Citation and Court Information

CITATION: Bijanzadeh v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, 2022 ONSC 3578

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 594/21

DATE: 20220729

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: MOJGAN BIJANZADEH, Appellant AND: ONTARIO COLLEGE OF PHARMACISTS, Respondent

BEFORE: M.L. Edwards R.S.J., D.L. Corbett and O’Brien JJ.

COUNSEL: Hossein Niroomand, for the Appellant Matthew Gourlay, for the Respondent

HEARD: June 14, 2022, at Toronto, by videoconference

Reasons for Decision

D.L. Corbett J. (Orally):

[1] The appellant appeals the penalty decision of the College of Pharmacists imposing a 14-month suspension of her license and other remedial terms.

[2] This case comes to us as an appeal as of right pursuant to s.70 Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991. The appellate standard of review applies: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. In the context of an appeal from a penalty decision, considerable discretion is afforded to the College in fashioning an appropriate penalty, and this court will not interfere in the absence of an error in principle or unless the penalty imposed is “clearly unfit”.

[3] The appellant was duped into filling thousands of fraudulent prescriptions for dangerous narcotics, including large quantities of fentanyl, oxycodone and oxycocet that “flooded the market”. While the appellant was duped, this was the result of her failure to take basic professional steps to discharge her obligations as a licensed pharmacist.

[4] The College carefully and thoroughly reviewed the colossal scale on which the appellant failed to meet the standards of her profession and the very serious consequences that resulted. The College accepted that the appellant was remorseful about having been duped, but that she lacked insight in respect to the professional shortcomings that enabled the scheme to be pursued through her pharmacy for so long to such devastating effect.

[5] I see no merit to the argument that the College failed to take account of the appellant’s personal circumstances. The nature of her business was apparent to the College in the context of the liability decision: the appellant owned and operated a pharmacy. She will not be able to continue with that business given her 14-month suspension and subsequent five years of conditions on her license. It is obvious that the overall penalty will have a profound effect on her career, and she will be unable to continue with her current business. On the other hand, the penalty will permit the appellant eventually to return to work in her chosen field, and to resurrect her career, if she applies herself diligently.

[6] The penalty imposed was well within the range of reasonable, in all the circumstances of this case; it is not “clearly unfit” and I see no error in principle. The appeal is dismissed, with costs to the respondent from the appellant in the agreed amount of $10,000, inclusive, payable within thirty days.

D.L. Corbett J.

I agree: Edwards R.S.J.

I agree: O’Brien J.

Released Orally: June 14, 2022

Written Reasons Released: July 29, 2022