The appellant pharmacist challenged the constitutional validity of the mandatory revocation provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code after engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with a patient.
He argued the provisions intruded into federal criminal law jurisdiction by regulating morality.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the provisions are in pith and substance the regulation of health care professionals under provincial jurisdiction, aimed at protecting the public and maintaining the integrity of the professional-patient relationship.
