Discipline Decisions (March 2025)

• Sent emails to and /or left voice mail messages for College staff in which he alleged that College staff members, including but not limited to one or more of [Person 1], [Person 2], [Person 3], [Person 4], [Person 5], [Person 6], [Person 7], and/or [Person 8] were incompetent and/or unethical and/or incapacitated and/or were acting illegally and/or were dishonest and/or racist and/or variations of these allegations, and/or he called them derogatory names and/or used profane language about them;
• Sent emails to and/or called and/or left voice mail messages for College staff members, including but not limited to one or more of [Person 1], [Person 2], [Person 4], [Person 7], and/or [Person 8], in which he threatened one or more of them;
• Sent emails to and/or called and/or left a voice mail message for [Person 1] after he had been cautioned by police on March 10, 2022 not to contact [Person 1];
• Sent emails and/or called and/or left voice mail messages for [Physician] and/or [Physician’s] staff that contained derogatory and/or threatening and/or profane language and/or sending emails containing derogatory, threatening and/or profane language about [Physician] and/or [Physician’s] staff to others; and/or
• Sent one or more of the emails referred to, above, to recipients who were not staff members of the College involved in the investigation of his conduct.

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 as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional;
• Engaged in conduct that is unbecoming a member.

After hearing submissions with respect to the order to be imposed on July 30, 2024, the Panel imposed an Order, in a decision dated November 18, 2024, as follows:

1. A reprimand in writing;
2. That the Registrar be (and is hereby) directed to revoke the Certificate of Registration issued to the Registrant; and
3. Costs to the College in the amount of $85,357.40

In its reprimand, the Panel indicated that it found Mr. Eid’s conduct reprehensible. As a pharmacist, he has a professional responsibility to maintain the public’s trust and confidence in the profession. His conduct has brought discredit to the highly respected profession of pharmacy.

The Panel noted that Mr. Eid’s conduct was in conflict with the core values of the profession; it was found to be disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. The result of his misconduct is that he has jeopardized the safety of the public and brought disgrace to the profession of pharmacy and to himself.

The Panel pointed out that Mr. Eid failed to attend or participate, in any respect, in either the liability hearing or the hearing on Order. Therefore, the Panel had absolutely no evidence or information which might have suggested that remediation measures could be considered to rehabilitate his practice and protect the public.

The Panel expressed its view that Mr. Eid’s refusal to respect the College’s authority, along with the seriousness of the misconduct, left the Panel with no option other than to order the most serious of sanctions and to revoke his Certificate of Registration.

In particular, the Panel found that the Registrant:

• 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;
• Engaged in conduct that is unbecoming a member.

Following a hearing day held on December 16, 2024, the Panel made further findings of professional misconduct against Amani Awad, from in or about September 2021 to in or about January 2022, while engaged in the practice of pharmacy as director, shareholder, owner, Designated Manager, and/or dispensing pharmacist at John Garland Pharmacy located in Etobicoke, Ontario (the “Pharmacy”), in that she:

• Failed to keep records as required regarding her patients and/or practice with respect to rivaroxaban (generic name for Xarelto) and/or apixaban (generic name for Eliquis);
• Falsified (or permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or by implication, the falsification of) a record relating to her practice and/or a person’s health record with respect to rivaroxaban (generic name for Xarelto) and/or apixaban (generic name for Eliquis);
• Dispensed or oversaw the dispensing of quantities of rivaroxaban (the generic name for Xarelto) to a patient, when this patient had been prescribed a different quantity of apixaban (generic name for Eliquis);
• Attempted to interfere, obstruct, and/or tamper with the evidence of a potential witness in an investigation by the College into her conduct at the Pharmacy; and/or
• Provided false and/or misleading information to the College in written submissions, emails, and/or other documents, in response to inquiries and/or an investigation by the College into her conduct at the Pharmacy.

In particular, the Panel found that she:

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession;
• Failed to keep records as required regarding her patients and/or practice;
• Falsified (or permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or by implication, the falsification of) a record relating to her practice and/or a person’s health record;
• Contravened the Pharmacy Act, 1991, 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:
  • section 156 of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act and/or section 20 of Ontario Regulation 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;
• Engaged in conduct that is unbecoming a member.

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 twenty-four (24) months. The suspension shall commence on March 2, 2025 (the date on which she completes her current suspension in relation to ICRC File No. 2017198) and shall continue until March 1, 2027 inclusive.

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

a. the Registrant must successfully complete, with an unconditional pass, at her own expense and within 12 months of the date of this Order, the ProBE Program on professional/problem-based ethics for health care professionals offered by the Centre for Personalized Education for Professionals;

b. the Registrant must successfully complete, with an unconditional pass, at her own expense and within 12 months of the date that she completes the ProBE course identified above in paragraph 3(a), the ProBE Plus Program offered by the Centre for Personalized Education for Professionals;

c. for a period of 5 years from the date of this Order, and then continuing until removed by order of the Discipline Committee, on the application of the Registrant, the Registrant shall be:

i. prohibited from having any proprietary interest of any kind in a pharmacy;

ii. prohibited from receiving remuneration for her work as a pharmacist other than remuneration based on hourly, weekly, or monthly rates only;

iii. prohibited from acting as a Designated Manager at any pharmacy;

iv. required to 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;

v. required to provide her employer(s) in pharmacy with a copy of the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee in these matters, including this Order, prior to resuming any current employment or commencing any future employment in pharmacy; and

vi. required to 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 with the employer or commencing any new employment, that the Designated Manager of the employer’s pharmacy has received a copy of the Decision and Reasons of the panel of the Discipline Committee in these matters, including this Order, and confirming the nature of the Registrant’s remuneration.

4. Costs to the College in the amount of $20,000.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that pharmacists are held in high regard. Through her actions, the Registrant has damaged not only her own reputation, but the reputation of the profession.

The Panel indicated that as a pharmacist, as well as the Designated Manager and Owner of the pharmacy, the Registrant failed in her obligation to maintain the standards of practice of the profession, her ethical obligations, and her obligation to comply with pharmacy legislation. She failed to keep records, and she falsified records.

The Panel expressed that it was particularly concerned about the Registrant’s misconduct when she obstructed the College’s investigations and attempted to interfere with witnesses. Her misconduct demonstrated a failure to understand and fulfil her ethical obligations and instead, she engaged in acts of self-interest.

The Panel explained that pharmacy is a self-regulated profession. It is a privilege to practice pharmacy, and it comes with significant obligations to the public, to the profession, and to oneself.

The Panel relayed its expectation that the Registrant will learn from this shameful experience, and that she must continue to reflect on and remediate her practice in order to serve the public interest to the fullest extent possible.

• At various times between about May 27, 2014 and June 12, 2019, he instructed staff to dispense prescriptions in non-child-resistant vials for any patients above the age of 50, and/or he participated in, permitted, consented to, or approved, either expressly or impliedly, that practice;
• At various times between about May 27, 2014 and June 12, 2019, he instructed staff to dispense methadone and/or Suboxone to patients without a pharmacist present to witness the patient’s dose, and/or he participated in, permitted, consented to, or approved, either expressly or impliedly, that practice;
• At various times between about May 27, 2014 and June 12, 2019, he submitted (or permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, the submission of) charges for drugs and/or products that were not dispensed, including but not limited to:
  • by instructing staff (or permitting, consenting to or approving, expressly or impliedly, the instruction to staff) to not cancel prescriptions that had been billed but not dispensed to patients, and/or
  • with respect to certain identified drugs and/or products;
• Between about October 1, 2017 and November 30, 2017, he cancelled (or permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, the cancellation of) prescriptions for which the Pharmacy was not entitled to payment, without taking the steps (or ensuring the steps were taken) that were necessary to ensure the reversal of the charges billed by the Pharmacy, with respect to certain identified prescriptions;
• At various times between about May 27, 2014 and June 12, 2019, he instructed staff to dispense prescription medication to patients without ensuring that a pharmacist or registered pharmacy technician had verified the prescription and its preparation, and had signed the prescription hardcopy, and/or he participated in, permitted, consented to, or approved, either expressly or impliedly, that practice;
• At various times between about May 27, 2014 and June 12, 2019, he instructed staff to sign prescription hardcopies in a manner intended to or that he ought reasonably to have expected would be confused for a pharmacist’s signature, and/or he participated in, permitted, consented to, or approved, either expressly or impliedly, that practice;
• At various times between about May 27, 2014 and June 12, 2019, he failed to demonstrate a caring, empathetic, and/or professional attitude toward his patients, and in particular, on multiple occasions, in the presence of staff, he referred to patients as “junkies”, “losers”, “drug addicts”, and/or words to that effect;
• At various times between about May 27, 2014 and June 12, 2019, he failed to ensure appropriate staffing levels in the Pharmacy to enable himself and other staff to maintain the accepted standard of pharmacy practice and to deliver safe and effective patient care;
• Between about December 2016 and February 2017, he instructed staff to dispense reconstituted powdered methadone to patients while billing those patients’ prescriptions as though Methadose had been dispensed, and/or he participated in, permitted, consented to, or approved, either expressly or impliedly, that practice;
• Between about September 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017, he submitted (or permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, the submission of) charges for Naloxone Kits that were not dispensed;
• Between about October 2015 and September 2017, he billed the Ontario Drug Benefit program for MedsChecks without conducting an adequate medication review with the patients and/or without engaging in any meaningful review with the patients of their medication therapies;
• Between about October 2015 and September 2017, he billed (or permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, the billing to) the Ontario Drug Benefit program for MedsChecks that were not performed, including with respect to Rx #[…] on August 22, 2016
• Between about February 9, 2017 and August 29, 2017, he failed to document (or ensure the documentation of) a medication error relating to Rx #[…];
• Between about February 9, 2017 and August 29, 2017, he failed to report (or ensure the reporting of) a loss or theft of narcotics relating to Rx #[…], as required by s. 42 of the Narcotic Control Regulations, CRC, c. 1041;
• At various times between about May 27, 2014 and June 12, 2019, he instructed staff to sell Tylenol #1 and/or Lenoltec #1 to patients without the involvement of pharmacist, and/or he participated in, permitted, consented to, or approved, either expressly or impliedly, that practice;
• Between about January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2018, he failed to report (or ensure the reporting of) a loss or theft of narcotics relating to losses of Hydromorph contin 18mg, 24mg, and/or 30mg, as required by s. 42 of the Narcotic Control Regulations, CRC, c. 1041;
• Between about September 1, 2015 and October 1, 2017, he submitted (or permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, the submission of) claims to the Ontario Drug Benefit Program for which he was required to have and maintain certain identified records that he did not have and/or maintain;
• Between about September 1, 2015 and October 1, 2017, he submitted (or permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, the submission of) certain identified claims to the Ontario Drug Benefit Program and accepted payment for those claims without being entitled to payment.

In particular, it is alleged that he:

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession;
• Failed to keep records as required respecting his patients or practice;
• Falsified a record relating to his practice and/or to a person’s health record;
• Submitted an account or charge for services or products that he knew or ought to know was false or misleading;
• Contravened the Pharmacy Act, the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, or the regulations under those Acts:
  • s. 156(1)(g) of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, RSO 1990, c H.4;
• Contravened a federal or provincial or territorial law or municipal by-law with respect to the distribution, purchase, sale, or dispensing or prescribing of any drug or mixture of drugs or product:
  • ss. 5, 6, and/or 15(1)(b) of the Ontario Drug Benefits Act, RSO 1990, c O.10, as amended;
  • ss. 36 and/or 42 of the Narcotic Control Regulations, CRC, c. 1041;
  • s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c. 19;
• 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 disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

Mr. Blad entered into an Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgement while a discipline hearing into these allegations of professional misconduct against him were 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 of be employed in a pharmacy in any capacity, including but not limited to volunteering.

The College and Mr. Blad made a joint submission to the Discipline Committee to adjourn the hearing of this mater 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 December 19, 2024, adjourning these matters sine die.

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 disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Panel imposed an Order, as follows:

1. A reprimand;

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

a. that the Registrant must successfully complete, with an unconditional pass, at his own expense and within 12 months of the date of this Order, the ProBE Program on professional/problem-based ethics for health care professionals offered by the Centre for Personalized Education for Professionals;

b. that the Registrant must successfully complete, at his own expense and within twelve (12) months of the date that he successfully completes the ProBE course identified above in paragraph 2(a), a course with Gail E. Siskind Consulting Services, or another professional ethics consultant acceptable to the College (the “Consultant”), to be 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:

i. The number of sessions shall be at the discretion of the Consultant, but shall be a minimum of two (2) sessions;

ii. The manner of attendance at the session(s) (e.g. in person, via 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 provide the Consultant with the following, in advance of the course to facilitate the design of the course:

1. A copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts;

2. A copy of the Joint Submission as to Penalty and Costs;

3. A copy of the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Panel, if and when available;

4. his evaluation from the ProBE course and any essay he completed as part of that course.

iv. Successful completion of the course shall be determined by the Consultant, based on the design of the course; and

v. The Registrant shall direct the Consultant to report the results of the course to the College, no later than 24 months from the date of this Order, and to confirm that the Registrant has completed the course to the satisfaction of the Consultant.

c. that the Member shall be prohibited from acting as a Designated Manager at any pharmacy, until he completes the remedial training as specified in paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) above.

3. Directing the Registrar to suspend the Registrant’s certificate of registration for a period of five (5) 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) and 2(b) above. The suspension shall commence on January 20, 2025 and shall continue until May 19, 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 paragraph 2(a), that portion of the suspension shall commence on January 21, 2026 and shall continue until February 20, 2026 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 paragraph 2(b), that portion of the suspension shall commence on January 21, 2027 and shall continue until February 20, 2027 inclusive.

If the time for completing the remedial steps in subparagraphs 2(a) and/or 2(b), 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 $15,000.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that, as a pharmacist, the Registrant is expected to maintain the highest standards of professional conduct.

The Panel pointed out that the Registrant ought to have established and maintained professional boundaries. He failed to do so. As the owner and Designated Manager of the pharmacy, he ought to have provided a safe and secure workplace. He failed to do so. Instead, he engaged in inappropriate conduct, such as unwanted touching and comments. His actions not only caused direct harm but also undermined the profession’s overall integrity.

The Panel observed that the Order contains important remediation and rehabilitation measures. The Registrant must take these measures seriously, learn from them, and apply them to his practice. The Panel expressed its hope the Registrant will learn from this experience and will never appear again before a Discipline Committee panel.

• Between about October 30, 2019 and February 4, 2023, he failed to carry out or abide by an undertaking given to the College on October 30, 2019 to ensure that appropriate assessment and training are provided by a pharmacist to persons dispensed and/or sold naloxone, by permitting assessment and/or training to be provided by non-pharmacists to persons dispensed and/or sold naloxone.

In particular, the Panel found that the Registrant:

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession;
• Failed to carry out or abide by an undertaking given to the College or breached an agreement with the College, a Committee of the College or the Registrar;
• 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 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. When dispensing and/or distributing naloxone for which a pharmacy has submitted or will submit a claim to the Ministry of Health, the Registrant shall comply with all requirements of the Ontario Naloxone Program for Pharmacies that are in effect at the time, including by complying with the record-keeping requirements set out in the UPDATED Executive Officer Notice: Ontario Naloxone Program for Pharmacies dated February 9, 2024 (the “EO Notice”) (or any amended record-keeping requirements the Executive Officer may issue, and so long as such requirements are in effect), ensuring that naloxone kits are provided to eligible individuals from the physical premises of the pharmacy except as permitted by the EO Notice or any subsequent EO Notice, and ensuring that training for individuals receiving a kit is provided on an individual basis, in-person, and not in group settings.

b. When dispensing and/or distributing naloxone for which no pharmacy has submitted or will submit a claim to the Ministry of Health, the Registrant shall comply with all requirements of the Ontario Naloxone Program, including by ensuring that naloxone is distributed by an organization enrolled in the Ontario Naloxone Program, so long as such requirements are in effect.

3. That the Registrar suspend the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration for a period of three (3) months. The suspension shall commence on April 1, 2025, and shall continue until June 30, 2025, inclusive.

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

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that the Registrant was once again before this Discipline Committee, having demonstrated a persistent disregard for the standards and regulations that govern the profession of pharmacy in Ontario. Despite previous disciplinary actions, undertakings, and remedial efforts, he failed to uphold the fundamental principles of integrity, trust, and professional conduct that define this profession.

The Panel observed that this was the third time the Registrant has faced disciplinary action. Each time, this Committee has made it clear that the role of a pharmacist is one of great responsibility. The Registrant is entrusted with the health and well-being of the public, and his actions must reflect a commitment to ethical practice, accountability, and regulatory compliance.

The Panel pointed out that, despite repeated warnings and opportunities for remediation, the Registrant has once again failed in his professional obligations. His continued disregard for regulatory requirements, particularly regarding naloxone dispensing, raises serious concerns about his ability or willingness to adhere to the standards of practice expected of him. This is not simply a lapse in judgment; this is a pattern of behaviour that undermines public trust, the integrity of the profession, and the College’s ability to regulate in the public interest.

The Panel expressed its view that it is unacceptable that the Registrant was before the Discipline Committee for a third time, and that this must be the last time he appears before this Committee.

• • Submitted claims for MedsCheck services to the Ontario Drug Benefit program that were not eligible to be paid because the services were never conducted and/or because he did not create and/or retain the records required to render the claims valid, with respect to MedsCheck Follow-up claims for certain identified patients;
  • Failed to create and/or retain the records required to be created and retained with respect to MedsCheck Follow-up claims for certain identified patients.

In particular, the Panel found that the Registrant:

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession;
• Failed to keep records as required respecting his patients or practice;
• 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. 15(1) of the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, RSO 1990, c. O.10;
  • s. 29 of O. Reg. 201/96 made under the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, RSO 1990, c. O.10;
• 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 unprofessional.

The Panel imposed an Order, as follows:

1. A reprimand;

2. The Registrar is directed to impose the following specified terms, conditions or limitations on the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration:

a. The Registrant shall successfully complete within twelve (12) months of the date of the Order, 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 ultimately be at the discretion of the consultant, but shall consist of at least one meeting with the consultant;

ii. The manner of attendance at the sessions (e.g., in person, via 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. A copy of the Notice of Hearing, the Agreed Statement of Facts, and this Joint Submission on Order, or

2. A copy of the Panel’s Decision and Reasons, once available; and

v. 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;

vi. 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

vii. 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 twelve (12) months from the date this Order becomes final, to confirm that the Registrant completed the course to the consultant’s satisfaction.

b. The Registrant shall successfully complete, within 12 months of the date of this Order, a mentorship, with a mentor approved by the College, regarding the issues raised by the facts and findings of professional misconduct in this case, including the MedsCheck program. The mentorship must comply with 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 Registrant shall meet at least twice with the practice mentor for the purpose of reviewing the Registrant’s practice with respect to MedsChecks, documentation and record-keeping, with the ultimate number of sessions to be in the discretion of the mentor;

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

1. the Agreed Statement of Facts;

2. the Joint Submission on Order; and

3. the Panel’s Decision and Reasons if and 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;

vi. The Registrant shall require the mentor to report the results of the Mentorship Program to the College in writing and at the Registrant’s expense no later than 13 months from the date of this Order. Such report shall include, but is not limited to:

1. the learning plan; and

2. the mentor’s assessment of the Registrant’s success in meeting the goals of the learning plan;

c. The Registrant shall be prohibited from acting as a Designated Manager in any pharmacy until the Registrant has completed the remedial steps set out in paragraph 2b above;

3. The Registrar shall suspend the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration for a period of 2 months, with 1 month of the suspension to be remitted on condition that the Registrant completes the remedial training as specified in paragraphs 2a and 2b above. The suspension shall commence on February 19, 2025, and shall continue until March 18, 2025, inclusive. If the remitted portion of the suspension is required to be served by the Registrant because he fails to complete the remedial requirements specified in paragraphs 2a and 2b, that portion of the suspension shall commence on February 19, 2026, and shall continue until March 18, 2026, inclusive. If the time for completing the any of the remedial steps 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, as a pharmacist, the Registrant is expected to maintain the highest standards of professional conduct. His failure to maintain proper documentation for MedsCheck Follow-up claims demonstrated a serious disregard for his professional obligations. His conduct was found to be unprofessional.

The Panel explained that the Order contains important remediation and rehabilitation measures. The Registrant must take these measures seriously, learn from them, and apply them to his practice.

The Panel expressed its expectation that the Registrant will not appear again before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.