Not Vague and Unenforceable

In Francis v Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy Board, 2018 NLSC 248, 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), <>. In the present case the Court held that the practitioners could not re-litigate the issues in a different proceeding.

More Posts

One Appeal or Two?

Many discipline panels conduct their hearings in two parts. The first deals with the merits of the allegations (also known as the “finding” stage). If

Integrity Testing

A constable “was assigned to maintain the perimeter security at a crime scene. He entered the crime scene, leaving its perimeter insecure, and took $300

Void for Vagueness

Law has many pithy expressions that refer to complex legal concepts. For example, the phrase “intrusion upon seclusion” refers to the tort of invading someone’s