Articles
<< back to all ArticlesEye On Regulation
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently considered an interpretive issue in Ahmed v Alberta College of Pharmacy, 2026 ABCA 15. One of the issues of focus on appeal was the consideration the Hearing Tribunal (“Tribunal”) and Appeal Panel (“Panel”) of the Alberta College of Pharmacy had given, or failed to give, to one of the College’s Standards of Practice. The underlying issue involved whether a pharmacist had engaged in sexual abuse of a patient by prescribing medication to the Complainant with whom he had a sexual relationship. Standard 7 describes circumstances when a pharmacist may provide professional services to whom they are in an existing sexual relationship. The decision makers below had concluded that the Standard 7 was not applicable to the matter before them. Neither body offered their interpretation of Standard 7 to support the conclusion it was inapplicable. In the result, the ABCA determined both the Panel and the Tribunal had erred in their interpretation (or perhaps better, application as their interpretation was unknown), of Standard 7. In the result, following more fulsome analysis than is described here, the ABCA allowed the regulated member’s appeal and overturned the finding of unprofessional conduct relating to sexual abuse and the cancellation of the member’s permit.
our two cents for free
The importance of fulsome reasons cannot be overstated. Reasons provide justification for decisions and allow those subject to them or reading them to understand the basis for a determination. There is also merit in reasons as they ensure the practice of working through the application of the legal standards to the facts at hand. This process can lead decision makers to a different result than would have been reached absent such interrogation. Finally, regulated professionals can face significant consequences in a finding of unprofessional conduct, as a matter of fairness they should readily understand such decisions were reached and to ensure they are not arbitrary.
question
When setting out reasons for a decision, have you “shown your work” such that a clear line of reasoning can flow between the issue and your determination of it?
Eye on Regulation is RMRF’s monthly newsletter for the professional regulatory community. Each month we offer:
- A Case: a brief summary of a recent and relevant case;
- Our Two Cents for Free: practical insight inspired by the files on our desks right now; and
- A Question: something to get you thinking about ways to enhance your work.
This newsletter is for information only and does not constitute legal advice.
