Administrative Law - OCP

The registrant brought a motion to adjourn her discipline hearing regarding allegations of professional misconduct for failing to comply with a previous discipline order.

She sought the adjournment to bring a motion to vary the previous order, citing impecuniosity and an inability to comply.

The College opposed the adjournment.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment, finding no risk to the public as the registrant's certificate of registration was cancelled, no prejudice to the College, and that the short delay was appropriate given her new pro bono counsel's oversight.

The Registrant brought a motion requesting that his upcoming discipline hearing be held in-person rather than by videoconference.

The College did not oppose the motion on the basis of efficiency, given the lengthy procedural history and the fact that the main witness would require an interpreter for extensive testimony.

The Discipline Committee found that while the Registrant did not meet the threshold of significant prejudice required to prohibit an electronic hearing, fairness and efficiency considerations warranted exercising its discretion to order an in-person hearing.

The Ontario College of Pharmacists brought a motion for vulnerable witness accommodations for the complainant in a discipline hearing involving allegations of sexual misconduct against a pharmacist.

The College requested that the complainant be permitted to testify behind a physical screen so she would not have to see the registrant, while allowing the registrant to view her testimony via video transmission.

The registrant did not oppose the motion.

The Discipline Committee found that the complainant met the definition of a vulnerable witness under its Rules of Procedure and that the requested accommodations were necessary to obtain a full and candid account of the matter without prejudicing the registrant.

The motion was granted.

The Registrant pharmacist faced allegations of professional misconduct for dispensing medications to himself, administering a COVID-19 vaccine to a family member without keeping proper records, misappropriating prescription medications from his employers, and breaching patient confidentiality by taking prescriptions containing personal health information to his home.

The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order.

The Discipline Committee found the Registrant committed professional misconduct and that his actions were disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, ordering an eight-month suspension (with one month remitted upon completion of remedial training), a reprimand, terms and conditions on his certificate of registration, and $10,000 in costs.

During a discipline hearing against a pharmacist, the panel lost its last remaining public member, resulting in a loss of quorum under s. 38(5) of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The College argued the panel could continue, while the registrant argued quorum was lost but acknowledged the panel's discretion under s. 4.4(2) of the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act (SPPA).

The majority of the panel held that while quorum was lost, s. 4.4(2) of the SPPA permitted the remaining members to complete the hearing and render a decision.

The majority found that continuing was the most just, expeditious, and cost-effective approach.

One panel member dissented, concluding that the panel lost jurisdiction to continue once quorum was lost.