|
POA - Application to Regulations. Rusli v Ontario College of Pharmacists
In Rusli v Ontario College of Pharmacists (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an appeal, this brought against "a Decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists .... and the Penalty Decision" where the appellant was found guilty of "three allegations of professional misconduct which had been brought against her in her role of pharmacist".
Here the court endorses the application of horizontal stare decisis to the conclusion that breach of a regulation can also satisfy a provision that requires 'an offence against any Act':[18] Second, the appellant argues that with respect to the second Allegation, the Committee erred in incorrectly applying horizontal stare decisis to conclude that a breach of the regulations under the Veterinarians Act amounted to the commission of an offence against an Act relating to the practice of pharmacy or the sale of drugs (under s.2(1) 31 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation). The appellant further submits that it was inappropriate for the Committee to find that Dr.C had committed an offence under the Veterinarians Act because that Act is outside of the Committee’s jurisdiction and because Dr. Conant was not a party to the proceeding.
[19] The Committee concluded at para. 207:[207] Conclusion: It was the view of this Panel that the Act and the regulations are inexorably linked as bricks and mortar. The Panel’s view was that the Act enables and defines the parameters of the regulations created under the Act. The regulations and Act should be viewed as one with respect to applying s. 2(1)31 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation, which specifies any Act, provided that the Act relates to pharmacy practice or the sale of drugs ... [20] In reaching this finding, it was appropriate for the Committee to consider prior decisions of the Discipline Committee which have found “an offence against any Act” to include breaches of regulations. Further, the appellant provided no authority that suggested otherwise. The Committee explicitly recognized the distinction between the non-binding effect of the decisions of the Discipline Committee due to horizontal stare decisis and binding decisions. The appellant provided no caselaw to support her submission that it was an error of law to interpret a breach of a Regulation under the Veterinarians Act as an “offence” under that Act. In the Regulation, the act at issue is described as an “offence”. The Committee did not err when it refused to interpret the word “offence” as being limited to convictions arising from acts that have been prohibited under a statute, rather than a regulation.
|
