Ontario College of Pharmacists v. Aslam, 2026 ONCPDC 9

Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists

Date: 2026-03-13

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 professional misconduct before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists as referred by the Accreditation/Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee against Sohail Aslam;

Between:

Ontario College of Pharmacists

Olivia Eng For Ontario College of Pharmacists

Katharine Neufeld Attending for Ontario College of Pharmacists

• and -

Sohail Aslam (Registration #215257)

Craig Colraine For the Registrant

Sohail Aslam, R.Ph. Not in Attendance

Cynthia Kuehl Independent Legal Counsel

Heard: November 4, 2025

Decision Released: November 4, 2025

Written Decision Date: March 13, 2026

Panel Members:

Megan Peck, R. Ph., Chair Douglas Brown, R.Ph., Elected Director Devinder Walia, Public Member

ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER

THIS MOTION, made by the Ontario College of Pharmacists for vulnerable witness accommodations, was heard on November 4, 2025, by videoconference.

ON READING the Motion Record and the Factum of the Ontario College of Pharmacists and upon hearing the submissions of the parties:

I. Background to the Motion

1This motion brought by the Ontario College of Pharmacists (the “College”) for vulnerable witness accommodations as requested by the parties was heard immediately following a motion brought by Sohail Aslam (the “Registrant”) as to the mode of the hearing. (Ontario (College of Pharmacists) v. Aslam, 2026 ONCPDC 8) Both motions were heard on November 4, 2025. The mode of hearing motion was heard and determined first. On this motion, vulnerable witness accommodations for both a virtual hearing and an in-person hearing were presented as options to be considered if the Complainant were found to be a vulnerable witness.

2The Registrant’s discipline proceeding has a lengthy history, including several motions and an appeal to the Divisional Court.

3In August 2018, the Discipline Committee heard a motion brought by the College seeking accommodations for the Complainant. The Panel found the Complainant to be a vulnerable witness and granted the accommodations.

4A contested discipline hearing on the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing was held in-person in 2019. During the Complainant’s testimony in the hearing, a physical screen was set up in the hearing room to separate the Complainant from the Registrant, and the Registrant viewed the Complainant’s testimony via video transmission. The Panel of the Discipline Committee found that some of the allegations of professional misconduct in the Notice of Hearing were established, while others were not. (Ontario (College of Pharmacists) v. Aslam, 2020 ONCPDC 31) The Panel subsequently issued their written Decision and Reasons on Order on August 25, 2022. (Ontario (College of Pharmacists) v. Aslam, 2022 ONCPDC 22) The Registrant appealed the Discipline Committee’s decisions to the Divisional Court, which both allowed the appeal in part and dismissed the appeal in part.

5The Divisional Court upheld the Discipline Committee’s findings of professional misconduct in paragraphs 2 and 4(b) of the Notice of Hearing; set aside the Discipline Committee’s findings and dismissed the allegations of professional misconduct in paragraphs 3(a)(v) and 4(a)(v); and set aside and remitted back to the Discipline Committee for a new hearing the allegations of professional misconduct in paragraphs 3(a)(i) and 4(a)(i) (the “Office Incident”).

6The dates for the new discipline hearing had not been confirmed at the time of this motion.

7The College’s position on this motion was that vulnerable witness accommodations are required at the new hearing in order for the Complainant to focus better on her evidence if she is called to testify.

8The Registrant did not oppose the relief sought in this motion and did not file any motion materials in response.

II. Order

9The Panel of the Discipline Committee made an Order on November 4, 2025, as follows:

1. During the hearing before the Discipline Committee regarding the allegations of professional misconduct made by the Ontario College of Pharmacists against the Registrant, as set out in the Notice of Hearing, dated September 12, 2017, the Complainant, if called to testify, will do so under the following conditions:

a. The Complainant will testify in the hearing room in the presence of all hearing participants, including the Registrant;

b. A physical screen will separate the Registrant and the Complainant, but will be placed so that the other hearing participants, including the Registrant’s counsel, can see and interact with the Complainant; and

c. The Registrant will be able to watch the Complainant’s testimony on a monitor by means of a video transmission.

III. Submissions of the Parties

A. The College

10The College in oral and written submissions asserts that the source of the Discipline Committee’s power to accommodate a vulnerable witness in a hearing is found in Rule 10.04 of the Discipline Committee’s Rules of Procedure (the “DC Rules”). Specifically, Rule 10.04(2) permits the placement of a screen so that a vulnerable witness does not have to see the registrant while testifying. Furthermore, the College submits the term vulnerable witness is a defined term in the DC Rules. A vulnerable witness is defined in Rule 1.01 as a witness who, in the opinion of the Discipline Committee, will have difficulty testifying in the presence of a party, for appropriate reasons.

11The College argues that the Complainant satisfies the definition of a vulnerable witness within the meaning as defined in the DC Rules.

12The College directs the Panel to the Complainant’s affidavit (Tab 4 of the College’s Motion Record), filed in support of this motion, which outlines her complaint to the College regarding the sexual assault allegations as well as her experiences testifying at the Registrant’s criminal trial (the Registrant was acquitted) and at the discipline hearing.

13The College points out that, in the allegations of sexual assault as set out in the Notice of Hearing, it is alleged that the Registrant repeatedly attempted to reach into the Complainant’s shirt and pants and took her hand and placed it on his groin area while they were in his office (the “Office Incident”).

14The College submits that the allegations are serious and are inherently linked to the physical and psychological integrity of the Complainant. Further, the College asserts that the Discipline Committee has granted requests for vulnerable witness accommodations in previous cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct (see Ontario College of Pharmacists v. Ying, 2017 ONCPDC 5 [Ying] and Ontario College of Pharmacists v. Abd El Maseh, 2016 ONCPDC 17 [Abd El Maseh]).

15In this case the College asserts that the Complainant was uncomfortable testifying at the Registrant’s criminal trial because she could see the Registrant, and as a result she had difficulty focusing on her testimony. The Complainant believes that she will have difficulty testifying at the new hearing if she can see the Registrant given her experience at the criminal trial.

16The College submits that in the new hearing the Registrant can watch the Complainant’s testimony on a monitor through a video transmission. Further, the same accommodations were granted to the Complainant during the first hearing, and the accommodations helped the Complainant focus on her evidence as compared to her experience at the criminal trial where she was distraught and distracted during her testimony because she could see the Registrant.

17The College asserts that allowing the Complainant to testify with a screen separating her from the Registrant will have no impact on the fairness of the new hearing just as it had no impact on the first hearing. The screen will not separate the Complainant from the Panel or from the Registrant’s counsel, so it will not interfere with the Panel’s or the Registrant’s counsel’s ability to view and interact with the Complainant during her testimony and cross-examination. The Registrant will be able to view the Complainant during her testimony via video transmission.

B. The Registrant

18The Registrant does not oppose the College’s motion for vulnerable witness accommodations for the Complainant and suggests that the vulnerable witness accommodations should apply as they did in the first hearing. The Registrant’s counsel confirmed with the College’s counsel that the Complainant and the Registrant will be in the hearing room, but the Registrant will not be visible to the Complainant due to the placement of a screen.

IV. Reasons for the Order

19In this motion, the College is seeking accommodations for the Complainant as a vulnerable witness in a new hearing where sexual misconduct by the Registrant is alleged.

20The Panel has the jurisdiction to make the order sought and has before it evidence on which to consider this request. Section 10.04 of the DC Rules is titled Vulnerable Witnesses and provides for the accommodation of vulnerable witnesses in proceedings before the Discipline Committee. Accommodations include but are not limited to the use of a support person or testifying behind a screen.

21As the moving party requesting vulnerable witness accommodations, the College has the onus of establishing on the evidence, first that the Complainant is a vulnerable witness as defined in Rule 1.1, specifically as a witness who, in the opinion of the Discipline Committee, will have difficulty testifying, or will have difficulty testifying in the presence of a party, for appropriate reasons. Second, if the Complainant is found to be a vulnerable witness, the College must show that ordering accommodations such as a physical screen or other device to allow the Complainant to testify without seeing the Registrant is necessary in order to obtain a full and candid account of the matter.

22The College’s position is that the Complainant is a vulnerable witness for whom the Panel should exercise its discretion and grant the requested order for vulnerable witness accommodations. Further, the College submits that the accommodations sought are necessary to obtain a full and candid account from the Complainant.

23The evidence provided by the College to prove that the Complainant is a vulnerable witness includes: (a) the Registrant is alleged to have touched the Complainant sexually while in his office; (b) the allegations are serious and inherently linked to the physical and psychological integrity of the Complainant; (c) the Discipline Committee has granted requests for vulnerable witness accommodations in similar cases in the past (see Ying and Abd El Maseh); and (d) the Complainant states in several paragraphs in her affidavit sworn on February 26, 2025 that based on her experiences testifying at the Registrant’s criminal trial and at the first discipline hearing, it is her honestly held belief that she will have difficulty testifying at the new hearing if she is able to see the Registrant during her testimony.

24The evidence provided by the College to prove that the accommodations sought are necessary includes the Complainant’s evidence in her affidavit that (a) while testifying during the criminal trial she could see the Registrant looking at her and it made it difficult for her to focus on what she was saying (para 5); and (b) in the first hearing the same accommodations were granted to the Complainant and these accommodations helped her to focus on her testimony (para. 11).

25The College submitted that there is no evidence that allowing the Complainant to testify with a screen separating her from the Registrant had any adverse impact on the fairness of the first hearing or caused any prejudice to the Registrant. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that a screen separating the Complainant and the Registrant at the new hearing will create any prejudice or unfairness to the Registrant.

26In this motion, both parties agree that the accommodations requested may be ordered.

27The Panel thoroughly considered all of the College’s evidence as to the Complainant qualifying as a vulnerable witness as well as to the accommodations sought being necessary to evaluate the request made in this motion.

28The Panel is satisfied that College has met the threshold for establishing that the Complainant is a vulnerable witness who requires accommodation at the new hearing. To put it more fully, the Panel finds that the Complainant is a vulnerable witness for the purposes of Rules 1.01 and 10.04 of the DC Rules and that ordering the requested vulnerable witness accommodations is necessary to obtain a full and candid account of the matter from the Complainant. The Panel also accepted the College’s submissions that the accommodations requested will not create any unfairness or prejudice to the Registrant

29The Panel wishes to make it clear that in finding that the Complainant is a vulnerable witness and in ordering the accommodations requested by the College, the Panel should not in any way be construed as making findings about the substance of the allegations nor the veracity of the Complainant’s evidence for the new hearing. Finding that the Complainant is a vulnerable witness does not mean that her evidence is to be preferred or that the allegations are likely to be established. Rather, finding that the Complainant is a vulnerable witness for the purposes of Rules 1.01and 10.04 of the DC Rules and ordering the accommodations requested by the College provides the circumstances under which the Complainant’s evidence can be given and challenged at the new hearing so that the new hearing panel can make its decision without concern that it did not have the best evidence before it.

30The Panel hereby grants the College’s motion.

I, Megan Peck, R.Ph., sign these reasons for the order as Chairperson of this Discipline Panel and on behalf of the members of the Discipline Panel as listed below.

“Megan Peck” March 13, 2026

Chairperson Date

Panel Members

Douglas Brown, R.Ph., Elected Director

Devinder Walia, Public Director