Discipline Decisions (Spring 2019)

Referral 1

The Panel found that Mr. Awad, from in or about August 2016 to in or about March 2017, while engaged in the practice of pharmacy as owner, Designated Manager and/or dispensing pharmacist, committed professional misconduct in that he

• Submitted accounts or charges for services that he knew or reasonably ought to have known was false or misleading to the Ontario Drug Benefit program for up to 451 MedsCheck reviews that were never conducted and/or were non-compliant with the guidelines of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care;
• Falsified pharmacy records in relation to claims made to the Ontario Drug Benefit Program for up to 451 MedsCheck reviews submitted that were never conducted and/or were non-compliant with the guidelines of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care; and/or,
• Failed to keep records as required in relation to up to 451 MedsCheck claims made to the Ontario Drug Benefit Program.

In particular, the Panel found that he

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession
• Falsified records relating to his practice
• Signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew contained a false or misleading statement
• Submitted an account or charge for services that he knew was false or misleading
• Contravened the Act, the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, or the regulations under those Acts, and in particular sections 20 and 21 of Ontario Regulation 264/16
• Failed to keep records as required
• 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

Referral 2

The Panel found that Mr. Awad, from in or about June to August 2017, while engaged in the practice of pharmacy as owner, Designated Manager and/or dispensing pharmacist, committed professional misconduct in that he

• Dispensed acetaminophen from two different prescriptions where one of the prescriptions was discontinued and the total amount of acetaminophen dispensed exceeded the maximum daily dosage;
• Dispensed nortriptyline (Aventyl) after being directed to discontinue and therefore without a prescription or lawful authorization; and/or,
• Billed the Ontario Drug Benefit Program and/or a private insurer for certain identified prescriptions where there was no prescription or lawful authorization to dispense and bill for the medications.

In particular, the Panel found that he

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession
• Submitted an account or charge for services that he knew or ought to have known was false or misleading
• 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 dishonourable and unprofessional

Referral 3

The Panel found that Mr. Awad, while engaged in the practice of pharmacy as owner, Designated Manager and/or dispensing pharmacist, committed professional misconduct in that he

• Submitted false claims to the Ontario Drug Benefit Program on behalf of [Patient A] for one or more of certain identified prescriptions;
• Declined to dispense Humira to [Patient A] despite being provided with a valid prescription;
• Submitted claims to the Ontario Drug Benefit Program for Humira that was not dispensed and/or offered cash in lieu of dispensing Humira to [Patient A];
• Offered money to [Patient A] in exchange for her not filing a complaint against him to the Ontario College of Pharmacists;
• Dispensed Humira to [Patient A] that was not refrigerated;
• Dispensed medications and/or drugs to [Patient A]. without a prescription, including, but not limited to, Percocet; and/or,
• Dispensed medications and/or drugs to [Patient A] without proper labelling.

In particular, the Panel found that he

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession
• Discontinued professional services that were needed
• Failed to keep records as required respecting his practice
• Falsified a record relating to his practice or a person’s health record
• Signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document he knew contained a false or misleading statement
• Submitted an account or charge for services that he knew was false or misleading
• Contravened a federal or provincial law or municipal by-law with respect to the distribution, sale or dispensing of any drug or mixture of drugs, and in particular:
  • Sections 5, 6 and 15(1)(b) of the Ontario Drug Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.10, as amended, and/or Ontario Regulation 201/96 made thereunder, with respect to submitting claims for payment to the Ontario Drug Benefit program where no payment was required, and/or that he knew or reasonably ought to have known were false, inaccurate or misleading claims
• 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

Referral 4

The Panel found that Mr. Awad, on or about October 24, 2017, while engaged in the practice of pharmacy as owner and/or Designated Manager, committed professional misconduct in that he

• Failed to appropriately supervise an unregulated employee and/or permitted an unregulated employee to dispense and/or sell Tylenol #1; and/or,
• Failed to appropriately supervise an unregulated employee and/or permitted an unregulated employee to perform acts within the scope of practice of pharmacy, including the provision of information related to the use of Tylenol #1.

In particular, the Panel found that he

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession
• Failed to provide an appropriate level of supervision to a person he was professionally obligated to supervise
• 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, contravened section 149 of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.4
• Contravened a federal, provincial, or territorial law with respect to the distribution, purchase, sale, or dispensing or prescribing of a drug or product and, in particular, section 149 of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.4
• Permitted, counselled, or assisted, whether expressly or by implication, the commission of an offence against any Act relating to the practice of pharmacy or the sale of drugs and, in particular, section 149 of Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.4
• 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 dishonourable and unprofessional

Referral 5

The Panel found that Mr. Awad, from in or about August 2016 to in or about October 2017, while engaged in the practice of pharmacy as owner, Designated Manager and/or dispensing pharmacist, committed professional misconduct in that he

• Submitted accounts or charges for services that he knew or reasonably ought to have known were false or misleading to the Ontario Drug Benefit program and/or a private insurer in relation to:
  • Certain identified MedsCheck reviews that were never conducted and/or were non-compliant with the guidelines of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care;
  • Certain identified prescriptions;
  • Certain identified medications dispensed;
• Falsified pharmacy records in relation to:
  • Certain identified MedsCheck reviews that were never conducted and/or were non-compliant with the guidelines of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care;
  • Certain identified prescriptions;
  • Certain identified medications dispensed;
• Failed to keep records as required in relation to:
  • Certain identified MedsCheck reviews that were never conducted and/or were non-compliant with the guidelines of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care;
  • Certain identified prescriptions;
  • Certain identified medications dispensed;
• Dispensed a benzodiazepine (and in particular, Valium) without a prescription or legal authorization;
• Provided false and/or misleading information to an investigator of the Ontario College of Pharmacists and, in particular, falsely advising that:
  • [Patient B] regularly picked up medication from the Pharmacy;
  • He personally delivered Paliperidone injections to the [Facility] Health Team and to a particular doctor in respect of [Patient B];
  • That the particular doctor requested a fill of Paliperidone for [Patient B] on or about October 24, 2017; and/or,
  • Another pharmacy involved in [Patient B]’s care would not provide puffers.

In particular, the Panel found that he

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession
• Falsified records relating to his practice
• 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 that he knew or ought to have known was false or misleading
• Contravened the Act, the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, or the regulations under those Acts, and in particular
  • sections 20 and 21 of Ontario Regulation 264/16
• Failed to keep records as required
• Contravened a federal or provincial law or municipal by-law with respect to the distribution, sale or dispensing of any drug or mixture of drugs, and in particular:
  • section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C., 1996, c. 19 with respect to the trafficking of a controlled substance (Valium)
• 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

Order

With respect to all of the findings set out above, the Panel imposed an Order which included as follows:

1. A reprimand, to be delivered in writing;
2. Directing the Registrar to revoke Mr. Awad’s Certificate of Registration;
3. Costs to the College in the amount of $15,000.

Referral 6

At the same hearing, the Panel found that Mr. Awad, while engaged in the practice of pharmacy as owner, Designated Manager and/or dispensing pharmacist, committed professional misconduct in that he

• Failed to provide to the Registrar the details of charges against him under the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985 c. C-46 as set out in an information sworn on or about September 9, 2016 and/or October 28, 2016, namely charges relating to the offences of sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a young person;
• Falsely indicated on his renewal documents that were submitted to the College that he was not the subject of any current proceeding in respect of any offence in any jurisdiction at a time when he was the subject of charges under the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985 c. C-46 as set out in an information sworn on or about September 9, 2016 and/or October 28, 2016.
• Touched an employee of the Pharmacy on the premises of the Pharmacy on her buttocks for sexual and/or improper purposes

In particular, the Panel found that he

• Contravened a term, condition or limitation imposed on his certificate of registration, and specifically the term set out in section 5(1)(ii) of Ontario Regulation 202/94
• Signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew contained a false or misleading statement
• 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

With respect to this finding, the Panel imposed an Order which included as follows:

4. A reprimand, to be delivered in writing;
5. Directing the Registrar to revoke Mr. Awad’s Certificate of Registration;
6. Costs to the College in the amount of $20,000.

The reprimands in this matter remain outstanding.

The full text of the Panel’s decision is available on www.canlii.org.

• Participated in and carried out a conspiracy to steal and traffic controlled substances (including morphine, hydromorphone, codeine, oxycontin, pethidine, and/or fentanyl) from the Pharmacy
• Was found of guilty on June 14, 2018 by the Ontario Court of Justice at Newmarket in relation to the following counts:
  • Obstruction of justice (September 2, 2017)
  • Conspiracy to commit theft over $5,000 (August 1, 2017 to September 2, 2017)
  • Conspiracy to possess controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking (August 1, 2017 to September 2, 2017)
  • Trafficking a controlled substance – morphine (September 2, 2017)
  • Trafficking a controlled substance – hydromorphone (September 2, 2017)
  • Trafficking a controlled substance – codeine (September 2, 2017)
  • Trafficking a controlled substance – oxycontin (September 2, 2017)
  • Trafficking a controlled substance – pethidine (September 2, 2017)
  • Trafficking a controlled substance – fentanyl (September 2, 2017)
  • Conspiracy to commit theft over $5,000 (April 1, 2017 to April 27, 2017)
  • Conspiracy to possess controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking (April 1, 2017 to April 27, 2017)

In particular, the Panel found that:

• He was found guilty of an offence that is relevant to his suitability to practise
• While engaged in the practice of pharmacy at Ben’s Pharmacy in Pefferlaw, Ontario, in the period from about April 1, 2017 to September 2, 2017, he
  • Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession
  • Dispensed or sold drugs for an improper purpose
  • Signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew contained a false or misleading statement: namely, Loss or Theft Reports to Health Canada dated May 1, May 25, and September 3, 2017
  • Contravened s. 155 of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act
  • Contravened section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, section 465(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, section G.03.002 of the Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C., c. 870, and section 31 of the Narcotic Control Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1041
  • Knowingly permitted the premises in which a pharmacy was located to be used for unlawful purposes in circumstances where such purposes would reasonably be regarded by members as likely to demean the integrity or dignity of the profession or bring the profession into disrepute
  • Permitted, consented to, approved, counselled or assisted, whether expressly or by implication, the commission of an offence against any Act relating to the practice of pharmacy or the sale of drugs: namely, by contravening section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, section 465(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, section G.03.002 of the Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C., c. 870, and section 31 of the Narcotic Control Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1041
  • 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
  • Engaged in conduct unbecoming a member

The Panel imposed an Order which included as follows:

1. A reprimand
2. That the Registrar is directed to revoke Mr. Yamasaki’s certificate of registration.
3. Costs to the College in the amount of $2,500.00.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that pharmacy is a highly respected profession. The Panel observed that it is disturbing to see that Mr. Yamasaki resorted to such conduct, which involved theft of his inventory for the purpose of trafficking the medication for his monetary gain. The Panel indicated that Mr. Yamasaki’s deceitful and selfish actions have put the public at risk by contributing to the opioid epidemic, which has resulted in unnecessary drug overdoses and deaths.

The Panel related that Mr. Yamasaki’s failure to maintain the standards of practice, his violation of the code of ethics, and his actions of professional misconduct, including conduct unbecoming a member of the profession, warrant the revocation of his certificate of registration. The Panel expressed its view that the people of Ontario and the profession will be well served by the revocation of his license to practise.

• Engaged in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that was known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome, towards his co-worker and patient, [the Patient]; and/or
• Touched inappropriately or attempted to touch inappropriately his co- worker and patient, [the Patient]; and/or
• Engaged in touching of a sexual nature, or behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature, towards his co-worker and patient, [the Patient]

In particular, the Panel found that he

• Sexually abused a patient
• 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 which included as follows:

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

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

(b) that the Member successfully complete, at his own expense and within 12 (twelve) 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, 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:

a. The number of sessions shall be at the discretion of the consultant, but shall be no fewer than 2 (two);

b. The manner of attendance at the session(s) (e.g. in person, via Skype, etc.) is a matter to be discussed in advance between the Member and the consultant, but shall ultimately be at the discretion of the consultant;

c. the Member shall provide to the consultant his evaluation from the ProBE course, and any essay he completed as part of that course, and discuss with the consultant the issues arising from that course; and

d. The Member 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 Member has completed the course to the satisfaction of the consultant; and

(c) that the Member shall be prohibited, for a period of 3 (three) years from the end of the period of suspension set out in paragraph 3, below, from acting as a Designated Manager at any pharmacy.

3. That the Registrar suspend the Member’s Certificate of Registration for a period of 6 (six) months, with 1 (one) month of the suspension to be remitted on condition that the Member complete the remedial training as specified in paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b), above.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that members of the public hold pharmacists in high regard. Pharmacists have a moral obligation to conduct themselves in a manner that is professional and maintains public confidence.

The Panel pointed out that pharmacists are expected to demonstrate personal and professional integrity and to maintain professional boundaries at all times. These boundaries are based on trust, respect, and the appropriate use of power. These standards are high and the Member failed in maintaining them.

The Panel expressed its expectation that the Member has had a chance to reflect on his misconduct and is remorseful. The Panel noted that the remediation ordered today is intended to provide him with an opportunity for rehabilitation of his conduct in the workplace.

The Panel relayed its further expectation that they will not see the Member again before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.

• On or about February 4, 2018, she provided, to two patients who had requested naloxone kits, kits containing ampoules of fentanyl, rather than ampoules of naloxone

In particular, the Panel found that she

• Failed to maintain the standards of the profession
• Engaged in conduct relevant to the practice of pharmacy that, having regard to all of the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as unprofessional

The Panel imposed an Order which included as follows:

1. A reprimand

2. That the Registrar be directed to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration:

a. that the Member successfully complete, at her own expense and within twelve (12) months of the date of this order, the Institute for Safe Medication Practices Canada program, “Medication Safety: Incident Analysis and Proactive Risk Assessment”, including Root Cause Analysis and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis

3. Costs to the College in the amount of $3,000.00.

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 to oneself. The safety of patients is of paramount concern.

The Panel observed that, although this was the Member’s first appearance before a panel of the Discipline Committee, her dispensing error caused serious potential risk to a vulnerable patient population.

The Panel expressed its expectation that the Member will continue the necessary adjustments to her practice, and that she will benefit from the remediation imposed by this Order.

• Dispensed certain identified prescription medications to himself purportedly authorized by physicians Dr. [A] or Dr. [B] where no such authorizations were given;
• Falsely recorded authorizations of Dr. [A]. or Dr. [B] on certain identified prescriptions dispensed to himself without physician authorization;
• Regularly dispensed certain identified prescription medications to himself in contravention of the College’s Policy on Treating Self and Family Members.

In particular, the Panel found that he:

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession
• Falsified pharmacy records
• Signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document he knew contained a false or misleading statement
• Contravened Act, the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 or the regulations under those Acts: namely, section 155(1) of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act and/or section 40(1) of Ontario Regulation 58/11
• Contravened, while engaged in the practice of pharmacy, a federal or provincial law or municipal by-law with respect to the distribution, sale or dispensing of any drug or mixture of drugs: namely, section 155(1) of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act and/or section 40(1) of Ontario Regulation 58/11
• 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 unprofessional

The Panel imposed an Order which included as follows:

1. A reprimand;
2. That the Registrar is directed to impose specified terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Registration, and in particular: that the Member must successfully complete, at his own expense, the ProBE course on Professional, Problem-Based Ethics, with an unconditional pass, within 12 months of the date of this Order;
3. That the Registrar is directed to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Registration for a period of four months, with one month of the suspension to be remitted on condition that the Member complete the remedial training as specified in paragraph 2. The suspension shall commence on March 28, 2019, and shall continue until June 27, 2019, 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 paragraph 2, that portion of the suspension shall commence on March 29, 2020, and shall continue until April 28, 2020, inclusive, unless the time for completing the remedial training in paragraph 2, above 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; and
4. Costs to the College in the amount of $1,500.00.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that although this was the Member’s first appearance before a panel of the Discipline Committee, it was important to impress upon him the seriousness of his conduct.

The Panel pointed out that, through this professional misconduct, the Member failed in his obligation to adhere to the standards of practice. He dispensed to himself without proper authorization and falsified records.

Although the Panel acknowledged his admission of guilt and expression of remorse, it expressed its expectation that he will continue the necessary adjustments to his practice and will benefit from the remediation steps imposed by this Order.

• Documents signed or issued to wholesalers who supplied products to FYP Pharmacy;
• Accepting deliveries of drugs in or around the waiting area in the foyer of FYP Pharmacy for immediate transport to [Name] Ltd. at another location;
• Failing to maintain the requirements for the certificate of accreditation of FYP Pharmacy;
• Misleading suppliers of drugs to FYP Pharmacy as to whom they were providing drugs and/or that the drugs would be exported from Canada; and/or
• Operating FYP Pharmacy as a wholesaler and/or without having an establishment licence to do so.

In particular, the Panel found that 2549363 Ontario Inc., to whom the certificate of accreditation for FYP Pharmacy was issued, and David Bedggood, the sole director of 2549363 Ontario Inc., and the designated manager of FYP Pharmacy:

• Failed to maintain any of the standards of accreditation, including the standards for accreditation as set out in sections 18, 19, 20, and 22 of Ontario Regulation 264/16;
• Signed or issued a document that contained a false or misleading statement;
• Contravened the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, the Pharmacy Act, 1991, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, the Narcotics Safety and Awareness Act, 2010, the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act, the Ontario Drug Benefits Act or the regulations under those Acts, including sections 19, 20, and 22 of Ontario Regulation 264/16 under the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act;
• Contravened a federal, provincial or territorial law or any municipal by-law, with respect to the distribution, purchase, sale, dispensing or prescribing of any drug product, the administering of any substance or the piercing of the dermis, where the purpose of the law or by-law is to protect or promote public health, or where the law or by-law relates to the operation of the pharmacy or the provision of pharmacy services, including subsection C.01A.004(1) of the Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C., c. 870, as amended;
• Used, or knowingly permitted the use of, the premises in which a pharmacy is located, or the area adjacent to such premises, for unlawful purposes;
• Engaged in conduct or performed an act relevant to the operation of a pharmacy that, having regard to the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional

The Panel imposed an Order which included as follows:

1. A reprimand

2. An Order directing the Registrar to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for a period of seven (7) months, with one (1) month of the suspension to be remitted on the condition that the Member completes the ethics course specified in subparagraph 3(b) below. This suspension shall commence on the date this Order becomes final. If the remitted portion of the suspension is required to be served by the Member because he fails to complete the ethics course as specified in subparagraph 3(b) below, that portion of the suspension shall commence on the date that is twelve (12) months after the date this Order becomes final. If the time for completing the ethics course in subparagraph 3(b) below is extended by the Registrar, the date on which the remitted portion of the suspension shall commence, if required, shall be adjusted accordingly;

3. an Order directing the Registrar to impose specified terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration, as follows:

a. the Member must successfully complete, at his own expense and within twelve (12) months of the date this Order becomes final, all six (6) of the College’s current Jurisprudence e-Learning Modules and the Jurisprudence Exam;

b. the Member must successfully complete, at his own expense and within twelve (12) months of the date this Order becomes final, the PROBE Program on Professional / Problem-Based Ethics for healthcare professionals offered by the Center for Personalized Education for Physicians, with an unconditional pass;

c. for a period of three (3) years, commencing on the date this Order becomes final, the Member shall be prohibited from acting as a Designated Manager at any pharmacy;

d. for a period of three (3) years, commencing on the date this Order becomes final, the Member shall be prohibited from having any proprietary interest in any pharmacy of any kind, including but not limited to keeping or acquiring any ownership interest, direct or indirect, controlling or otherwise, in any pharmacy, either outright or as a shareholder of a corporation that owns a pharmacy, and the Member shall be prohibited from acting as a director of a corporation that owns a pharmacy. The prohibitions in this paragraph do not apply to owning shares in a publicly traded company that has an interest in a pharmacy.

4. Cost to the College in the amount of $10,000.00

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that the Member failed to maintain the responsibilities and obligations expected of him as a member of this profession. He breached federal and provincial laws and the standards of practice, and he failed to fulfil his duties as a Designated Manager.

The Panel pointed out that the Member engaged in conduct which involved deceit, dishonesty, and serious moral failings. The Panel observed that he failed to live up to the standards that are expected of him by the profession, and by the public he serves.

This Panel expressed its deep concern for his flagrant disregard of the laws and regulations that govern the profession of pharmacy, and pointed out that the suspension of his certificate of registration is essential to protect the public and maintain the honour of the profession.

• On or about March 25, 2018, he performed blood glucose tests at a public health fair, including piercing the dermis of patients with a lancet-type device to obtain blood, without complying with the requirements established by Ontario Regulation 202/94. For example, he performed the act:
  • for a diagnostic purpose;
  • without ensuring that appropriate infection control procedures were in place; and/or
  • without maintaining a patient record for each patient
• On or about March 25, 2018, he delegated the act of piercing the dermis of patients with a lancet-type device to obtain blood to a person who was not a Part A pharmacist, an intern, a registered pharmacy student or a pharmacy technician, and was therefore not legally authorized to perform the act

In particular, the Panel found that he

• Contravened subsection 4(2) of the Pharmacy Act
• Failed to maintain the standards of the profession
• Contravened the Pharmacy Act, 1991, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, and Ontario Regulation 202/94 under the Pharmacy Act, 1991
• Engaged in conduct relevant to the practice of pharmacy that, having regard to all of the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as dishonourable and unprofessional

The Panel imposed an Order which included as follows:

1. A reprimand

2. That the Registrar be directed to impose a term, condition and limitation on the Member’s certificate of registration that he successfully complete, on or before April 8, 2020, a course with Gail E. Siskind Consulting Services, or another professional ethics consultant chosen by the College, to be designed by the consultant, but with the general aim of addressing the professional conduct issues raised by this case. The following terms shall apply to the course:

a. The number of sessions shall be at the discretion of the consultant.

b. The manner of attendance at the session(s) (e.g. in person, via Skype, etc.) is a matter to be discussed in advance between the Member and the consultant, but shall ultimately be at the discretion of the consultant.

c. The Member shall be responsible for the cost of the course.

d. Successful completion of the course will include completion of an essay, acceptable to the Registrar, addressing the objectives of professional regulation and the importance to the public interest of complying with a practitioner’s regulatory obligations, including the professional conduct issues raised by this case.

e. The essay shall be at least 1000 words in length. The Member 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;

3. Directing the Registrar to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Registration for a period of 2 months, 1 month of which shall be remitted upon the Member successfully completing the remedial training as specified in paragraph 2 above. The suspension shall commence on April 9, 2019, and run until May 8, 2019, inclusive. If the remitted portion of the suspension is required to be served by the Member because he fails to complete the remedial training specified in paragraph 2 above, the remainder of the suspension shall commence on April 9, 2020, and continue until May 8, 2020, inclusive. If the time for completing the remedial steps in paragraph 2, 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 $7,500.00.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that the Member failed to maintain the responsibilities and obligations expected of him as a member of the profession. The Panel observed that he breached provincial laws, the standards of practice of pharmacy, and his duties as a Designated Manager. The Panel pointed out that he engaged in conduct that reflects poorly on himself and the profession, and which exposed the public and his patients to serious health risks.

This Panel expressed its expectation that he 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 conduct will not be repeated in his future practice.

• Submitted accounts or charges for services that he knew or reasonably ought to have known were false or misleading to the Ontario Drug Benefit program for MedsCheck reviews that were never conducted and/or were non-compliant with the guidelines of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care;
• Falsified pharmacy records in relation to claims made to the Ontario Drug Benefit Program for MedsCheck reviews that were never conducted and/or were non-compliant with the guidelines of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care; and/or,
• Failed to keep records as required in relation to MedsCheck claims made to the Ontario Drug Benefit Program.

In particular, the Panel found that he

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession
• Falsified records relating to his practice
• Signed or issued in his professional capacity a document that he knew contained a false or misleading statement
• Submitted an account or charge for services that he knew was false or misleading
• Contravened the Act, the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, or the regulations under those Acts, and in particular sections 20 and 21 of Ontario Regulation 264/16
• Failed to keep records as required
• 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

Mr. Peters agreed to permanently resign as a member of the College while this discipline proceeding was pending.

The Panel imposed an Order which included as follows:

1. A reprimand
2. Costs to the College in the amount of $2,000.00

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that Mr. Peters failed to maintain the responsibilities and obligations expected of him as a member of the profession. He engaged in conduct which reflects poorly on himself and the profession, and failed to live up to the standards that are expected of him by the profession and the public. His actions to defraud a publically funded program are inexcusable.

The Panel noted that Mr. Peters has undertaken to permanently resign his certificate of registration, and agreed to never apply for the removal of discipline information from the public register. The Panel observed that this will serve to protect the public.

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