Feedback for Proposed Changes to the Public Register – Phase 2 (By-law No 3)

Pharmacist  ·  Jan. 23, 2015

I have 3 comments to make:

1) At the website's location for the "Full Bylaw with proposed changes", there appear to be errors on pages 4 & 7 where the redline sections are showing numbered as ",,, and". In each case, the first number should be "11."

2) Re proposed wording of Caution should be exercised here. If a member of OCP is found to be "charged" in another jurisdiction, but that member's NAME has not been published as part of the charges made public in the other jurisdiction, by placing such charges onto the member's register info in Ontario you essentially violate the "non-disclosure" of the name by associating the charges with the member's name on the OCP register. That could create a bias and, as the courts would say, "interfere with the proper administration of justice" not only at the OCP level, but as the proceedings play out where the charges are published without the name.
In such cases, it would be better to amend the proposal to say "where the member is identified to the public in the laying of the charges" after "existing charges".

3) Re proposed This raises a concern about an ICR committee "deciding" on what would be defined as "incompetence" per the Code to the RHPA (s.52.(1)...a discipline panel SHALL find a member so charged, guilty of misconduct; and 52.(2), pgh 3 -- can place terms/conditions/ limitations on the member which may include remediation). If the ICR begins to assign such terms to a member as part of a COMPLAINT process, then the allegations (whether direct, or inferred through investigation at the complaint level) of incompetence will never make it to the discipline stage and as a result, become part of a "public disclosure".
Since ICR cannot conclude "professional misconduct" then that member's record remains "clean" in terms of any requests made in the future of a history of discipline -- when in fact, it would have been present if proceeded with at discipline rather than ICR.

Thank you for your consideration.

Reply or Back