Case information

Law of professions — Health care professionals — Pharmacist — Discipline — Complaints and investigations — Regulatory body — Jurisdiction — Administrative law — Judicial review — Procedural fairness — Regulatory body not strictly adhering to procedural requirements for complaints and investigations in professional discipline statute — Allegations of professional misconduct referred to discipline committee — Whether strict compliance remains valid method for interpreting professional discipline statutes in Canada — When must strict compliance yield to regulator’s duty to protect the public? — Whether member must show actual prejudice resulting from regulator’s statutory non-compliance or whether that prejudice should be presumed on basis of statutory non-compliance – Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18, Sch. 2, Health Professions Procedural Code, ss. 25, 75.

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 Ontario College of Pharmacists (“College”) received a written and oral complaint against one of its members, the applicant Mr. Abdul. Instead of proceeding with the written complaint process under the Health Professions Procedural Code (“Code”), the College gave the complainant the option to withdraw the written complaint so that it could proceed through a Registrar-initiated process. The complainant elected to withdraw. The Registrar-initiated process led to an investigation and allegations of professional misconduct were eventually referred to the Discipline Committee of the College. At the hearing, Mr. Abdul brought a motion to quash the allegations on the ground that the College lost jurisdiction when it failed to abide by the complaints process mandated in its governing legislation, the Code. The Discipline Committee dismissed the motion to quash. The Ontario Divisional Court allowed Mr. Abdul’s application for judicial review and quashed the Discipline Committee’s decision. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the College’s appeal, set aside the Divisional Court’s order and reinstated the Discipline Committee’s order.