He was convicted of multiple charges including luring a person under 14 for a sexual offence
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a pharmacist’s appeal against a four-month suspension and additional practice restrictions imposed by the Ontario College of Pharmacists for breaching a prior condition, finding the disciplinary measures reasonable and appropriately considered.
The pharmacist has been a member of the Ontario College of Pharmacists since 1999. In 2012, he pled guilty to multiple charges, including luring a person under 14 for a sexual offence, sexual interference, criminal harassment, and breaching bail conditions. These charges involved two young victims, one 13 years old and the other 16 years old. Following his guilty plea, he was sentenced to two years less than a day of imprisonment and two years of probation.
After his criminal conviction, the pharmacist admitted to the College’s Discipline Committee that his conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional. In 2014, the committee imposed several conditions on his Certificate of Registration, including a prohibition on dispensing, consulting with, advising, or performing controlled acts on anyone under 18 without another pharmacist or pharmacy technician present.
In 2015, the College investigated whether the pharmacist complied with these conditions. The Discipline Committee found that he breached the terms four times and imposed a 12-month suspension, additional conditions on his certificate, and a $200,000 cost order. The pharmacist appealed this decision, and the divisional court found that the committee's interpretation of the condition was overly broad, leading to a redetermination of the penalty.
In August 2023, after a new hearing, the discipline committee reaffirmed the pharmacist's misconduct and issued a four-month suspension. They also restricted his practice to serving retirement homes, long-term care homes, and adult group homes without providing services to minors. They required a supervisor approved by the College to always be present.
The pharmacist argued that the discipline committee did not consider his compliance with the conditions since 2014 and the letters of support he filed. He also challenged the reasonableness of the imposed condition restricting his practice locations. However, the Ontario Superior Court found that the committee had appropriately considered all relevant factors and that the imposed conditions were reasonable to protect the public and maintain confidence in the College's regulatory abilities.
The court upheld the four-month suspension and additional conditions on the pharmacist's practice, ruling that they were proportionate to the seriousness of his misconduct. The pharmacist’s appeal was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay the College of Pharmacists $20,000 in costs.
