Summary

Keywords

Law of professions — Discipline — Applicant found to have engaged in professional misconduct by knowingly dispensing a drug for resale to pharmacists in breach of s. 33(2)(d) of Regulation 1093 under the Veterinarians Act — Whether s. 33(2)(d) of the Regulation is impermissibly vague in its application contrary to the rule of law and constitutional principles, therefore, rendering it impossible for a member to know the conduct that would give rise to its breach — Was s. 33(2)(d) interpreted incorrectly and in a manner that rendered it inoperable in circumstances involving the resale of product to pharmacists? — Veterinarians Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. V. 3, s. 33(2)(d).

Summary

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.

Dr. Covant is a veterinarian licensed to practice in Ontario, who owns and operates Bayview Seven Animal Hospital in Richmond Hill. The dispensing of drugs is an integral part of veterinary practice and is regulated by Part III-Drugs, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 1093. Veterinaries typically obtain drugs from drug manufacturers and wholesalers and dispense them directly to their patients, through their owners. The general rule is that veterinarians may only administer and dispense drugs to their own patients: s. 33(1)(a) of the Regulation. That section was amended in 2015 to allow for an exception, allowing veterinarians to dispense “reasonably limited quantities” to pharmacists or other members to address “temporary shortages”. Dr. Covant was engaged in the purchase and re-sale of veterinary drugs to pharmacists. His re-selling activities were the subject of a hearing before the respondent’s Disciplinary Committee. He was found to have breached the prohibition against the re-sale of veterinary drugs. This amounted to professional misconduct and penalties and a costs order were imposed against him. His subsequent appeals were dismissed.

Lower Court Rulings