Not Vague and Unenforceable

In Francis v Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy Board, 2018 NLSC 248, http://canlii.ca/t/hwgdr a group of pharmacists tried a second time to challenge the validity of provisions in the regulator’s standards of practice and by-laws. Their challenge was that the provisions dealing with the following were too vague and were unenforceable:

  • A requirement for pharmacies to be connected to a provincial database;
  • A requirement to have equipment to scan documents;
  • A requirement for pharmacists to have a patient consultation area;
  • The authority for the regulator to issue a conditional licence as one of its registration options;
  • Adding the charging of excessive fees to the definition of professional misconduct; and
  • Adding practising in a conflict of interest to the definition of professional misconduct.

In a previous application for an interim injunction to prevent the provisions from taking effect, a court had upheld each of these provisions either on their merits or because the issue was moot for the practitioners bringing the proceeding: Francis v Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy Board, 2016 CanLII 97222 (NL SC), <http://canlii.ca/t/gx7bn>. In the present case the Court held that the practitioners could not re-litigate the issues in a different proceeding.

More Posts

Challenging a Referral to Discipline

Courts strongly discourage registrants from judicially challenging the validity of a referral of allegations of professional misconduct to discipline. The latest court decision on the

Costs Must be Proportionate

Courts are reflecting on how costs should be assessed in discipline hearings where findings have been made against registrants. Alberta’s highest court has shifted from

The Right to Rebut?

Many regulators frequently provide a copy of the registrant’s response to a complaint to the complainant for comment. Doing so can assist in providing the