Court File and Parties

CITATION: Awad v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, 2023 ONSC 6637

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 050/23

DATE: 20231124

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: AMANI AWAD, Appellant

AND:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF PHARMACISTS, Respondent

BEFORE: Backhouse, Matheson & Doyle JJ.

COUNSEL: Andrew Rogerson, for the Appellant

Jordan Glick and Jordan Stone, for the Respondent

HEARD at Toronto: November 23, 2023

Endorsement

[1] The Court rendered the following decision in Court on November 23, 2023.

[2] This is a statutory appeal from the decisions of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists (“Panel”) dated January 28 and December 14, 2022, and related rulings. These decisions arise from a complaint that the appellant had billed for medications or products that had not been prescribed for or received by the complainant. The findings of the Discipline Committee, after an 18-day hearing, included the failure to keep records, falsifying records, signing or issuing records that the appellant knew or ought to have known contained false or misleading statements and submitting accounts or charges that the appellant knew or ought to have known were false and misleading.

[3] The Panel found professional misconduct by the appellant and rendered a penalty decision, both of which are under appeal. The standard of review is as set out in Housen v Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33. The findings were made after a lengthy discipline hearing, with considerable testimony, including by the appellant. The Panel made many factual findings and credibility findings based on the record, as set out in lengthy and detailed reasons for decision.

[4] The appellant has failed to show any legal error or palpable and overriding errors of fact. Some of the grounds of appeal challenge findings that allegations of bias and abuse of process were not made out. No basis to overturn those findings has been established on this appeal. Nor has the appellant established a basis to interfere with the penalty imposed by the Panel. Again, those reasons for decision show that the Panel considered the proper legal principles, the factual record and all relevant factors in reaching the penalty decision.

[5] With respect to the costs order of the Panel, no error has been shown. The Panel considered the relevant factors, including the conduct of the appellant and its impact on the length of the hearing, resulting in costs of $190,000.

[6] The appeal is therefore dismissed, with costs to the respondent in the agreed upon amount of $30,000, all inclusive.

Backhouse J.

Matheson J.

Doyle J.

Date: November 24, 2023