Regulatory Rule-Making Still Under Increased Scrutiny

A lower Alberta court disagrees with the British Columbia Court of Appeal and says regulators need empirical evidence that their rules protect the public interest. “Anecdotal” evidence (i.e., the views of Council members) is not enough. This Court held that rules making it a conflict of interest for pharmacists to offer inducements (e.g., reward points) to patients to buy drugs are invalid. In Sobeys West Inc v Alberta College of Pharmacists, 2016 ABQB 232, the Court characterized the rules as relating to the cost of drugs and competition between pharmacists, finding the rules unrelated to the professionalism or ethics of the individual pharmacists. Interestingly, the Court also ascertained the mandate of the College’s powers to make rules by referring to Hansard debates of the legislature when the statute was being enacted, rather than focusing primarily on the legislative scheme itself.

More Posts

More on the Mandate of Regulators

The mandate of regulators is an increasingly contentious topic. At its core, the issue is whether regulators should define their public interest mandate as going

Screening Appointments

The appointments made by regulators are important. These include the selection of the regulator’s Registrar and/or CEO, appointments to committees (e.g., a discipline tribunal) and,

Circumventing the Implied Undertaking Rule

Regulators must often disclose all relevant information, that is not privileged, in its legal proceedings such as discipline hearings. However, the party receiving the disclosure