A discipline committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists has found that a registered pharmacist engaged in sexual abuse of a colleague — who was also deemed his patient under provincial regulations.
The committee’s ruling determined that the pharmacist, identified here as S.T., “sexually abused his patient and co-worker” by “engaging in touching of a sexual nature” and “behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature,” contravening multiple standards of practice and ethical obligations in the pharmacy profession.
In its written decision, the committee said the incidents occurred at a pharmacy (referred to as Pharmacy A) during a single shift in which S.T. and the patient/co-worker (identified here as C.A.) were the only two pharmacy staff present for part of the afternoon.
C.A., who normally did not work on Sundays, had been asked to assist that day to address staffing shortages. At some point during this shift, S.T. filled a prescription for C.A., specifically a refill of Tantum gargle, billing it to her insurance plan and signing off as the dispensing pharmacist.
Dispensing establish patient relationship
The committee found “clear, cogent and convincing evidence” that this act of dispensing — even though C.A. was also a co-worker — established a formal pharmacist-patient relationship. Referring to the Patient Criteria Regulation under the Regulated Health Professions Act, the ruling stated that once S.T. filled the prescription, C.A. met the definition of a patient. Because any touching or remarks of a sexual nature then took place during that professional relationship, the committee classified his actions as sexual abuse of a patient.
“The panel is satisfied that the College has established, on a balance of probabilities, that the Registrant was in a pharmacist-patient relationship with the Complainant … and that the Registrant committed sexual abuse of the Complainant,” the committee wrote.
Video surveillance from the pharmacy, though without audio, was admitted as evidence. Footage showed S.T. approaching C.A. while she performed work tasks and appearing to speak to her for prolonged periods. At one point, the camera recorded S.T. placing his hand around her shoulder and then sliding it down the front of her body, in what the committee determined was deliberate contact with her breast.
Broader pattern of sexualized comments, uninvited touching
C.A. testified that this was part of a broader pattern of sexualized comments and uninvited touching. She said S.T. repeatedly raised the topic of infidelity, speculating about her husband’s behaviour and describing his own marriage in sexually explicit terms.
The decision states that C.A. felt “disgusted” and “gross,” describing the encounters as deeply upsetting. She also changed her personal details at the pharmacy soon after and ultimately resigned by the end of that same week, attributing her departure solely to S.T.’s conduct.
“The Complainant testified that she felt the Registrant ‘invaded and touched places he should not have,’” the decision noted. “She stated that she ‘didn’t feel respected’ and felt ‘disgusted’ and ‘gross.’”
The committee rejected S.T.’s claims that any physical contact had been accidental, calling his explanation “implausible and inconsistent with the video evidence.” It also dismissed the argument that no real pharmacist-patient relationship existed because there was no formal counselling component when C.A. refilled her medication. The ruling emphasized that under the governing legislation and regulatory standards, dispensing a refill — especially one that was billed to an insurance provider and signed off by a pharmacist — is sufficient to create a patient relationship, regardless of whether detailed counselling took place.
Failure to maintain profession’s standards
Beyond finding S.T. guilty of sexually abusing a patient, the committee determined he failed to maintain the profession’s standards by harassing and sexually harassing his co-worker and patient. It cited the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities’ Model Standards of Practice, the Ontario College of Pharmacists’ Boundary Violations and Sexual Abuse Policy, and the College’s Code of Ethics. According to the decision, pharmacists must “treat colleagues with respect,” “demonstrate personal and professional integrity,” and “maintain professional boundaries.”
“The panel finds that the Registrant demonstrated a serious and persistent disregard for his professional obligations,” the committee wrote, calling his actions “disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.”
The ruling explained that sexual harassment within a pharmacy environment goes well beyond a simple workplace dispute, given both the hierarchical relationship and the fact that C.A. was also receiving a health-care service. The decision highlighted a built-in power imbalance in pharmacist-patient relationships and concluded that S.T. capitalized on his position of authority — a dynamic compounded by the fact he acted as the more senior employee directing C.A.’s work.
The committee’s reasons repeatedly underscored the importance of public trust in regulated health professionals, finding that S.T.’s actions fell far below what the public and the profession expect. It also noted C.A.’s immediate distress and ultimate decision to quit her job, saying this further illustrated the real-world harm that can arise from boundary violations in the workplace.
‘Reprehensible’ conduct
In characterizing S.T.’s conduct, the committee used the strongest language available, saying it was “reprehensible,” represented “moral failing,” and required regulatory intervention “to ensure public protection.” The panel concluded that pharmacy professionals must uphold ethical standards, refrain from any behaviour that exploits a position of trust or authority, and ensure all patients — including those who also happen to be co-workers — receive care free from harassment or sexual impropriety.
At the close of its reasons, the committee confirmed that all allegations of professional misconduct set out in the Notice of Hearing had been proven. These included sexual abuse of a patient, failing to maintain the standards of practice, and engaging in conduct that was “disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional” as well as “conduct unbecoming of a member.”
The committee stressed that S.T.’s position as both the on-duty pharmacist and C.A.’s immediate superior underscored the severity of the misconduct. As a result, his conduct was found to have undermined the professional environment at the pharmacy, violated ethical obligations, and caused significant harm.
No mention was made in the decision about specific penalties or sanctions in this document.
For more information, see Ontario (College of Pharmacists) v. Tatla, 2024 ONCPDC 26 (CanLII).
