Ontario College of Pharmacists v. Kaldus, 2026 ONCPDC 2

Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists

Date: 2026-01-14

IN THE MATTER of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.18, as amended, and the regulations thereunder, as amended;

AND IN THE MATTER of the Pharmacy Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.36, as amended, and the regulations thereunder, as amended;

AND IN THE MATTER of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.4, as amended, and the regulations thereunder, as amended;

AND IN THE MATTER of allegations of proprietary/professional misconduct/incompetence before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists as referred by the Accreditation/Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee against John Kaldus;

Between:

Ontario College of Pharmacists

Jordan Glick and Karen Heath For Ontario College of Pharmacists

Katharine Neufeld Attending for Ontario College of Pharmacists

• and -

John Kaldus (Registration #616302)

Bryan Badali For the Registrant

John Kaldus In Attendance

Stephen Ronan Independent Legal Counsel

Panel Members:

David Windross, R. Ph., Chair

Sara Ingram, R.Ph., Elected Director

Zahra Sadikali, R.Ph.

Written Decision Date: January 14, 2026

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

The following is the decision and reasons of the majority of the Panel delivered by David Windross, R.Ph., Chair.

I. Introduction

1A hearing into allegations of professional misconduct against the Registrant was held on May 8, June 18, and July 22, 2024, electronically by way of videoconference pursuant to the Hearings in Tribunal Proceedings (Temporary Measures Act), 2020 and the Discipline Committee Rules of Procedure.

2The Panel appointed by the Chair of the Discipline Committee met the composition requirements in ss. 38(2) and 38(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.18 (the “Code”) in that it consisted of two Public Directors, and one Elected Director. At the time the hearing commenced, the Panel met the quorum requirements under s. 38(5) of the Code as it included one Public Director (Mr. Randy Baker), the second Public Director being no longer available.

3Mr. Baker attended all three of the hearing days and participated in the Panel’s deliberation on the allegations; however, he was unable to continue through the conclusion of the process to the release of the Panel’s written decision and reasons on liability, or to the penalty phase of the hearing.

4The Panel received written advice from its Independent Legal Counsel regarding quorum and provided both parties with an opportunity to comment on that advice in writing.

II. Submissions by the Parties

5The College took the position that the Panel has not lost quorum as s. 38 of the Code sets out the initial composition and quorum requirements to start a proceeding, but is silent on the issue of quorum once the hearing is underway. The College argued that the issue of quorum is solely to do with the composition of the panel at the outset of the hearing – if a panel member cannot continue due to illness or other factors, this does not constitute a loss of quorum. Further, had the legislature intended that the loss of a public member ought to be treated differently than the loss of a professional member, it could have legislated this.

6The College submitted that while the decision to proceed is discretionary, there is no justifiable reason for the parties to start from the beginning and incur the costs and time associated with a further hearing, noting that it knows of no case where a panel has exercised its discretion to cease adjudicating a hearing once it has begun because of a loss of a single member.

7The Registrant took the position that the Panel has lost quorum, as quorum is not a requirement for the commencement of the hearing, but persists throughout the hearing. It was submitted; however, that s. 4.4(2) of the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (the “SPPA”) permits a tribunal to proceed in circumstances where quorum has been lost. The Registrant went on to note that s.4.4(2) of the SPPA is permissive, not mandatory.

8The Registrant submitted that the Panel is not required to continue on if the remaining members determine that the loss of quorum will compromise their ability to render a fair and just decision in the proceeding, concluding that the Registrant relies on the good judgement of the remaining Panel members to make a fair and impartial assessment of whether to proceed with issuing a decision.

III. Decision and Reasons

9After considering the matter, the majority of the Panel members determined that the Panel no longer meets the requirements for quorum under s. 38(5) of the Code as the Panel no longer includes a Public Director; however, it was determined that the Panel can continue to the conclusion of this matter pursuant to s. 4.4(2) of the SPPA.

10The Panel notes that the Code is silent regarding what occurs when a panel loses quorum during the proceeding. Section 4.4(2) of the SPPA applies in the circumstances and states, “In the case of a panel of more than one person, if a member of the panel dies or is unable for any other reason to complete a hearing or to participate in a decision, the remaining member or members may complete the hearing or make a decision.” The wording of the section is quite broad in that a panel may continue where a panel member is unable to continue for “any other reason”. The section is permissive but is not mandatory. It is a discretionary decision by the panel as to whether it will continue.

11In requiring a public member as part of the quorum requirements in the Code, the legislature has determined that members of the public play an important role in ensuring that the public interest is considered.

12The majority of the Panel members agree that if the inclusion of a public member is necessary to complete the hearing, the legislation would have stated this. It does not.

13It is important that the spirit of the SPPA be applied in this case, in particular section 2 of the SPPA which states that the SPPA is to be “liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and cost-effective determination of every proceeding on its merits”.

14The majority of the Panel agreed that moving forward with the remainder of the proceeding would be the most just, expeditious and cost-effective manner to in which to proceed.

15All Panel members agree that the written decision on findings did involve participation by the appointed Public Director, Mr. Baker, and hence are very comfortable that the “public” was involved in the deliberations leading up to the final decision on liability.

16The Panel is not aware of any precedent before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists wherein the matter proceeded to the penalty phase of the hearing without any Public Directors on the panel.

17It is noted that the remaining members of the Panel are pharmacists and as such are registrants of the Ontario College of Pharmacists. While the remaining members of the Panel are not Public Directors, the majority of the Panel members agree that they have no difficulty representing the views of the public (since they too are members of the public), and maintain that the protection of the public is paramount.

18As noted earlier, the Public Director appointed to this panel was involved in all the hearing dates held in this matter and provided input throughout the process, including the final written decision on findings. The remaining penalty phase of the hearing will include submissions from the parties as to the appropriate penalty to order and the remaining panel members will have the opportunity to agree or disagree with the submissions presented by each party, keeping in mind the protection of the public in all aspects of the proposed penalty.

19The Panel notes that section 4.2(3) of the SPPA states that, “The decision of a majority of the members of a panel, or their unanimous decision in the case of a two-member panel, is the tribunal’s decision”.

I, David Windross R.Ph., sign this decision and reasons for the decision as Chairperson of this Discipline Panel and on behalf of the majority of the panel members of the Discipline Panel as listed below:

“David Windross”

Chairperson

Panel Members

Zahra Sadikali, R.Ph.

The following are the dissenting decision and reasons delivered by Sara Ingram R.Ph.

20The following are the written reasons for my dissent, in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and transparency set out in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817.

21This dissent is provided as a matter of procedural obligation. I must respectfully record my disagreement with the majority’s determination that the Panel could continue deliberations and render a decision after quorum was lost.

22The panel was originally constituted with five members, including two Public Directors, which satisfied the composition requirements set out in the Code. After one Public Director could no longer participate on the Panel, the Panel determined that it would proceed as it maintained quorum.

23A second Public Director later recused himself, and quorum was lost as there were no remaining Public Directors sitting on the Panel. In my respectful view, once quorum was lost, the Panel no longer had jurisdiction to continue its deliberations or to render a valid decision.

24I acknowledge that the other members of the Panel acted in good faith and believed that continuation was permissible under an interpretive reading of the regulations. Proceeding in the absence of quorum raises concerns about the procedural validity of the process and the perception of fairness owed to all parties. There was extensive consideration of this issue by the Panel.

25My position remains that the Panel lost quorum and that quorum is required to continue. My dissent is limited to this procedural issue alone.