Discipline Decisions (Spring-Summer 2020)

• On or about September 24, 2016, he committed sexual assault on a minor;
• On or about September 24, 2016, he did, without lawful authority, confine a minor;
• He failed to report to the College that on or about September 26, 2016 he was charged with sexual assault and unlawful confinement, under sections 271 and 279(2) of the Criminal Code;
• On or about March 9, 2017, in written and/or electronic material he submitted to the College during the renewals of his certificate of registration he indicated that he was not the subject of a criminal proceeding, at a time he was charged with sexual assault and unlawful confinement, contrary to sections 271 and 279(2) of the Criminal Code;
• On or around March 8, 2018, in written and/or electronic material he submitted to the College during the renewals of his certificate of registration he indicated that he was not the subject of a criminal proceeding, at a time he was charged with sexual assault;
• On or about March 16, 2018, he was found guilty of sexual assault and unlawful confinement, contrary to sections 271 and 279(2) of the Criminal Code;
• He failed to report to the College that on or about March 16, 2018 he was convicted of sexual assault and unlawful confinement, under sections 271 and 279(2) of the Criminal Code; and
• He failed to report to the College that on or about October 16, 2018 he was found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct by a hearing tribunal of the Alberta College of Pharmacy.

In particular, the Panel found that he:

• Was found guilty of offences that are relevant to his suitability to practice;
• Contravened a term, condition or limitation imposed on his certificate of registration, as set out in section 5, paragraph 1(ii) of Ontario Regulation 202/94;
• Breached section 85.6.1 of the Health Professions Procedural Code;
• Breached section 85.6.3 of the Health Professions Procedural Code;
• Signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement;
• 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 which included as follows:

1. A reprimand in writing;
2. Directing the Registrar to revoke Mr. Hadi’s Certificate of Registration;
3. Costs to the College in the amount of $18,500.00.

The reprimand in this matter remains outstanding.

In particular, the Panel found that he was found guilty of an offence that is relevant to his suitability to practice.

The Panel imposed an Order which included as follows:

1. A reprimand;
2. Directing the Registrar to revoke Mr. Essa’s Certificate of Registration;
3. Costs to the College in the amount of $5,000.00.

Mr. Essa entered into an Acknowledgment & Undertaking, as part of the resolution of this matter, by which he undertook that he would not in the future seek reinstatement of his certificate of registration.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that it found Mr. Essa’s conduct to be appalling and unacceptable in the eyes of the public and the profession. The Panel pointed out that his behaviour has impacted his suitability and ability to practice as a pharmacist.

The Panel expressed its view that Mr. Essa’s conduct was reprehensible, and that he ought to have known that the conduct he engaged in was totally unacceptable. The Panel observed that Mr. Essa has brought shame to himself and to the profession.

• Failing to keep records as required respecting his patients and/or practice with respect to one or more of certain identified drugs and/or products, from in or about January 2017 to in or about December 2017;
• Falsifying a record relating to his practice and/or a person’s health record with respect to one or more of certain identified drugs and/or products, from in or about January 2017 to in or about December 2017;
• Signing or issuing, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement with respect to one or more of certain identified drugs and/or products, from in or about January 2017 to in or about December 2017; and/or
• Submitting an account or charge for services that he knew or ought to have known was false and misleading with respect to one or more of certain identified drugs and/or products, from in or about January 2017 to in or about December 2017;
• Having systems in place to maintain an audit trail of the acquisition and movement of drugs.

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 and/or practice;
• Falsified a record relating to his practice and/or a person’s health record;
• Signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew and/or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement;
• Submitted an account or charge for services or products that he knew and/or ought to have known was false or misleading;
• 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 166 of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, and
  • sections 18, 19, and 20 of Ontario Regulation 264/16;
• Contravened a federal, provincial or territorial law with respect to the distribution, sale or dispensing of any drug or mixture of drugs, with respect to the distribution, purchase, sale, dispensing or prescribing of any drug or product, the administering of any substance, or the piercing of the dermis, whose purpose is to protect or promote the public health, and/or that is otherwise relevant to his suitability to practise, and in particular:
  • section 166 of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, and
  • sections 18, 19, and 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.

The Panel imposed an Order, as follows:

1. A reprimand;

2. Directing the Registrar to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for a period of 12 months, with 1 month of the suspension to be remitted on the condition that the Member completes the remedial training specified in paragraph 3(a) below. The suspension shall commence on February 7, 2020 and shall continue until January 6, 2021, inclusive. If the remitted portion of the suspension is required to be served by the Member because he fails to successfully complete the remedial requirement specified in paragraph 3(a) below, that portion of the suspension shall commence on February 7, 2021 and shall continue until March 6, 2021, inclusive;

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

a. The Member 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 Physicians;

b. For a period of three (3) years from the date of this Order, the Member shall be prohibited from having any proprietary interest in a pharmacy of any kind and/or receiving remuneration for his work as a pharmacist other than remuneration on an hourly or weekly basis;

c. For a period of three (3) years from the date of this Order, the Member shall be prohibited from acting as a Designated Manager in any pharmacy;

d. For a period of three (3) years from the date of this Order, the Member shall be required to notify the College in writing of the names(s), address(s) and telephone numbers(s) of all employer(s) within fourteen (14) days of commencing employment in a pharmacy;

e. For a period of three (3) years from the date of this Order, the Member shall provide his pharmacy employer with a copy of the Discipline Committee Panel’s decision in this matter and its Order and provide proof to the College Registrar within fourteen (14) days of the Member commencing employment;

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

In its reprimand, the Panel noted its extreme disappointment with the facts presented. The Panel observed that this behaviour represents a well-known and egregious breach of the standards of practice, and that the Member should have known better.

The Panel pointed out that pharmacy is a self-regulated profession, and that public confidence in members to act with honesty and integrity must be maintained. The Panel indicated that the Member’s actions jeopardize this trust.

The Panel expressed its view that, in the future, the Member is expected to practice pharmacy within the standards of this profession. The Panel noted its expectation that the Member will take this opportunity to reflect on his actions and complete the required remediation, and that he will change the way he practices and will not appear again in front of a panel of the Discipline committee.

• Was employed in or worked in Tom’s Pharmacy while his licence was suspended for cause;
• Used the title “pharmacist” while his certificate of registration was suspended, including but not limited to: on his LinkedIn profile; and/or in interactions with patients and the public at Tom’s Pharmacy;
• Dispensed or sold drugs at Tom’s Pharmacy when he was not a pharmacist, in particular but not limited to on or about October 20, 2017, February 22, 2018, and/or September 15, 2018;
• Engaged in the controlled acts of prescribing, dispensing, selling or compounding a drug as defined in the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, or supervising the part of the pharmacy where such drugs are kept at Tom’s Pharmacy, when he was not a member authorized by a health profession Act to perform the controlled act, in particular but not limited to on or about October 20, 2017, February 22, 2018, and/or September 15, 2018;
• Provided information or education to patients at Tom’s Pharmacy, in particular but not limited to [Patient A] on or about February 20, 2018, [Patient B] in or after August 2018, and other customers on or about September 15, 2018;
• Provided instructions regarding the dispensing of extra tablets of sildenafil to [Patient C] in or around August 2018 to October 2018;
• Removed prescription drugs from Tom’s Pharmacy without a prescription, including but not limited to Lynparza and Premarin;
• Sold drugs without a prescription, including but not limited to Lynparza and Premarin; and/or
• Demonstrated a pattern of ungovernability.

In particular, the Panel found that he:

• Inappropriately used a term, title or designation in respect of his 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, in particular but not limited to:
  • sections 10(1) and 10(2) of the Pharmacy Act;
  • sections 143, 149, and 155 of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act;
  • section 27 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991;
• Contravened any federal, provincial or territorial law or municipal by-law, with respect to the distribution, purchase, sale, or dispensing or prescribing of any drug or product, the administering of any substance, or the piercing of the dermis, whose purpose is to protect or promote public health, or that is otherwise relevant to his suitability to practice, in particular but not limited to subsection C.01.041 of the Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C., c. 870;
• Failed to comply with an order of a Committee or a panel of a Committee of the College, namely the interim suspension order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee, effective as of June 30, 2017;
• Practised the profession while his certificate of registration was under suspension;
• 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.

At the same hearing, the Panel also made findings of professional misconduct against Tom McAnulty in that he:

• Failed to successfully complete, at his own expense, the ProBE Program on Professional/Problem Based Ethics for healthcare professionals, with an unconditional pass, within twelve (12) months of the date of the Order made by a panel of the Discipline Committee on or about March 29, 2018;
• Held himself out as a person who is qualified to practise in Ontario as a pharmacist while his certificate of registration was suspended, in particular but not limited to on or about April 3 to 15, 2019 and/or on or about May 28 to 29, 2019;
• Was employed in or worked in Tom’s Pharmacy while his licence was suspended for cause, in particular but not limited to on or about April 3 to 15, 2019 and/or on or about May 28 to 29, 2019;
• Engaged in the practice of pharmacy at Tom’s Pharmacy while his certificate of registration was suspended, in particular but not limited to on or about April 3 to 15, 2019 and/or on or about May 28 to 29, 2019;
• Interacted with patients or customers at Tom’s Pharmacy while his certificate of registration was suspended, in particular but not limited to on or about April 3 to 15, 2019 and/or on or about May 28 to 29, 2019; and/or
• Demonstrated a pattern of ungovernability.

In particular, the Panel found that he:

• Contravened a term, condition or limitation imposed on his certificate of registration;
• 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, in particular but not limited to:
  • section 10(2) of the Pharmacy Act; and/or
  • section 143 of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act;
• Failed to comply with an order of a Committee or a panel of a Committee of the College;
• Practised the profession while his certificate of registration was under suspension;
• Engaged in conduct or performed an act relevant to the practice of pharmacy that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

Mr. McAnulty agreed to permanently resign as a member of the College, effective April 9, 2020, while a discipline hearing into the allegations of professional misconduct against him was pending before the Discipline Committee.

The Panel imposed an Order, as follows:

1. A reprimand;
2. Costs to the College in the amount of $10,000.00.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that members of the public hold pharmacists in high regard. As a pharmacist, Mr. McAnulty failed in his professional obligation to conduct himself in a manner that is respectable, responsible, and maintains public confidence.

The Panel observed that pharmacy is a self-regulated profession, the members of which have a responsibility to ensure that the public is adequately protected and to maintain the public’s confidence in their ability to govern themselves.

The Panel noted that Mr. McAnulty failed to uphold the standard of practice of pharmacy and failed to adhere to the laws and regulations that govern it. The results of his misconduct are that he has let down the public and the pharmacy profession. The Panel expressed its confidence that his decision to irrevocably surrender his certificate of registration will ensure the public is protected.

• Failed to ensure all blister pack prescriptions were checked and/or signed by the pharmacist dispensing the prescriptions to patients, including for certain identified patients;
• Failed to ensure the prescriptions and/or contents of blister pack prescriptions were recorded accurately for patients, including for certain identified patients;
• Failed to ensure compliance with the OCP guideline on Multi-Medication Compliance Aids, updated 2013, with respect to billing, dispensing and/or documenting blister pack prescriptions;
• Billed routinely for excessive dispensing fees at weekly intervals for blister pack prescriptions actually dispensed to patients at bi-weekly or monthly intervals, including for certain identified patients; and/or
• Created false and/or misleading records routinely indicating blister pack prescriptions were being dispensed to patients at weekly intervals when the prescriptions were actually being dispensed to patients at bi-weekly or monthly intervals, including for certain patients.

In particular, the Panel found that she:

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession;
• Failed to provide an appropriate level of supervision to a person whom she was professionally obligated to supervise;
• Failed to keep records as required respecting her patients or practice;
• Falsified a record relating to her practice or a person’s health record;
• Submitted an account or charge for services or products that she knew or ought to have known was false or misleading;
• Charged a fee or amount that was excessive in relation to the service or product provided;
• 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,
  • section 156 of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 4;
  • section 20 of O.Reg. 264/16;
  • sections 4, 4.1, 5, and/or 6 of the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 10; and/or
  • sections 18, 20.2 and/or 27 of O.Reg. 201/96, as amended;
• Engaged in conduct or performed an act relevant to the practice of pharmacy that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as dishonourable or unprofessional.

The Panel imposed an Order, as follows:

1. A reprimand

2. Directing the Registrar to impose specified terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration requiring that:

a. the Member shall complete a course with Gail E. Siskind Consulting Services, or another professional ethics consultant chosen by the College, to be designed by the consultant, for the purpose of addressing the professional and ethical obligations arising in the Member’s case, within twelve (12) months of the date of the Order, in accordance with the following terms:

i. the number of sessions shall be at the discretion of the consultant;

ii. the manner of attendance at the sessions(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;

iii. the Member shall provide to the consultant with the following documents in advance of the course:

A. the Notice of Hearing;

B. the Agreed Statement of Facts;

C. the Joint Submission on Order; and

D. the Decision and Reasons of the Panel, if and when available.

iv. 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 maintaining appropriate practices in relation to billing, recordkeeping, pharmacy policies and preparation of compliance packages;

v. the essay shall be at least 1,000 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;

vi. the Member shall be responsible for the cost of the course; and

vii. the Member will request a report from the consultant confirming that the Member has completed the course to the satisfaction of the consultant, and the Member will provide a copy of the report to the College within twelve (12) months of the date of this Order.

b. the Member shall complete successfully, at her own expense and within twelve (12) months of the date of this Order, the ISMP Canada course on Medication Safety Considerations for Compliance Packaging, and provide verifiable proof to the College that she has done so;

c. the Member shall retain, at her own expense, a practice mentor acceptable to the College, for the purpose of reviewing the Member’s practice in relation to billing, recordkeeping, pharmacy policies and preparation of compliance packaging in accordance with the following terms:

i. the Member shall retain the practice mentor within three (3) months of the date of this Order;

ii. the Member shall meet at least three (3) times with the practice mentor, and more times if the practice mentor determines that further meetings are required;

iii. the Member shall provide the practice mentor with the following documents in advance of the first meeting:

A. the Notice of Hearing;

B. the Agreed Statement of Facts;

C. the Joint Submission on Order; and

D. the Decision and Reasons of the Panel, if and when available.

iv. the Member shall develop with the practice mentor a learning plan to address the areas of the Member’s practice in relation to compliance packaging that require remediation;

v. the Member shall demonstrate to the practice mentor that she has achieved the goals established in the learning plan; and

vi. the Member shall ensure that the practice mentor reports the results of the mentorship program in writing to the College no later than twelve (12) months from the date of this Order; and

d. the Member shall be prohibited from acting as a Designated Manager for any pharmacy for twelve (12) months from the date of this Order or until she has completed the courses and programs in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) above, whichever date is later.

3. Directing the Registrar to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Registration for a period of four (4) months, with one (1) month of the suspension to be remitted on condition the Member complete the remedial training programs as specified in paragraph 2 above. The suspension shall commence on May 29, 2020 and continue without interruption until August 28, 2020, inclusive. If the remitted portion of the suspension has to be served because the Member fails to complete the remedial training programs as specified in paragraph 2 above, the further suspension shall commence on May 30, 2021 and continue without interruption until June 29, 2021, inclusive, unless the time for completing the remedial steps in paragraph 2 above is extended by the Registrar, in which case, the date the remitted portion of the suspension shall commence, if required, shall be adjusted accordingly.

4. Costs to the College in the amount of $9,000.00.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that Pharmacy is a self-regulated profession, and pharmacists bear the responsibility to ensure that the trust of members and the public is maintained. The practice of pharmacy is a privilege that carries with it significant obligations to the public, the profession, and to oneself.

The Panel observed that, as a pharmacist, the Member is expected to comply with her professional, legal, and ethical obligations, and the standards of practice of this profession. She failed to meet those obligations, in her responsibilities as a pharmacist and Designated Manager.

The Panel voiced concern with the seriousness of the allegations and the conduct to which the Member admitted. The Panel expressed its hope that this disciplinary process will cause the Member to reflect on her practice and motivate her to make positive changes, and its expectation that the Member will not appear again before a panel of a Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.

• Sold by retail and/or dispensed prescription drugs to patients in the U.S. without a lawful and/or otherwise valid prescription; and/or
• Contravened the OCP Policy on Prescriptions – Out of Country, dated January-February 2003.

In particular, the Panel found that the Member

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of a profession;
• Contravened the Act, the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, or the regulations under those Acts, and in particular, section 155 of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. H-4, as amended;
• Contravened, while engaged in the practise 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, and in particular, sections C.01.041 and/or C.01.042 of the Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C., c. 870, as amended;
• Engaged in conduct or performed an act relevant to the practice of pharmacy that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Panel imposed an Order, as follows:

1. A reprimand.

2. Directing the Registrar to impose the following specified terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration requiring the Member to complete successfully, 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 professional ethics consultant chosen by the College, to be designed by the consultant, for the purpose of addressing the professional and ethical obligations raised by the facts and findings of professional misconduct in this case (the “Siskind Course”). The following terms shall apply to the Siskind Course:

(i) the number of sessions shall be at the discretion of the consultant, but shall be a minimum of two (2) meetings and a maximum of three (3) meetings;

(ii) 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;

(iii) the Member shall provide to the consultant the following documents, in advance of the Siskind Course, to facilitate the design of the Siskind Course:

1. the Notice of Hearing;

2. the Agreed Statement of Facts;

3. this Joint Submission on Order; and

4. the Panel’s Decision and Reasons, if and when available;

(iv) successful completion of the course will include completion of an essay, acceptable to the Registrar, addressing the issues raised in this matter; and

(v) the consultant shall agree to confirm to the College once the Member has completed the Siskind Course to the satisfaction of the consultant.

3. Directing the Registrar to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Registration for a period of two (2) months, with one (1) month of the suspension to be remitted on condition the Member complete the remedial training program as specified in subparagraph 2 above. The suspension shall commence on June 2, 2020 and continue without interruption until July 1, 2020, inclusive. If the remitted portion of the suspension has to be served because the Member fails to complete the training as specified in subparagraph 2 above, the further suspension shall commence on June 2, 2021 and continue without interruption until July 1, 2021, inclusive. If the time for completing the remedial steps in subparagraph 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 amount of $10,000.00.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that pharmacy is a self-regulated profession, the practice of which is a privilege and comes with significant obligations to the public, the profession, and oneself.

The Panel explained that, through his actions, the Member failed in his obligations as a pharmacist. The Panel related that the suspension of the Member’s Certificate of Registration is essential to protect the public and serves as general and specific deterrence, and the remediation ordered is intended to provide the Member with an opportunity for the rehabilitation of his conduct in his pharmacy practice.

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

• On or about December 1, 2016, he stole fentanyl patches from the Pharmacy;
• On February 8, 2018 findings of guilt were made against him by the Ontario Court of Justice at Owen Sound, Ontario in relation to the following counts:
  • Theft under $5000 (fentanyl), contrary to s. 334(b) of the Criminal Code;
  • Possession of cocaine, contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;
  • Possession of hydromorphone, contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

In particular, the Panel found that Mr. Peters:

• Was found guilty of offences that are relevant to his suitability to practice;
• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession;
• Dispensed drugs for an improper purpose;
• 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 Mr. Peters’ certificate of registration, and in particular:

a. That Mr. Peters complete successfully with an unconditional pass, at his own expense and within 12 months of the date on which he obtains an active certificate of registration, the ProBE Program on Professional/Problem-Based Ethics offered by the Centre for Personalized Education for Physicians;

b. For a period of two years from the date on which he obtains an active certificate of registration, Mr. Peters shall not be involved in the ordering or dispensing (i.e. filling, checking, or providing to patients) any narcotic or controlled substance, unless such activity is directly supervised by a pharmacist or pharmacy technician approved by the College;

c. For a period of three years from the date on which he obtains an active certificate of registration, Mr. Peters shall provide any pharmacy employer with a copy of:

i. the Agreed Statement of Facts and this Joint Submissions on Order, or

ii. the Discipline Committee Panel’s decision in this matter and its Order, when available;

d. For a period of three years from the date on which he obtains an active certificate of registration, Mr. Peters shall only work for an employer who confirms to the College in writing that:

i. That Mr. Peters shall not be involved in the ordering or dispensing (i.e. filling, checking or providing to patients) any narcotic or controlled substance, unless such activity is directly supervised by a pharmacist or pharmacy technician approved by the College, as described in paragraph 2(b), above; and

ii. That the employer has been provided with a copy of the documents described in paragraph 2(c), above; and

e. Mr. Peters shall not apply to the College to obtain an active certificate of registration without first providing a copy of an independent medical examination, completed within three months of the date of his application, which indicates to the satisfaction of the Registrar that he is capable of engaging in the practice of a pharmacy technician, with or without conditions, other than those set out above.

3. That the Registrar is directed to suspend Mr. Peters’ Certificate of Registration for a period of 18 months, with two months of the suspension be remitted on condition that Mr. Peters complete the remedial training as specified in paragraph 2(a). The suspension shall commence on the date on which Mr. Peters obtains an active certificate of registration and shall continue for 16 months, inclusive. If the remitted portion of the suspension is required to be served by Mr. Peters because he fails to complete the remedial training as specified in paragraph 2(a), that portion of the suspension shall commence on the date that is 16 months from the date on which obtained an active certificate of registration, and shall continue for two months, inclusive, unless the time for completing the remedial training in paragraph 2(a), 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.

4. Costs in the amount of $2,500.

Clarity Note: the time periods in paragraphs 2b, c, and d do not start to run until the suspension, described in paragraph 3, has concluded.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that integrity, trust and professional conduct are at the core of the practice of pharmacy and the delivery of care to the public. Theft of narcotics from one’s place of employment goes directly against this.

The Panel observed that pharmacy is a self-regulated profession, and Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians bear the responsibility to ensure that they maintain the trust of the members and the public they serve. The practice of pharmacy is a privilege that carries with it significant obligations to the public, the profession and to oneself.

The Panel pointed out that Mr. Peters acknowledged responsibility for his actions and recognized his remorse, and commended him on being proactive in changing his behaviour. While it is unknown if he will return to the profession, the Panel expressed its hope that the penalty decision, and the terms and conditions imposed within that decision, will ensure that he will not appear again before another discipline panel of the College again.

• On or about October 21, 2017, or sometime after, he signed his name to hardcopy prescriptions, which he had not dispensed, dated October 20, 2017, which had actually been dispensed by a member whose certificate of registration he knew was suspended.

In particular, the Panel found that he:

• Failed to maintain a standard of practice of the profession;
• Falsified a record related 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 a misleading or statement;
• Permitted, counselled or assisted, whether expressly or by implication, any member to contravene, or to practise in a manner that is inconsistent with a term, condition or limitation on that member’s certificate of registration;
• 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 Member’s certificate of registration, and in particular:

a. that the Member complete successfully with an unconditional pass, at his own expense and within twenty four (24) months of the date on which he obtains an active certificate of registration, the ProBE Program on Professional/Problem-Based Ethics offered by the Centre for Personalized Education for Physicians;

3. That the Registrar suspend the Member’s Certificate of Registration for a period of three (3) months, with one (1) month of the suspension to be remitted on condition that the Member completes the remedial training as specified in paragraph 2(a), above. The suspension shall commence on the date on which the Member obtains an active certificate of registration, and shall continue for two (2) months, without interruption. If the remitted portion of the suspension is required to be served by the Member because he fails to complete the remedial requirement specified in paragraph 2(a), that portion of the suspension shall commence on the date that is twenty four (24) months from the date that the Member obtains an active certificate of registration, and shall continue for one (1) month, 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 $8,500.00.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that members of the public and patients hold the pharmacy profession in high regard. As such, it is expected that pharmacists conduct themselves with the highest degree of professionalism and respect to the public. Pharmacists are expected to comply with their professional, legal and ethical obligations and the standards of practice of this profession. Mr. White failed to meet those obligations in his responsibilities as a pharmacist.

The Panel observed that the practice of Pharmacy is a privilege that carries with it significant obligations to the public, the profession, and oneself. The result of Mr. White’s professional misconduct is that he has eroded the public trust in the pharmacy profession and cast a shadow over his own integrity and long standing, previously unblemished, career.

The Panel related its hope that this hearing has given Mr. White the opportunity to pause for reflection. Despite the fact that he has resigned, this does not negate the outcome of his conduct and the obligations of a regulated health professional. The Panel expressed its hope that Mr. White will share his experience with other pharmacy professionals, and teach that this type of conduct is not acceptable to the College, the members, or the public.

• He engaged in criminal harassment, which is an offence contrary to section 264(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, and in the conduct and acts which form the basis of that criminal finding of guilt;
• On or about September 19, 2018, he was found guilty of one count of criminal harassment, which is an offence contrary to section 264(2)(a) of the Criminal Code;
• He failed to report to the Registrar within 30 days the details of charges against him under the Criminal Code, as set out in an information sworn on or about August 22, 2017, as required by College By-Law No. 4, Article 12.1;
• He failed to report to the Registrar as soon as reasonably practicable and/or within 30 days the details of a finding against him under the Criminal Code, made on or about September 19, 2018, as required by section 85.6.1 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, and/or College By-Law No. 4, Article 12.1 and/or College By-Law No. 5, Article 13.1;
• He provided a false statement to the College in response to the question regarding a finding of guilt for an offence on the annual registration renewal questionnaire, on or about March 8, 2019.

In particular, the Panel found that he:

• Was found guilty of an offence that is relevant to his suitability to practice;
• Contravened a term, condition or limitation imposed on his certificate of registration pursuant to section 5, paragraph 1(i) and/or paragraph 1(ii) of Ontario Regulation 202/94;
• Signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement;
• Contravened section 85.6.1 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991;
• Engaged in conduct or performed an act relevant to the practice of pharmacy that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional;
• Engaged in conduct that is unbecoming a member.

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 Member’s Certificate of Registration, and in particular:

(a) that he successfully complete, within twelve (12) months of the date of this Order, 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 issues raised in this matter, including personal boundaries and the responsibilities of a regulated health professional. 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 2.

ii. 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.

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

iv. Successful completion of the course will include completion of an essay, acceptable to the Registrar, addressing the issues raised in this matter, including boundaries and the responsibilities of a regulated health professional.

v. 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; and

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

3. That the Registrar suspend the Member’s Certificate of Registration for a period of one (1) month, with the one (1) month suspension to be remitted on condition that the Member complete the remedial training as specified in paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b). If the remitted suspension is required to be served by the Member because he fails to complete the remedial requirement specified in paragraphs 2(a) and/or 2(b), that portion of the suspension shall commence on June 26, 2021, and shall continue until July 25, 2021, inclusive. If the time for completing the remedial steps in paragraphs 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 $7,500.00.

In its reprimand, the Panel noted that the practice of pharmacy is a privilege, and with that privilege comes obligations. The Panel expressed its view that the Member did not uphold these obligations and, as a result, he compromised the integrity of the profession.

The Panel pointed out that the College’s reporting system relies heavily on the honour system, and that the Member’s violation of this premise is of significant concern to both the College and the public. The Panel observed that pharmacists are held to a higher account than the general public, and expressed its hope that the remedial education will reinforce this.

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

• Between November 2015 and February 2017, he employed in the Pharmacy a pharmacist whose certificate of registration had been revoked for cause; and/or
• On more than one occasion between November 2015 and February 2017:
  • he permitted, consented to or approved, either expressly or by implication, the operation of the Pharmacy without a pharmacist present; and/or
  • he permitted, consented to or approved, either expressly or by implication, the dispensing and/or sale of a drug by an unauthorized person; and/or he signed a hardcopy for a prescription in circumstances where he did not dispense the medication.

In particular, the Panel found that the Member

• Failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession;
• Falsified a record relating to his practice;
• Signed or issued, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew contained a false or misleading statement;
• Contravened the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act (DRPA), and in particular:
  • sections 143(a), 146(1)(a), and/or 149 of the DPRA;
• 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 disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Panel imposed an Order, 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 must successfully complete, on or before March 17, 2021, and at his own expense:

i. the ProBE Program on Professional/Problem-Based Ethics for healthcare professionals offered by the Centre for Personalized Education for Physicians, and any related evaluations, with an unconditional pass; and

ii. all six of the College’s current Jurisprudence e-Learning Modules and the Jurisprudence Exam;

or provide evidence satisfactory to the College that he has completed the course described in 2(a)(i) and/or 2(a)(ii), above, as the case may be, within the six months prior to the date of this Order;

b. for a period of three (3) years, commencing effective March 18, 2020, the Member shall be prohibited from acting as a Designated Manager at any pharmacy;

3. That the Registrar be directed to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Registration for a period of five (5) months, with one (1) month of the suspension to be remitted on the condition that the Member completes the remedial requirements specified in subparagraph 2.a, above. The suspension shall commence effective March 18, 2020, and run until July 17, 2020, 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 subparagraph 2.a, above, the remainder of the suspension shall commence on March 18, 2021, and continue until April 17, 2021, inclusive. If the time for completing the remedial steps in subparagraph 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 the Member failed in the moral obligations and professional responsibilities expected of him as of a member of the profession of Pharmacy. He breached provincial laws, the standards of practice of pharmacy, and his duties as a Designated Manager.

The Panel related that it was deeply troubled by the Member’s lack of insight with respect to his decision to knowingly allow and enable an unlicensed individual to practice pharmacy, which has inherently exposed the public to serious risks with potential for dire consequences. In the process, he falsified documents and deceived the public, jeopardizing their trust in the profession.

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