Failing to Comply with Requirements for Closing Pharmacy Amounts to Professional Misconduct
Pharmacists have certain legislative and regulatory obligations when they permanently close a pharmacy and failing to comply with these may result in findings of professional misconduct.
The Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act requires anyone closing a pharmacy to remove all signs and symbols relating to the practice of pharmacy (outside or inside) and to remove and dispose of all drugs according to the law and to comply with College policies regarding closing a pharmacy [1].
The Ontario College of Pharmacists (the “College”) requires all pharmacists intending to permanently close an accredited pharmacy to notify the College prior to the proposed closing date by providing the College with a Notice of Intent at least 7 days prior to the closing. Pharmacists must also provide the College Registrar with a completed Pharmacy Closing Statement within 30 days of the pharmacy closing. The Pharmacy Closing Statement should include information about the removal of all signs and symbols relating to the practice of pharmacy, and the proper disposition of narcotics and controlled drugs, prescription and non-prescription drugs, and patient records.
In a recent 2021 decision, Ontario (College of Pharmacists) v. Sadek, a panel of the College’s Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) found a pharmacist (the “Pharmacist”) failed to maintain the standards of the profession and engaged in professional misconduct for failing to comply with his requirements for closing a pharmacy.
In this case, the Pharmacist was a director and shareholder of a corporation that operated a pharmacy from 2009 until it closed in May 2018. He was a pharmacist and at times, the designated manager of the pharmacy. The Pharmacist notified the College of his intention to close the pharmacy in May 2018. The College advised the Pharmacist of his obligations to notify the College within 30 days of closing by providing a Pharmacy Closing Statement. The College followed up with the Pharmacist in June and July 2018 requesting the Pharmacy Closing Statement. The College did not receive a response to these requests.
A College investigator attended the pharmacy in September 2018 and observed and removed the following from the pharmacy:
garbage bags containing medication;
medication found in the refrigerator;
pharmacy records, patient records and drugs left in the dispensary and in the basement;
pharmacy related signs remaining, including the point of care sign;
accessible computer system;
pharmacy software use code and password affixed to the dispensing counter; and
a signed pharmacy Closing Statement that was never received by the College despite it being marked with a “faxed” stamp.
The Pharmacist was not present at his hearing. The hearing still proceeded in his absence because the Panel was satisfied he was given adequate notice of the hearing. The Panel accepted the affidavit evidence of the College investigator regarding her observations when she attended the pharmacy.
The Panel found the Pharmacist failed to maintain the standards of the profession and engaged in professional misconduct as it related to closing the pharmacy. He failed to take the following steps when closing his pharmacy:
remove all signs and symbols relating to the practice of pharmacy within the pharmacy and outside of the premises;
remove and dispose of all drugs in the pharmacy;
submit a Pharmacy Closing Statement to the College Registrar;
dispose of prescriptions and prescription records;
ensure that pharmacy records were maintained in a secure manner and for the required period of time; and
reply to the College within a reasonable time when it inquired into the closing of the pharmacy.
It is worth noting that even though the Pharmacist resigned as a pharmacist and member of the College in February 2019, the College still had jurisdiction over him because he was a registrant of the College when he closed the pharmacy. [2]
This case underscores the importance of complying with all obligations in connection with closing a pharmacy, and the value of getting the legal assistance required before, rather in response to, regulatory action.
[1] Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.4, ss. 141 & 157(2).
[2] The Health Professions Procedural Code under the Regulated Health Professions Act states in section 14 that registered members continue to be under the jurisdiction of the college for professional misconduct or incompetence referable to the time when the person was a member.
