Nature of Action: The Inquiry Committee of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (“CPBC”) conducted investigations into the practice of Mir Rashid Ali (the “Registrant”), pursuant to section 33(4) of the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183 (“HPA”). The CPBC issued a Citation on February 24, 2020.

on multiple occasions, dispensed unauthorized quantities of methadone to one of the undercover investigators contrary to Standards 1(a) and (d), 2, 6, 7, and 9 of the Code of Ethics, sections 6(4), 9 and 9.1(1) of the Standards of Practice, section 25, 92 of the HPA, section 9 of PODSA, what was then section 4(5) and (6) and is now section 19(5) and (6) of the PODSA Bylaws, and Principle 4.1.6 of Professional Practice Policy #66, Policy Guide, Methadone Maintenance Treatment (2013), and contrary to previous consent agreements and undertakings to the CPBC.

on multiple occasions, provided one of the undercover investigators with a seven-day supply of medications all together, despite the medications being processed daily on PharmaNet and despite the prescription directing that the medication be dispensed daily, and in doing so, failed to accurately record the dispensing of the medication on PharmaNet and conduct the required patient consultations, contrary to Standards 1(a) and (d), 2, 6, 7, and 9 of the Code of Ethics, sections 11 and 12 of the Standards of Practice, section 25.92 of the HPA, and what was then section 21(1) and is now 35(1) of the PODSA Bylaws,

on two separate occasions, advised one of undercover investigators on how to have medications dispensed contrary to legislative standards, specifically how to get three identical prescriptions, all with the same date, dispensed and how to get dispensed medications that previously been processed on PharmaNet but not picked up, contrary to Standards 1, 6, 7, and 9 of the Code of Ethics,

met with one of the undercover investigators in a car outside one of the pharmacies the Registrant owned and where he was the manager and working as a pharmacist, and provided the investigator with a four-day supply of medication all together, despite those medications having been processed daily on PharmaNet and despite the prescription for those medications directing that they be dispensed daily, and without reviewing PharmaNet or conducting an adequate consultation prior to dispensing, contrary to Standards 1(a) and (d), 2, 6, 7, and 9 of the Code of Ethics, section 11 and 12 of the Standards of Practice, section 25.92 of the HPA, and what was then section 21(1) and is now section 35(1) of the PODSA Bylaws,

on multiple occasions, provided cash to two undercover investigators acting as patients as an incentive for them to continue delivering their prescriptions for dispensing at pharmacies the Registrant owned and where he was the manager and working as a pharmacist, contrary to Standards 1 (a) and (d), 2, 6, 7, and 9 of the HPA, Bylaws Schedule A – Code of Ethics (the “Code of Ethics”), section 15 of the HPA, Bylaws Schedule F, Part I – Community Pharmacy Standards of Practice (the “Standards of Practice”), what was then section 3(2)(z) and is now section 18(2)(aa) of the Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act – Bylaws (the “PODSA Bylaws”),

upon request, agreed to provide undercover investigators with cash as an incentive to continue delivering his prescriptions to one of the pharmacies the Registrant owned and where he was the manager and working as a pharmacist, and advised the investigator how to daily dispense from a prescriber so that the investigator could be paid more cash as an incentive to continue delivering his prescriptions to the pharmacy, contrary to Standards 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 of the Code of Ethics, section 15 of the Standards of Practice, and what was then section 3(2)(aa) and is now section 18(2)(z) of the PODSA Bylaws,

after the suspension is complete, upon return to active practice, must practice for a period of 3 months under the supervision of a pharmacist in good standing with the College, and

Rationale:

The Registrant repeatedly contravened sections of the HPA, PODSA Bylaws, Community Pharmacy Standards of Practice, and the Code of Ethics in his practice as a pharmacist, pharmacy manager, and director. During the time of the undercover investigations, he appeared to have knowingly neglected his basic duties as a pharmacist, and knowingly committed or allowed actions that were unethical and could potentially endanger patient health. The totality of his conduct demonstrated an egregious breach of trust and undermines the integrity of the profession.

After receiving notification of the undercover investigations, the Registrant took responsibility for his mistakes and did not seek to minimize the seriousness of his conduct. The Registrant did advise the CPBC that he provided cash incentives in order to compete with other pharmacies and also out of fear, as he was assaulted by a patient for refusing to pay incentives. The Registrant agreed, however, that there was no excuse for his conduct.

The Registrant’s contrition and cooperation with the CPBC in this proceeding were mitigating factors in this case but did not change the serious nature of his conduct.

At the time of the undercover investigation, the Registrant had been a pharmacist in BC for 6 years. He knew, or ought to have known, that a pharmacist must perform the minimum standard of care with every patient, regardless of any systemic issues, competition from other pharmacies, or pressure from patients. The Registrant had agreed to be reprimanded and sanctioned for two previous complaints. That prior history and his pattern of repeated misconduct were the main aggravating factors in this case.

The Registrant’s conduct in this instance, coupled with the breach of his previous undertakings, is considered significant professional misconduct as defined in s. 26 of the HPA, and justifies serious consequences. The Inquiry Committee therefore considered it appropriate, and the Registrant agreed, that the disposition for such conduct be one that serves as a strong deterrent and sends a clear message to both the profession and the public that the College cannot and will not tolerate this type of conduct under any circumstances.