsely indicate that pharmacists had dispensed and/or clinically verified prescriptions;
• Failed to take reasonable steps to protect narcotics and/or controlled substances at the Pharmacy from loss or theft, including but not limited to, failing to conduct, and/or maintain a record of, adequate counts and/or reconciliations for narcotics and/or controlled substances;
• Failed to (or permitted, consented to, or approved, expressly or by implication, the failure to) keep records as required, including but not limited to:
  • failing to maintain complete and/or accurate records for OAT patients and medications; and/or
  • failing to cancel or reverse prescriptions that were not picked up or dispensed;
• Failed to (or permitted, consented to, or approved, expressly or by implication, the failure to) refrigerate carry doses of methadone and/or label carry doses to indicate that they should be kept refrigerated by the patient;
• Dispensed (or permitted, consented to, or approved, expressly or by implication, the dispensing of) prescriptions without a valid authorization from a prescriber; and/or
• Instructed (or permitted, consented to, or approved, expressly or by implication) staff to open or keep open the Pharmacy without a pharmacist present.

In particular, the Panel found that the Registrant:

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession;
• Failed to provide an appropriate level of supervision to a person whom he was professionally obligated to supervise;
• Contravened the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, or the regulations thereunder, and in particular: section 146 of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act;
• Contravened a federal law with respect to the distribution, purchase, sale, or dispensing or prescribing of any drug or product, whose purpose is to protect or promote public health, and/or that is otherwise relevant to his suitability to practise, and in particular: section 43 of the Narcotic Control Regulations;
• Engaged in conduct or performed an act relevant to the practice of pharmacy that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Panel also made findings of proprietary misconduct against Jaspreet Sahota, as Designated Manager of Fort William Medical Pharmacy in Thunder Bay, Ontario (the “Pharmacy”) and Director of Fort William Medical Pharmacy Inc., c.o.b. as Fort William Medical Pharmacy, being the holder of the Certificate of Accreditation for the Pharmacy, in that he failed to adequately manage the Pharmacy, supervise staff, implement policies and procedures, and/or otherwise fulfill the obligations required of a Designated Manager and/or owner, including, but not limited to, with respect:

a. narcotics and controlled substances;

b. opioid agonist therapy (“OAT”) medications and/or patients;

c. recordkeeping and/or documentation;

d. compounding;

e. compliance package medications;

f cold chain and cold storage equipment;

g. medication deliveries;

h. patient assessment and/or counselling;

i. return to stock medications;

j. the College’s Assurance and Improvement in Medication Safety (AIMS) program;

k. expired drugs and products;

l. cancelling and/or reversing prescriptions that are not picked up; and/or

m. labelling of medications.

In particular, the Panel found that the Registrant:

• Failed to maintain a standard of accreditation;
• Failed to keep documents as required respecting patients, the operation of the Pharmacy and/or the practice of members practising in the Pharmacy;
• Engaged in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of pharmacy that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Panel imposed an Order, as follows:

1. A reprimand;
2. The Registrar shall suspend the Registrant’s certificate of registration for a period of 10 months. The suspension shall commence on April 22, 2025 and run without interruption until February 21, 2026, inclusive;
3. The Registrar is directed to impose specified terms, conditions or limitation on the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration, as follows:

a. The Registrant shall successfully complete, at his own expense and within 12 months of the date of this Order, the ProBE Program on Professional / Problem Based Ethics for Healthcare Professionals, with an unconditional pass;

b. The Registrant shall successfully complete, within 12 months of the date of this Order, or provide evidence satisfactory to the College that he has successfully completed within 12 months prior to the date of the Order, the College’s Designated Manager (DM) e-Learning module;

c. The Registrant shall successfully complete, within 12 months of the date of this Order, all of the College’s jurisprudence e-Learning modules and the Jurisprudence, Ethics and Professionalism exam;

d. The Registrant shall successfully complete, within 12 months of the date of this Order, the CAMH Opioid Use Disorder Treatment (OUDT) Course;

e. The Registrant shall successfully complete, at his own expense, and within 18 months of the date of this Order, a mentorship program focusing on the issues raised by the facts and findings of professional misconduct in this case. The mentorship program shall include the following terms:

i. Within 8 months of the date of this Order, the College shall assign the Registrant a practice mentor and the Registrant shall retain the practice mentor at his own expense;

ii. The mentor and the Registrant shall meet for the purpose of reviewing the Registrant’s practice with respect to the concerns raised by the facts and findings of professional misconduct in this case. The total number of sessions between the mentor and the Registrant will be at the sole discretion of the mentor, but shall be no less than 3;

iii. The Registrant shall provide the mentor with the following documents related to this proceeding:

a) a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts;

b) a copy of this Joint Submission on Order; and

c) a copy of the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Panel, when available.

iv. The Registrant shall develop a learning plan with the mentor to comprehensively address the remediation required;

v. The Registrant shall demonstrate to the mentor that he has successfully achieved all of the goals of the learning plan; and

vi. The Registrant shall require the mentor to report the results of the mentorship program to the College within 19 months of the date of this Order. Such report shall include, but is not limited to:

a) the learning plan; and

b) the Mentor’s Reporting Form as provided by the College, which shall include the mentor’s assessment of the Registrant’s success in meeting the goals of the learning plan.

f. The Registrant shall be prohibited from acting as a Designated Manager in any pharmacy for five years from the date of this Order or until the date on which the Registrant successfully completes the remediation described in paragraphs 3(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this Order, whichever period of time is longer.

g. The Registrant’s practice at any pharmacy in which he has a proprietary interest or of which he is the Designated Manager shall be subject to Compliance Audit Reviews (CARs) by the College. The following terms apply to the CARs:

i. the College will be entitled to conduct any CAR for a period of three (3) years from the date of this Order (“CARs Period”);

ii. if the Registrant ceases to have a proprietary interest in and ceases to be the Designated Manager of any pharmacy at any time within the 3 years specified in subparagraph (i) above, such that the College is unable to conduct any CARs, then the CARs Period shall be paused and shall resume on the date on which the Registrant obtains a proprietary interest in or becomes the Designated Manager of a pharmacy, and in such circumstances:

a. the Registrant shall notify the College, in writing, if he no longer has a proprietary interest in and is not the Designated Manager of a pharmacy at any point(s) during any times that the CARs Period remains active; and

b. if the CARs Period is paused at any time(s), the Registrant shall notify the College, in writing, when he obtains a proprietary interest in or becomes the Designated Manager of a pharmacy, at which point the CARs period shall resume and shall continue until a total period of 3 years has been achieved;

iii. the CARs will be conducted by means of attendances by a representative of the College at the Registrant’s place of practice and/or at any pharmacy in which he holds a proprietary interest or of which he is the Designated Manager, at such times as the College may determine;

iv. during any CAR, the College representative will be entitled to review and examine the Registrant’s practice, or the practice and operation of any pharmacy in which the Registrant holds a proprietary interest or of which the Registrant is the Designated Manager;

v. the CARs are in addition to any routine inspections conducted by the College pursuant to the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.4., s. 148, and are not a substitute for such inspections;

vi. the Registrant shall fully cooperate with the College representative during the CARs; and

vii. the Registrant shall pay to the College in respect of such CAR the amount of $1,000.00 per CAR, immediately after each CAR is completed, with the total amount to be paid by the Registrant not to exceed $5,000, regardless of the number of CARs and/or attendances conducted by the College.

4. The Registrant shall pay the College’s cost in the amount of $15,000.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that the Registrant engaged in several acts of professional and proprietary misconduct, including failing to maintain the standards of practice of the profession and the standards for accreditation. His conduct is a serious breach of the professional and ethical standards expected in the practice of pharmacy. The Panel found his conduct to be all of disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

As a pharmacist, the Registrant is entrusted with the responsibility to uphold the highest standards of care, supervision, and compliance with regulatory requirements to ensure the safety of his patients and the integrity of the profession. He failed in this regard.

As a Designated Manager, the Registrant had an obligation to actively manage the Pharmacy and was accountable for, among other things, the supervision of the Pharmacy and ensuring that the standards of practice and accreditation were met. He failed in those regards.

The Panel found the Registrant’s conduct deeply troubling. His actions not only jeopardized patient safety but also undermined public trust in the pharmacy profession.

The Panel expressed its expectation that the Registrant will take the results of this discipline hearing as an opportunity to reflect on his conduct, learn from his mistakes, and ensure that this type of misconduct will not be repeated in the future, and that he will never again appear before this Discipline Committee.

• Provided pharmaceutical care to himself and/or signed prescription hardcopies for his own medications, in contravention of the College’s Policy on Treating Self and Family Members, with respect to some or all of certain identified prescriptions;
• Provided pharmaceutical care to [Person], in contravention of the College’s Policy on Treating Self and Family Members, in that he administered a COVID vaccine to [Person] in or about June 2022;
• Failed to keep records as required regarding a COVID vaccine he administered to [Person] in or about June 2022;
• Misappropriated some or all of certain identified drugs/products, which were not prescribed for him, from one or more pharmacies at which he was employed;
• Failed to adequately protect patient confidentiality by removing prescriptions containing personal health information from various pharmacies at which he was employed and taking them to his home, with respect to some or all of certain identified prescriptions.

In particular, the Panel found that he:

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession;
• Failed to keep confidential personal health information or other personal information concerning a patient, except with the consent of the patient or the patient’s authorized representative or as permitted or required by law;
• Contravened the Pharmacy Act, the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, the Narcotics Safety and Awareness Act, 2010, the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act or the Ontario Drug Benefit Act or the regulations under those Acts, and in particular:
  • s. 34(3) of the O. Reg. 202/94, made under the Pharmacy Act;
  • s. 155 of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act;
• Contravened a federal, provincial or territorial law or municipal by-law with respect to the distribution, purchase, sale, or dispensing or prescribing of any drug or product, the administering of any substance, or the piercing of the dermis; whose purpose is to protect or promote public health; or that is otherwise relevant to his suitability to practise, and in particular:
  • section C.01.041 of the Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C., c. 870, as amended;
  • section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, as amended;
  • section 31 of the Narcotic Control Regulations, C.R.C., c.1041, as amended; and/or
  • section 51 of the Benzodiazepines and Other Targeted Substances Regulations, S.O.R./2000-217, as amended;
• Engaged in conduct or performed an act relevant to the practice of pharmacy that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Panel imposed an Order, as follows:

1. A reprimand;

2. That the Registrar is directed to impose specified terms, conditions or limitations on the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration, and in particular:

a. The Registrant shall successfully complete, at his own expense and within 12 months of the date of the Order, the ProBE Program on Professional/Problem Based Ethics for Heath Care Professionals with an unconditional pass;

b. The Registrant shall successfully complete, within 12 months of the date of this Order, all of the College’s jurisprudence e-Learning modules and the Jurisprudence, Ethics and Professionalism exam;

c. The Registrant shall successfully complete, within 12 months of the date of this Order, the College’s “Documenting Patient Care e-Learning Module”;

d. For three years from the date of this Order the Registrant shall:

i. be prohibited from acting as a Designed Manager at any pharmacy;

ii. be prohibited from having any ownership interest, of any kind, in any pharmacy, excepting only that he may be permitted to own shares in a publicly traded corporation that has an interest in a pharmacy;

e. For one year commencing on November 28, 2025, the Registrant shall:

i. notify the College in writing of the name, address, and telephone number of any current or future employer, within fourteen (14) days of resuming any current employment or commencing any future employment in pharmacy;

ii. provide his employer(s) in pharmacy with:

A. a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and this Joint Submission on Order, or

B. the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee in this matter, including this Order (when available),

prior to resuming any current employment or commencing any future employment in pharmacy;

iii. only engage in the practice of pharmacy for an employer who agrees to advise the College in writing, within fourteen (14) days of the Registrant resuming any current employment or commencing any new employment with the employer, confirming that the Designated Manager of the employer’s pharmacy has received a copy of the documents set out in paragraph 2(e)(ii) above;

iv. the terms in clauses 2(e)(i), 2(e)(ii), 2(e)(iii) shall apply even if the Registrant’s employment in a pharmacy is as a relief pharmacist.

3. That the Registrar suspend the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration for a period of eight (8) months, with one (1) month of the suspension to be remitted on condition that the Registrant complete the remedial training as specified in paragraphs 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c). The suspension shall commence on April 28, 2025, and shall continue until November 27, 2025, inclusive. If the remitted portion of the suspension is required to be served by the Registrant because he fails to complete the remedial requirement specified in paragraphs 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c), that portion of the suspension shall commence on April 28, 2026, and shall continue until May 27, 2026, inclusive. If the time for completing the remedial steps in paragraphs 2(a), 2(b), and/or 2(c) above is extended by the Registrar, the date on which the remitted portion of the suspension shall commence, if required, shall be adjusted accordingly.

4. Costs to the College in the amount of $10,000.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that the Registrant’s misconduct was unacceptable both to the public and to the profession of pharmacy. As a regulated health professional, he is entrusted with responsibilities that require the highest standards of integrity, accountability, and respect for patient privacy. His failure to meet these standards reflects a serious breach of the professional obligations expected of him.

The Panel explained that it was especially concerned by the Registrant’s blatant disregard for patient privacy. His actions resulted in clear breaches of confidentiality and constitute a serious betrayal of the public trust. Such conduct undermines the credibility of the profession and has the potential to cause real harm.

The panel relayed that it was troubled by the Registrant’s decision to dispense medications to himself, his misappropriation of medications for personal use, and the lack of appropriate record keeping when providing patient care. Moving forward, the Registrant is expected to adhere to all professional standards.

The Panel urged the Registrant to take this opportunity to reflect deeply on his actions and to engage meaningfully with the required remediation to improve his practice. The Panel expressed its expectation that this disciplinary process has conveyed to the Registrant the gravity of his misconduct, and that he will take the necessary steps to ensure he does not appear before this committee again.

• Between about January 1, 2016 and January 31, 2018, he dispensed (or he permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, the dispensing of) prescription drugs pursuant to co-signed or rewritten prescriptions for out-of-country patients, without taking and/or documenting reasonable steps to confirm whether an established physician-patient relationship existed between the prescribers and the patients;
• Between about January 1, 2016 and January 31, 2018, he dispensed (or he permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, the dispensing of) prescription drugs pursuant to ostensible prescriptions that were not valid, because the practitioner did not practice in the province in which they were licensed as required by s. C.01.001(1) of the Food and Drug Regulations, CRC, c 870, and he therefore contravened s. 155(1) of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, RSO 1990, c H.4, and s. C.01.041(1) of the Food and Drug Regulations, with respect to all prescriptions attributed to [Physician] as prescriber.

In particular, it is alleged that he:

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession;
• Contravened the Act, the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, the Narcotics Safety and Awareness Act, 2010, the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act or the Ontario Drug Benefit Act or the regulations under those Acts, and in particular:
  • s. 155(1) of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, RSO 1990, c H.4
  • s. C.01.041(1) of the Food and Drug Regulations;
• Contravened a federal, provincial or territorial law or municipal by-law with respect to the distribution, purchase, sale, or dispensing or prescribing of any drug or product, the administering of any substance, or the piercing of the dermis, and in particular:
  • s. 155(1) of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, RSO 1990, c H.4
  • s. C.01.041(1) of the Food and Drug Regulations;
• Engaged in conduct or performed an act relevant to the practice of pharmacy that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

Mr. Buttice entered into an Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgment while a discipline hearing into these allegations of professional misconduct against him was pending before the Discipline Committee, by which he agreed to:

• Permanently resign as a member of the College;
• No longer have any proprietary interest, direct or indirect, in any pharmacy; and
• Never work or be employed in a pharmacy in any capacity, including but not limited to volunteering.

The College and Mr. Buttice made a joint submission to the Discipline Committee to adjourn the hearing into this matter sine die. On the basis of the Undertaking, Agreement, and Acknowledgment, the Discipline Committee accepted the submissions of the parties and issued an order on April 28, 2025, adjourning this matter sine die.

• Instructed and/or permitted unregulated staff to measure, verify, dispense, and/or witness prescriptions for opioid agonist therapy (“OAT”) medications;
• Instructed and/or permitted unregulated staff to sign records and/or process prescriptions to falsely indicate that he had dispensed and/or clinically verified prescriptions;
• Signed records and/or processed prescriptions to falsely indicate that he had clinically verified and/or dispensed prescriptions;
• Failed to take steps to verify the last dose of OAT patients before dispensing OAT medications;
• Failed to keep records as required, including but not limited to:

i. failing to maintain complete and/or accurate records for OAT patients and medications; and/or

ii. failing to cancel or reverse prescriptions that were not picked up or dispensed;

• Failed to appropriately label compliance package medications;
• Failed to refrigerate carry doses of methadone and/or label carry doses to indicate that they should be kept refrigerated by the patient;
• Dispensed prescriptions without a valid authorization from a prescriber; and/or
• Instructed and/or permitted staff to open or keep open the Pharmacy without a pharmacist present.

In particular, the Panel found that the Registrant:

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession;
• Failed to provide an appropriate level of supervision to a person whom he was professionally obligated to supervise;
• Failed to keep records as required regarding his patients and/or practice;
• Falsified a record relating to his practice and/or a person’s health record;
• Signed or issued in his professional capacity a document that he knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement;
• Contravened the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, or the regulations thereunder, and in particular: sections 146, 155, and/or 156 of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act;
• Engaged in conduct or performed an act relevant to the practice of pharmacy that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Panel imposed an Order, as follows:

1. A reprimand;

2. Directing the Registrar to suspend the Registrant’s certificate of registration for a period of 7 months. The suspension shall commence on May 5, 2025 and run without interruption until December 4, 2025, inclusive;

3. Directing the Registrar to impose specified terms, conditions or limitations on the Registrant’s certificate of registration, including:

a. The Registrant shall successfully complete, at his own expense and within 12 months of the date of this Order, the ProBE Program on Professional / Problem Based Ethics for Healthcare Professionals, with an unconditional pass;

b. The Registrant shall successfully complete, within 12 months of the date of this Order, all of the College’s jurisprudence e-Learning modules and the Jurisprudence, Ethics and Professionalism exam;

c. The Registrant shall successfully complete, within 12 months of the date of this Order, the CAMH Opioid Use Disorder Treatment (OUDT) Course;

d. The Registrant shall successfully complete, at his own expense, and within 12 months of the date of this Order, a mentorship program focusing on the issues raised by the facts and findings of professional misconduct in this case. The mentorship program shall include the following terms:

i. Within 6 months of the date of this Order, the College shall assign the Registrant a practice mentor and the Registrant shall retain the practice mentor at his own expense;

ii. The mentor and the Registrant shall meet for the purpose of reviewing the Registrant’s practice with respect to the concerns raised by the facts and findings of professional misconduct in this case. The total number of sessions between the mentor and the Registrant will be at the sole discretion of the mentor, but shall be no less than 3;

iii. The Registrant shall provide the mentor with the following documents related to this proceeding:

a. a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts;

b. a copy of this Joint Submission on Order; and

c. a copy of the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Panel, when available.

iv. The Registrant shall develop a learning plan with the mentor to comprehensively address the remediation required;

v. The Registrant shall demonstrate to the mentor that he has successfully achieved all of the goals of the learning plan; and

vi. The Registrant shall require the mentor to report the results of the mentorship program to the College within 13 months of the date of this Order. Such report shall include, but is not limited to:

a. the learning plan; and

b. the Mentor’s Reporting Form as provided by the College, which shall include the mentor’s assessment of the Registrant’s success in meeting the goals of the learning plan.

e. The Registrant shall be prohibited from acting as a Designated Manager in any pharmacy for one year from the date of this Order or until the date on which the Registrant successfully completes the remediation described in paragraphs 3(a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Order as well as the College’s Designated Manager (DM) e-Learning module, whichever period of time is longer.

4. Costs to the College in the amount of $10,000.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that the practice of pharmacy is a privilege that carries with it significant obligations to the public, the profession, and oneself. The Registrant eroded public trust in the profession by engaging in misconduct.

The Panel indicated that, at a time when the opioid crisis is front and centre in the minds of the public, it found the Registrant’s actions and breaches particularly concerning, as he put the lives of an already vulnerable population in further danger. The Panel found it particularly troubling that the Registrant breached a significant number of regulations and standards in a short period of time.

The Panel pointed out that, as a pharmacist, the Registrant is expected to comply with his professional, legal, and ethical obligations, and the standards of practice of this profession. He failed to meet these obligations.

The Panel expressed its expectation that this discipline process has impressed upon the Registrant the seriousness of his misconduct, that the remediation ordered will better equip him to make more thoughtful and professional decisions in his future practice, and that he will not appear before another panel of the Discipline Committee.

In particular, the Panel found that the Registrant:

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession;
• Engaged in conduct or performed an act relevant to the practice of pharmacy that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Panel imposed an Order, as follows:

1. A reprimand;

2. That the Registrar is directed to impose specified terms, conditions or limitations on the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration, and in particular:

a. That the Registrant complete successfully, with an unconditional pass, at his own expense and within twelve (12) months of the date of this Order, the ProBE Program on Professional/Problem Based Ethics offered by the Center for Personalized Education for Professionals;

b. That the Registrant complete successfully within twenty-four (24) months of the date of this Order and following the successful completion of the course in subparagraph 2(a), a course with Gail E. Siskind Consulting Services, or another professional ethics consultant approved by the College, to address the professional misconduct arising from this matter, to be designed by the consultant. The following terms shall apply to the course:

i. The number of sessions shall be at the discretion of the consultant, but shall be no fewer than three;

ii. The manner of attendance at the sessions (e.g., in person, videoconference, etc.) is a matter to be discussed in advance between the Registrant and the consultant, but shall ultimately be at the discretion of the consultant;

iii. The Registrant shall be responsible for the cost of the course;

iv. The Registrant shall provide to the consultant the following documents, in advance of the course, to facilitate the design of the course:

1. His essay and any and all evaluations from the ProBE program;

2. A copy of the Notice of Hearing, the Agreed Statement of Facts, and this Joint Submission on Order; or

3. A copy of the Panel’s Decision and Reasons, if available;

v. Successful completion of the course will include completion of an essay, acceptable to the Registrar, addressing the issues raised in this matter; and

vi. The Registrant shall direct the consultant to report the results of the ethics course to the College, which report shall be made no later than twenty-five (25) months from the date this Order becomes final, to confirm that the Registrant completed the course to the consultant’s satisfaction.

c. That the Registrant shall be prohibited from acting as Designated Manager in any pharmacy for three (3) years from the date of this Order, or until successful completion of the remedial training described in subparagraphs (a) and (b), whichever is shorter.

3. That the Registrar is directed to suspend the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration for a period of four (4) months with one month of the suspension to be remitted on condition that the Member complete the remedial training as specified in subparagraphs 2(a) and (b). The suspension shall commence on May 29, 2025 and shall continue until August 28, 2025, inclusive. If the remitted portion of the suspension is required to be served by the Member because he fails to complete the remedial training as specified in subparagraphs 2(a) and (b), that portion of the suspension shall commence on June 29, 2027 and shall continue until July 28, 2027, inclusive, unless the time for completing the remedial training in subparagraphs 2(a) and (b) is extended by the Registrar, in which case, the date on which the remitted portion of the suspension shall commence, if required, shall be adjusted accordingly.

4. Costs in the amount of $12,000.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that the Registrant’s conduct was completely unacceptable.

The Panel observed that the Registrant was a Designated Manager and dispensing pharmacist at the pharmacy where he sexually harassed three female pharmacy employees over a period of many months. In doing so, the Panel noted that the Registrant contravened Ontario laws, the NAPRA Model Standards of Practice, and the College’s Code of Ethics.

The Panel indicated that unwanted touching and remarks of sexual nature have no place in any workplace in the province, and such conduct has absolutely no place in any Ontario pharmacy. As an experienced and long-standing Registrant of the College and as the pharmacy’s Designated Manager, the Registrant should have known better.

The Panel explained that practising pharmacy is a privilege, not a right, and it carries with it significant obligations that are owed to a pharmacy’s patient, employees, and oneself. The Panel noted that the Registrant failed in his professional and ethical duties as a pharmacist and that his misconduct casts serious doubt on his moral fitness to practice the profession.

The Panel expressed its hope that the Registrant will learn form this shameful experience and that he will work hard to remediate his practice, and the that he will not appear before a Panel of the Discipline Committee of the College again.

• Signed the application form for the Certificate of Accreditation for the Pharmacy listing himself as the sole owner of the Pharmacy when he knew that another person (“Person A”) would act as owner and/or exercise control over the Pharmacy;
• Permitted the Pharmacy to be operated and/or controlled by Person A when he knew or ought to have known that Person A:
  • was not a shareholder or director of the corporation that was issued the Certificate of Accreditation for the Pharmacy;
  • was not identified to the College as having any role at the Pharmacy;
  • had a disciplinary history with the College;
  • had outstanding matters before the College’s Discipline Committee, including allegations that Person A had misappropriated or diverted controlled substances that had been obtained through pharmacies Person A owned; and/or
  • had outstanding criminal charges, including charges related to trafficking controlled substances;
• Failed to take appropriate steps to verify that the Pharmacy was not being used for an improper purpose;
• Failed to exercise appropriate oversight over the Pharmacy and/or Person A;
• Failed to designate a Designated Manager of the Pharmacy and/or file notice of the designation with the College;
• Failed to take appropriate steps upon the closure of the Pharmacy;
• Failed to take appropriate steps to prevent the loss, theft, diversion, and/or misappropriation of narcotics and/or controlled substances from the Pharmacy; and/or
• Failed to ensure that the standards for accreditation of the Pharmacy were maintained.

In particular, the Panel found that the Registrant:

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession;
• Signed or issued in his professional capacity a document that he knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement;
• Contravened the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act (“DPRA”), as amended, and/or the regulations under the DPRA, and in particular:
  • sections 141 of the DPRA and 146(1.1) of the DPRA;
  • sections 18-21 of O. Reg 264/16;
• Engaged in conduct or performed an act relevant to the practice of pharmacy that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

Mr. Tran agreed to permanently resign as a member of the College in an Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgement dated April 4, 2025, while a discipline hearing into allegations of professional misconduct against him was pending before the Discipline Committee.

The Panel imposed an Order, as follows:

1. A reprimand;
2. Costs to the College in the amount of $10,000.

In its reprimand, the Panel observed that the practice of pharmacy is a privilege that carries with it significant obligations to the public, the profession, and oneself.

The Panel observed that the Registrant failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession by permitting the Pharmacy to be operated and controlled by an individual, who was not a shareholder or director of the corporation that was issued a Certificate of Registration. He failed to exercise appropriate oversight over that individual and the Pharmacy, and to take the necessary steps to ensure the Pharmacy was being used for legitimate purposes.

The Panel found that the Registrant did not fulfil his responsibilities as the owner of the Pharmacy, and did not uphold the responsibilities and obligations expected of a member of the profession. His negligence in fulfilling the role of owner led to all the drugs ordered by the Pharmacy being unaccounted for.

The Panel found the Registrant’s conduct troubling and unacceptable in the eyes of the public and the profession. His conduct casts serious doubt on his fitness to practice the profession.

The Panel expressed its hope that this proceeding provides the Registrant with an opportunity to reflect and pursue a new path forward.