Case information

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Standard of Review – Legislation – Interpretation – Evidence – Whether the respondent has the legislative authority to prohibit its members from offering loyalty rewards programs to customers – What degree of judicial scrutiny is required in the context of reviewing the law-making power of self-regulating professions, where there is evidence of harm to the public interest or a conflict between the interests of the profession and the public interest – How closely should a reviewing court consider whether the regulation in question is consistent with the statutory mandate of the professional body – What evidence should a court be permitted to consider in seeking to determine whether a delegated legislative body exercised its powers reasonably, in a manner that is consistent with its statutory purposes and mandate – Health Professions Act, R.S.A. 2000 c. H-7, (the “Act”).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicants own and operate Safeway and Sobeys grocery businesses in Alberta, many stores of which contain pharmacies. The stores offer an Air Miles rewards program whereby member customers earn benefits through their grocery and pharmacy purchases. The respondent is a professional governing body regulating pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and the professional practice pursuant to the Act. It adopted amendments to the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice prohibiting inducements conditional on a patient obtaining a drug or professional service from a pharmacist, pharmacy technician or licensed pharmacy. It also prohibited pharmacies and pharmacists in Alberta from offering loyalty reward programs points for the purchase of most pharmaceutical drugs and services. The applicants brought an application for judicial review of the decision to prohibit inducements. Applying a standard of correctness, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta held that the prohibitions on inducements were ultra vires the statutory authority of the respondent. The Court of Appeal of Alberta allowed the appeals.