Discipline Decisions (September 2024)

In particular, the Panel found that she was found guilty of offences that are relevant to her suitability to practice.

The Panel imposed an Order which included as follows:

1. A reprimand;
2. That the Registrar is directed to revoke the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration; and
3. Costs to the College in the amount of $2,000.

The reprimand in this matter remains outstanding.

Referral 1

As a result of a referral by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee, it is alleged that Hany Komy, while engaged in the practice of pharmacy as […] at the […] Pharmacy in […], Ontario, from about [Specified Date A] to [Specified Date B], committed professional misconduct in that he inappropriately touched a pharmacy employee, [Name].

In particular, it is alleged that he 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.

Referral 2

As a result of a referral by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee, it is alleged that Hany Komy, […], committed professional misconduct in that he was found guilty of sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada and/or assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

In particular, it is alleged that he:

• Was found guilty of an offence that is relevant to his suitability to practise;
• 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.

Referral 3

As a result of a referral by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee, it is alleged that Hany Komy, while engaged in the practice of pharmacy as […] at [the Pharmacy] in […], Ontario, committed professional misconduct in that he:

• Failed to maintain a professional boundary in respect of patient [Name], in the period from about [Specified Date 1] to [Specified date 2];
• Dispensed controlled-release oxycodone to patient [Name] on or about [Date A], [Date B], [Date C], and/or [Date D], instead of the short-acting oxycodone that had been prescribed.

In particular, it is alleged that he:

• Sexually abused a patient, [Name];
• 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 or unprofessional.

Mr. Komy entered into an Undertaking, Agreement, and Acknowledgement by which he agreed to:

• Permanently resign as a member of the College;
• Not have any proprietary interest in a pharmacy; and
• Not seek or hold employment in a pharmacy.

The College made a submission to the Discipline Committee, on consent, to adjourn the hearings of these matters sine die. On the basis of the Undertaking, Agreement and Acknowledgment, the Discipline Committee accepted the submissions of the College and issued an order on May 1, 2024, adjourning these matters sine die.

In particular, the Panel found that he:

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession;
• Charged (or permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or by implication, charges of) a fee or amount that was excessive in relation to the service or product provided;
• 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. that the Registrant complete successfully, with an unconditional pass, at his own expense, within 12 months of the date of this Order, the ProBE course and any related evaluations offered by the Centre for Personalized Education for Professionals, or provide evidence satisfactory to the College that he has completed this course and any related evaluations within the 12 months prior to the date of this Order; and,

b. that the Registrant shall be prohibited from acting as a Designated Manager in any pharmacy until the date the College is notified that the Registrant has successfully completed the course and evaluation set out in paragraph 2(a), above.

3. That the Registrar suspend the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration for a period of two (2) months, with one (1) month of the suspension to be remitted on condition that the Registrant complete the remedial training as specified in paragraph 2(a). The suspension shall commence on May 9, 2024, and shall continue until June 8, 2024, 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 May 10, 2025, and shall continue until June 9, 2025, inclusive. If the time for completing the remedial steps in paragraph 2(a), 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 through his actions, the Registrant failed in his obligations as a director and owner of a pharmacy. He breached the standards of practice of the profession, his ethical obligations, and pharmacy legislation.

The Panel observed that the role of the director is one of heavy responsibility, with the same accountability as that of a Designated Manager, and that the role includes the obligation for the Registrant to ensure that the pharmacy operates at the highest standards.

The Panel acknowledged the Registrant’s acceptance of responsibility for his actions and his cooperation during the process.

The Panel noted that in the future, the Registrant is expected to practice pharmacy within the standards of the profession. The Panel expects that the Registrant will take this opportunity to reflect on his actions and complete the required remediation. The Panel anticipates that the Registrant will change the way he practices and that they will not see him again in front of the Discipline Committee.

• between about August 22, 2022 and November 7, 2022, he permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, FHP Thunder Bay operating without a pharmacist being physically present;
• between about August 22, 2022 and November 7, 2022, he permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, the sale and/or dispensing of drugs at FHP Thunder Bay while no pharmacist was physically present;
• between about November 8, 2022 and January 17, 2023, he permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, FHP Thunder Bay operating with no Designated Manager;
• on or about January 17, 2023, he closed (or caused and/or participated in the closure of) FHP Thunder Bay, without complying with the requirements for closing a pharmacy and for retaining records, and in particular:

1. he did not submit a pharmacy closing statement to the Registrar within the time required and/or at all, as required by s. 141 of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, RSO 1990, c H.4;

2. he did not comply with the requirements of s. 157(2) of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, RSO 1990, c H.4 relating to the delivery of prescriptions; and/or

3. he did not comply with the requirements of ss. 20 and 21 of O. Reg. 264/16 made under the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, RSO 1990, c H.4 relating to the retention of records;

• on or about at least November 8, 2022, he failed to ensure that FHP Thunder Bay contained equipment that was fit for the purpose of storing drugs and other medication, notably a working refrigerator;
• between about June 1, 2022 and January 17, 2023, he failed to ensure that narcotic counts and/or reconciliations were completed at least every six months at FHP Thunder Bay, and/or that records of such counts and/or reconciliations were retained

The Panel also found that Hamidreza Zarrinkalam, while engaged in the practice of pharmacy at Family Health Pharmacy – Steeles (“FHP Steeles”) in Thornhill, Ontario, and/or as Designated Manager of FHP Steeles, committed professional misconduct with respect to the following incidents:

• on or about January 27, 2023, he permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, FHP Steeles operating without a pharmacist being physically present;
• on or about January 27, 2023, he permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, the sale and/or dispensing of drugs at FHP Steeles while no pharmacist was physically present, with respect to certain identified prescriptions identified;
• on or about January 27, 2023, he permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, the dispensing of new prescriptions to patients without the patients being offered counselling by a pharmacist, with respect to certain identified prescriptions;
• on or about January 27, 2023, he permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, the dispensing of prescriptions to patients without the prescriptions having been checked appropriately by a pharmacist, with respect to certain identified prescriptions;
• on or about January 27, 2023, he committed (or permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, the commission of) a dispensing error with respect to Rx #[…], for which 60g of Betaderm 0.1% cream was prescribed, but 50g of Betaderm 0.1% ointment was dispensed;
• on or about January 27, 2023, he submitted (or permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, the submission of) claims to the Ontario Drug Benefit Program that were not eligible to be paid, with respect to claims for Rx #[…] and Rx #[…] for COVID-19 test specimen collection fees where the specimens were not collected by a Part A pharmacist;

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;
• falsified a record relating to his practice 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;
• submitted an account or charge for services or products that he knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement;
• 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:
  • ss. 141, 146, 146(1.1), 149, and 157(2) of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act;
  • ss. 18(2),19(f)(i), 20 and 21 of O. Reg. 264/16 made under the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act;
  • ss. 5, 6, and/or 15(1)(b) of the Ontario Drug Benefits 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, and in particular:
  • s. C.01.041 of the Food and Drug Regulations, CRC, c 870, made under the Food and Drugs 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 dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Panel imposed an Order which included 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, 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, 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, a mentorship, with a mentor approved by the College, regarding the issues raised by the facts and findings of professional misconduct in this case. 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 3 times with the practice mentor for the purpose of reviewing the Registrant’s practice with respect to the role and responsibilities of a Designated Manager arising from this matter, including but not limited to: management of inventory, documentation and record-keeping;

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;

e. 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 paragraphs 2b and 2d above. This prohibition shall be suspended if the Registrant provides proof satisfactory to the College that he has completed the steps required by paragraph 2b and that he has started the mentorship program required by paragraph 2d, and shall remain suspended until the College receives the mentor’s report described in paragraph 2d.vi. If the Registrant has not demonstrated to the mentor that he has successfully achieved all of the goals of the learning plan, then the prohibition shall be reinstated and shall continue until the Registrant has successfully completed the mentorship program required by paragraph 2d;

f. 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 three (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:

1) 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

2) 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 three (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, with respect to with respect to record keeping and inventory audit trails, and appropriate billing practices;

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 $6,000, regardless of the number of CARs and/or attendances conducted by the College.

3. The Registrar shall suspend the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration for a period of 4 months, with 1 month of the suspension to be remitted on condition that the Registrant completes the remedial training as specified in paragraphs 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d above. The suspension shall commence on May 16, 2024, and shall continue until August 15, 2024, 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, 2b, 2c, and 2d, that portion of the suspension shall commence on August 16, 2025, and shall continue until September 15, 2025, inclusive. If the time for completing 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 through his actions, the Registrant failed to maintain the standards of practice, failed to maintain and retain records, and failed to ensure that the Pharmacy had a properly working refrigerator for safe drug storage.

The Panel also observed that the Registrant failed to ensure that narcotic counts were completed and recorded properly and failed to comply with the requirements for the closing of a pharmacy. Additionally, the Registrant allowed the pharmacies to operate, and allowed the dispensing and sale of drugs, including the ingestion of methadone by patients, when no pharmacists was physically present. The Registrant allowed non-pharmacists to perform acts that only pharmacists are authorized to perform and allowed the dispensing of new prescriptions to patients without patients being offered counseling by a pharmacist. The Panel noted that through his actions, the Registrant allowed a dispensing error to occur, submitted claims to the Ontario Drug Benefit Program that were ineligible for payment, and allowed the Pharmacy to operate without a Designated Manager.

The Panel noted that the Registrant contravened federal and provincial laws and regulations and the College’s standards and guidelines. They indicated that the Registrant was a Designated Manager and a Director Liaison, and as such he was responsible for the safe operation of the Pharmacies.

The Panel explained that the Registrant is an experienced, long-standing College registrant and should have known better. The Panel noted that practicing pharmacy is a privilege, not a right, and that it is a privilege that is granted to those who have the knowledge, skill and judgement to practice the professional safely, ethically and professionally, which the Registrant utterly failed to do.

The Panel indicated that they are deeply troubled by the Registrant’s actions, which amount to serious misconduct. They expressed hope that the discipline process has given the Registrant time to reflect on his misconduct, and that the significant remediation measures which have been ordered against the Registrant will rehabilitate his practice.

The Panel also expressed their expectation that they will not see the Registration before a panel of the Discipline Committee ever again.

• Sending emails and/or posting on social media, including on Facebook and LinkedIn, in which he alleged the College and/or its staff/and or its directors and/or its committee members were acting incompetently and/or unethically and/or fraudulently and/or were corrupt or variations of these allegations; and/or
• Sending the emails referred to, above, to recipients who were not employees of the College involved in the investigation of his practice or committee members who were responsible for the disposition of the investigation.

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.

Following submissions on order made on January 17, 2024, the Panel imposed an Order in a decision dated July 23, 2024, as follows:

1. A reprimand in writing;
2. 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 $63,932.03.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that the Registrant was part of the highly respected pharmacy profession when he was found by this Panel to have committed very serious acts of professional misconduct. His conduct harmed the interests of the profession and the public and had a demoralizing effect on College staff; it was found to be all of disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Panel noted that the Registrant failed to attend or participate, in any respect, in either the liability hearing or the hearing on Order. As a result, 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 explained that the Registrant’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 revoke his Certificate of Registration.

• That he breached an Order of the Discipline Committee dated June 18, 2014 by contravening a term, condition or limitation imposed on his certificate of registration pursuant to that Order.

In particular, the Panel found that he:

• Contravened a term, condition or limitation imposed on his certificate of registration; and
• Engaged in conduct or performed an act or acts 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.

After submissions regarding the order to be made, which were heard on March 24, 2023, the Panel imposed the following Order in a decision dated August 14, 2023:

1. That the Registrant appear before the Panel of the Discipline Committee to be reprimanded no later than 60 days from the date that this Order becomes final.

2. That the Registrar be directed to suspend the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration for a period of four (4) months. The suspension shall commence on the date that this Order becomes final.

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

a. inform the College of every location at which he practises in any jurisdiction within five (5) days of commencing practice at that location;

b. limit his practice at any location at which he practises (including, but not limited to, the Romana Pharmacy) to serving retirement homes, long-term care homes and/or adult group homes, without providing services to or for minors, and with a supervisor or supervisors approved by the College present at such practice location to supervise the Registrant at all times;

c. obtain the College’s approval in advance, for his supervisor or supervisors and shall ensure that his supervisor(s) confirm to the College, in writing, their agreement to provide the College with updates regarding the Registrant’s practice and his compliance with these terms, conditions and limitations, upon the College’s request;

d. not dispense to, consult with, advise, counsel, or perform any controlled act on or for any person over the counter in any pharmacy;

e. not use a computer, cellphone, tablet electronic device, or handheld electronic device while working as a pharmacist, other than for purposes of his employment as a pharmacist and not for personal purposes;

f. participate in the weekly group sessions at the […] Clinic or any other treatment, therapy or counselling recommended by Dr. [Name] or Dr. [Name]’s designate, at his own expense if not covered by an insurance plan;

g. be prohibited from acting as a Designated Manager in any pharmacy, and from having any proprietary interest in a pharmacy of any kind, and from acting as a director of a corporation that owns a pharmacy;

h. ensure that his employer has confirmed in writing to the College within fourteen (14) days of commencing employment, that they have received and reviewed a copy of the Discipline Committee Panel’s decisions in this matter and its Order;

i. successfully complete, at his own expense, a course with Gail E. Siskind Consulting Services, or another professional ethics consultant acceptable to the College, to be designed by the consultant, for the purpose of addressing the professional and ethical obligations, and the compliance with Discipline Committee Orders issues arising in this case. The following terms shall apply to the ethics course:

i. the Registrant shall provide to the consultant in advance of the course, a copy of the Panel’s Reasons for Decision dated November 12, 2018, and this Reasons for Decision on Order;

ii. the number of sessions shall be at the discretion of the consultant, but shall be at least three (3) sessions;

iii. the manner of attendance at the sessions (for example, in person, virtually, etcetera) shall be discussed in advance by the Registrant and the consultant, but ultimately shall be at the discretion of the consultant;

iv. successful completion of the ethics course shall include an essay that is acceptable to the Registrar, addressing the professional misconduct issues arising in this case;

v. the essay shall be at least 1000 words in length. The Registrant shall be responsible for the cost of the review by the consultant to assist the Registrar to determine whether the essay is acceptable, up to a maximum of $500 inclusive of HST; and,

vi. the Registrant shall request a report from the consultant confirming that he has completed the essay and the course to the consultant’s satisfaction, and he shall provide a copy of the consultant’s report to the College no later than 12 months from the date this Order becomes final.

4. That the Registrant may apply to the Registrar to remove or vary the terms, conditions or limitations set out in paragraphs 3(a) to 3(h) above, after three years from the date this Order becomes final. In considering whether to allow a request to remove or vary those terms, conditions or limitations on the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration, the Registrar may require that the Registrant undergo a further sexual behaviours assessment, to be conducted by a psychiatrist acceptable to the College, and provide a report of the assessment to the Registrar. The Registrar may also require the Registrant to provide any other information necessary for the Registrar to assess whether it is in the public interest to remove or vary the noted terms, conditions or limitations.

5. That the Registrant pay costs to the College in the amount of $40,000.

The reprimand in this matter was administered on August 13, 2024.

In its reprimand, the Panel observed that being a pharmacist in Ontario is a right, not a privilege. With that right comes professional and ethical obligations. Breaching an Order of the Ontario College of Pharmacists Discipline Committee breaches the obligations that are expected as a pharmacist.

The Panel noted that the Registrant’s actions have undermined public trust in pharmacists in Ontario and the College’s ability to regulate its registrants. Breaching an Order of the Discipline Committee is unacceptable. The Panel indicated that the Registrant’s lack of insight in interpreting and complying with his previous Order is troubling.

The Panel expressed its belief that remediation is an important aspect of the penalty, and that it was encouraged to hear that the Registration is participating in counselling to further his rehabilitation. The Panel related that that the suspension and the imposed terms will serve as specific deterrent, preventing the Registrant from repeating this conduct in the future, and that limiting the Registrant’s access to the public in Ontario will ensure the safety of all Ontarians.

The Panel conveyed its expectation that the Registrant will fully comply with terms and conditions of this Order and that he will not appear again before a Panel of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists again.

In particular, the Panel found that the Registrant:

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession;
• Contravened 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 19 of Ontario Regulation 264/16, made under 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 of the profession 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 as follows:

a. That the Registrant shall successfully complete, at his own expense, all seven (7) modules for the IPAC For Health Care Workers course provided by Public Health Ontario, and shall provide to the College all of his certificates of completion from the course, within twelve (12) months of the date of this Order;

b. The Registrant shall successfully complete, at his own expense and within twelve (12) months of the date of this Order: a course with Gail E. Siskind Consulting Services or another 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 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. Successful completion of the course will include completion of an essay, acceptable to the Registrar, addressing the professional misconduct arising from this matter;

iv. The essay shall be at least 1000 words in length. The Registrant shall be responsible for the cost of review by the consultant to assist the Registrar to determine whether the essay is acceptable, up to a maximum of $500; and

v. The Registrant shall require the consultant to report the results of the course to the College no later than twelve (12) months from the date of this Order.

3. That the Registrar suspend the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration for a period of three (3) months. The suspension shall commence August 15, 2024, and shall continue without interruption until November 15, 2024, inclusive.

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

In its reprimand, the panel noted that the Registrant’s conduct was shameful. The Panel noted that the Registrant was the Designated Manager, sole Director, and shareholder of the corporation that operated the Pharmacy where he engaged in the misconduct. The Panel noted that as an experienced, long-standing College registrant, he should have known better.

The Panel also noted that by failing to take appropriate personal hygiene precautions when the Registrant performed highly personal functions in the Pharmacy, he demonstrated a very serious lack of personal and professional integrity. The Panel observed that practicing pharmacy is a privilege granted to those who have worked hard to maintain the high standards of practice demanded by the public, the profession, and the College.

The Panel noted that the Registrant has brought shame on himself, and to the profession. The Panel acknowledged that although the Registrants hearing before the Discipline Committee on May 9, 2023, may not be considered an aggravating factor, the Panel nevertheless is dismayed by the fact that this is his second appearance before the Discipline Committee.

The Panel expressed its hope the Registrant will reflect upon his misconduct and the difficult process he has had to go through as a result, and relayed its expectation that the Registrant will learn from this experience, to learn from the suspension of the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration and the remediation measures that have been ordered to rehabilitate the Registrant’s practice, and make it safe for the public and the patients he serves.

• Between about January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017, 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 December 31, 2017, 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 either [Physician 1] or [Physicians 2] as prescriber;
• Between about June 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017, he dispensed (or he permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, the dispensing of) prescription drugs pursuant to refill authorizations deemed to be invalid because the prescriber, [Physician 1], was no longer an authorized prescriber, without documenting any rationale for dispensing pursuant to the invalid authorizations;
• Between about January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017, he dispensed (or he permitted, consented to or approved, expressly or impliedly, the dispensing of) prescription drugs without ensuring that the prescriber’s address was recorded on the prescription as required by s. 156(1)(d) of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, RSO 1990, c H.4, with respect to certain identified prescriptions.

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 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. 155(1) and/or s. 156(1)(d) 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 dishonourable or 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 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) 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, if available;

v. 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 thirteen (13) months from the date this Order becomes final, to confirm that the Registrant completed the course to the consultant’s satisfaction.

b. Beginning on September 16, 2024, 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 2a.

3. The Registrar shall suspend the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration for a period of 3 months, with 1 month of the suspension to be remitted on condition that the Registrant completes the remedial training as specified in paragraph 2a above. The suspension shall commence on September 16, 2024, and shall continue until November 15, 2024, 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 paragraph 2a, that portion of the suspension shall commence on September 16, 2025, and shall continue until October 15, 2025, 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 pharmacy is a self-regulated profession. The practice of pharmacy is a privilege, and it comes with significant obligations to the public, the profession, and oneself.

The Panel explained that, through his actions, the Registrant failed to fulfill his obligations as a dispensing pharmacist, Designated Manager, Director, and pharmacy owner. He breached the standards of practice of the profession, regulations, and pharmacy legislation.

The Panel observed that the components of the Order are intended to provide the Registrant with an opportunity to rehabilitate his conduct with respect to his pharmacy practice. The Order is essential to protect the public and to deter the Registrant from engaging in this type conduct in the future.

The Panel indicated that it does not expect to see the Registrant again before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.