Shanelle Dover

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.

This decision addresses a Rule 2.1.01 motion concerning multiple proceedings commenced by the plaintiff, Aynoush Biniaz-Sarabi, arising from a motor vehicle accident and subsequent denial of accident benefits.

The court reviews the history of related litigation, including prior decisions by the Licence Appeal Tribunal and Divisional Court, and considers whether the current and related actions are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Several actions are dismissed under Rule 2.1.01, and the court declines to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant without a formal motion.

The defendant pleaded guilty to driving with a suspended license and operating a motor vehicle without insurance.

The Crown sought statutory minimum fines of $2,000 and $5,000 respectively.

The court imposed reduced fines of $1,200 and $750, exercising discretion under s.59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act to depart from minimum penalties where exceptional circumstances exist.

The court considered Gladue principles applicable to Aboriginal offenders, the defendant's systemic disadvantages, poverty, and lack of access to court processes, while maintaining that public safety and deterrence remain essential sentencing objectives.

The defendant was charged with three counts of driving while her license was suspended and operating a motor vehicle without insurance.

The Crown's evidence established that a police officer observed the defendant operating a motor vehicle on August 20, 2013.

The defendant and a civilian witness testified that the defendant was a passenger and that another individual was driving.

The court found the defendant's evidence and that of the civilian witness not credible due to significant inconsistencies and implausibilities.

The court accepted the officer's evidence and found the defendant guilty of the three driving while suspended charges.

The insurance charge was dismissed by Crown concession.