Tribunal cancelled practice permit and registration after finding sexual misconduct
Though it varied certain cost orders, the Alberta Court of Appeal otherwise dismissed an appeal assailing a decision confirming the cancellation of the registration of a pharmacist who was found guilty of sexually abusing employees who were also his patients.
In Parikh v Alberta College of Pharmacy, 2026 ABCA 207, the appellant was a registered member of the respondent Alberta College of Pharmacy and the licensee of a small-town pharmacy in the province.
In March 2020, Individual A, the appellant’s former employee and patient, brought a complaint accusing him of sexual abuse and misconduct.
Individuals B, C, and D – three other employees and patients of the appellant who also accused him of inappropriate behaviour – participated in the complaints director’s investigation.
A notice of hearing dated July 7, 2022, included six allegations of unprofessional conduct. During the hearing, Individuals A, B, and C testified, while Individual D did not appear.
Tribunal and council decisions
In a merits decision on Nov. 24, 2023, the college’s hearing tribunal found the appellant guilty of unprofessional conduct. Specifically, the tribunal found, on the part of the appellant:
- sexual abuse of Individual A, including by blocking her with his body against a fridge, threatening to rape her, and having nonconsensual sexual intercourse with her multiple times from October 2018 to September 2019
- sexual misconduct toward Individual A, including by approaching her and saying he wanted a kiss and he masturbated to the thought of her
- sexual abuse of Individual B, including by asking her to perform oral sex on him for advanced pay and having nonconsensual sexual intercourse with her
- breach of his licensee duties by repeatedly staring at the nametag on Individual C’s chest and making her feel uncomfortable
- consumption of alcohol in the pharmacy, including when he was the pharmacist in charge of the premises while it was open to patients
The hearing tribunal considered text messages between Individual A and the appellant from December 2019 to January 2020.
According to the hearing tribunal, when Individual A confronted the appellant about sexual wrongdoing, he tried to reconcile, discouraged her from pursuing the matter, and offered to compensate her, rather than denying the allegations or seeking clarification.
In a sanctions decision on Apr. 4, 2024, the tribunal cancelled the appellant’s practice permit and registration. The tribunal required the appellant to pay a $5,000 fine and 75 percent of the investigation and hearing costs.
The appellant appealed. In a decision on Oct. 3, 2024, a panel of the college’s council confirmed the tribunal’s decisions on merits and sanctions. In a decision on Nov. 27, 2024, the council required the appellant to pay 100 percent of the appeal costs at a $40,000 maximum.
The appellant challenged the council’s decisions dated Oct. 3, 2024, and Nov. 27, 2024, which allegedly had errors requiring appellate intervention.
Appeal court ruling
The Court of Appeal of Alberta allowed the appeal of the council’s decisions on the costs of the hearing tribunal’s and the council’s proceedings. The appeal court varied the cost orders as proposed by the respondent college and as agreed by the appellant registrant.
However, the appeal court dismissed the appeal of the council’s decision addressing the substantive complaints.
Health Professions Act changes
The Alberta Court of Appeal noted that Alberta’s Act to Protect Patients, 2018, which took effect on Apr. 1, 2019, introduced amendments to Alberta’s Health Professions Act, 2000 (HPA), in connection with health professionals’ sexual misconduct and abuse.
The appeal court ruled that the tribunal made findings consistent with the allegations in the notice of hearing and could determine that the appellant’s nonconsensual intercourse with Individual A amounted to sexual abuse under the HPA.
The appeal court held that the appellant received fair notice of the case he had to meet in the notice of hearing and failed to prove any error committed by virtue of the HPA amendments.
Credibility findings
The Alberta Court of Appeal saw no reviewable error regarding the credibility findings. The appeal court determined that the appellant mischaracterized the tribunal’s and the council’s reasons.
The appeal court found that the tribunal and the council did not base their conclusions on generalizations, gave detailed reasons for why they drew certain inferences, and explained why they rejected the appellant’s arguments for not responding to some text messages.
Treatment of evidence
The Alberta Court of Appeal saw no procedural unfairness or substantive errors in the tribunal’s admission and consideration of the documentary evidence.
The appeal court noted that the text messages were introduced through witnesses via direct examination and presented to the appellant during cross-examination.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest medical malpractice law news on the main page!
