El Raheb v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, 2023 ONSC 7065

Court File and Parties

CITATION: El Raheb v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, 2023 ONSC 7065

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 22-708-JR DATE: 20231213

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT

Sachs, D.L. Corbett and O’Brien JJ.

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL EL RAHEB

Applicant

– and –

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF PHARMACISTS

Respondent

Michael W. Lacy and Bryan Badali, for the Applicant

Jordan Stone, for the Respondent

HEARD at Toronto: December 13, 2023

Oral Reasons for Judgment

SACHS J. (ORALLY)

Overview

1The Applicant seeks to judicially review the oral caution imposed by the College of Pharmacists Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (the “ICRC”).

Analysis

2It is accepted that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness. It is also accepted that the assessment of the sufficiency of the ICRC’s reasons is informed by what is at stake for the Applicant (Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685 (Div. Ct.) at paras. 73-74).

3The Applicant argues that imposing a caution in this case was unreasonable because a caution is designed to be remedial not punitive and, given his prior disciplinary proceedings, no further remediation is necessary.

4We disagree. The purpose of a caution is to protect the public by taking steps to ensure that the conduct that gave rise to the caution does not occur again. The conduct in this case is similar to the conduct for which the Applicant has already been disciplined. Given the penalty imposed in that case, the Applicant submits that a further caution will accomplish nothing remedial. However, as the ICRC found, the conduct at issue in these proceedings is different from the conduct in the prior proceedings in several significant ways. First, the amounts involved are considerably greater – approximately $560,000 as opposed to approximately $150,000. Second, in the first proceeding the Applicant was disciplined for overbilling at one pharmacy. This proceeding involves overbilling at five pharmacies. Third, the conduct in the two proceedings occurred over different time periods. The more pervasive nature of the conduct at issue in this proceeding posed a greater risk to the public than the conduct at issue in the first proceeding.

5In the face of this reality the ICRC decided that, while the penalty imposed in the first proceeding was sufficient punishment, the public interest demanded that the Applicant be cautioned about the seriousness of the conduct at issue in this proceeding.

6The Applicant submits that it was unreasonable for the ICRC to conclude that there was any further need for the College to drive home to him the seriousness of his behaviour since he had voluntarily disclosed that behaviour to the College. That disclosure demonstrates that he has the necessary insight.

7Again, we disagree. The alleged disclosure took place in the context of a response by the Applicant that contained seriously misleading information. In addition, part of that disclosure consisted of a Debt Settlement Agreement, which also contained false information about how the overbilling occurred. This disclosure raises, rather than alleviates, concerns about the Applicant’s insight into his behaviour.

Disposition

8For these reasons we find that the ICRC’s decision was reasonable. The application is dismissed, with costs to the Respondent, in the agreed upon amount of $10,000.

___________________________ Sachs J.

I agree

___________________________ D.L. Corbett J.

I agree

O’Brien J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 13, 2023

Date of Release: December 19, 2023

CITATION: El Raheb v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, 2023 ONSC 7065

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 22-708-JR DATE: 20231213