pharmacy technician - Ontario College of Pharmacists

DISCIPLINE
When issuing its public reprimand,
the Panel reminded Mr. Metellus
that obtaining liability insurance is a
professional obligation by operation
of the by-laws and is particularly
important as the College enters
into an era where the pharmacist’s
scope of practice is expanding. The
Panel furthermore chastised Mr.
Metellus in respect of the consequences
that may have resulted had
Mr. Metellus injured a patient during
the period he had failed to obtain
liability insurance.
Member: Raymond Chan, R.Ph.
Hearing Date: November 2, 2009
This case proceeded by way of an
Agreed Statement of Facts and a
Joint Submission on Penalty. Mr.
Chan pled guilty to two allegations
of professional misconduct, which
included the failure to maintain a
standard of practice of the profession
and engaging in conduct or
performing an act relevant to the
practice of pharmacy that, having
regard to all the circumstances,
would reasonably be regarded
by members of the profession
as disgraceful, dishonourable or
unprofessional.
Mr. Chan received the notifications
with respect to acquiring and
maintaining personal professional
liability insurance, as required by
the By-Laws of the College, Article
II, Item 2.2.1, prior to, and after,
renewing his registration in Part A
of the Register on March 10, 2008.
Mr. Chan responded to one of the
College’s communications but did
not provide the College with proof
that he had obtained personal
professional liability insurance in
2008. If he were to have testified,
Mr. Chan would have relayed
that he did not actively practise
pharmacy in 2008, although he
remained in Part A of the Register.
Additionally, when he renewed his
registration with the College on
March 10, 2008, he was aware of
the personal professional liability
insurance requirement. In 2008,
he received correspondence from
the College about the insurance
requirement and he advised the
College that he had insurance
through CMPA (The Canadian
Medical Protective Association).
The Member did not provide the
College with any information or
documentation to corroborate
that a CMPA insurance policy was
in place or that the insurance met
the requirements of the College.
The College requested additional
information about the CMPA
insurance but he did not respond.
The Discipline Panel found that the
facts and allegations of this case
were very closely related to the
facts and allegations of Mercedieu
Metellus’ case heard before a
differently constituted panel of the
Discipline Committee on October
21, 2009. In that regard, the
Panel adopted the reasoning of
that panel in deciding this case.
The Panel was of the view that
this case fell into the first of the
two categories alluded to in the
Metellus decision, namely that Mr.
Chan did not provide direct patient
care as a pharmacist in Ontario.
Consequently, the Panel fashioned
Mr. Chan’s penalty to address
any risk to the public and to be
consistent with the reasoning in the
Metellus decision.
Mr. Chan’s penalty consisted of a
public reprimand and that he pay
costs to the College in the amount
of $1,000.
In its public reprimand to Mr. Chan,
the Panel noted that it did not view
this case as that of a mundane
administrative oversight and
reminded Mr. Chan of his obligation
to keep information current with
the College.
Member: Fadwa Tayfor R.Ph.
Hearing Date: November 2, 2009
This case proceeded by way of an
Agreed Statement of Facts and a
Joint Submission on Penalty. Ms.
Tayfor pled guilty to two allegations
of professional misconduct, which
included the failure to maintain a
standard of practice of the profession
and engaging in conduct or
performing an act relevant to the
practice of pharmacy that, having
regard to all the circumstances,
would reasonably be regarded
by members of the profession
as disgraceful, dishonourable or
unprofessional.
Ms. Tayfor received the notifications
with respect to acquiring and
maintaining personal professional
liability insurance, as required by
the By-Laws of the College, Article
II, Item 2.2.1, prior to, and after,
renewing her registration in Part A
of the Register on April 6, 2008.
Ms. Tayfor did not respond to any
of the College’s communications
and she did not provide the College
with proof that she had obtained
personal professional liability insurance
in 2008. If she had testified,
Ms. Tayfor would have stated
that she did not actively practise
pharmacy in Ontario in 2008 and
2009, although she remained in
Part A of the Register.
The Discipline Panel found that the
facts and allegations of this case
were very closely related to the
facts and allegations of Mercedieu
Metellus’ case heard before a
differently constituted panel of the
Discipline Committee on October
21, 2009. In that regard, the
Panel adopted the reasoning of
that panel in deciding this case.
The Panel was of the view that
this case fell into the first of the
two categories alluded to in the
Metellus decision, namely that Ms.
PAGE 46 ~ SPRING 2011 ~ PHARMACY CONNECTION