Regulator who ordered pharmacist to pay $90K loses in court and must now pay her legal costs

Almost a year-and-a-half after it suspended a pharmacist and ordered her to pay more than $90,000 in costs, the pharmacy regulator for Newfoundland and Labrador has been overruled by the province’s court of appeal and must now pay the pharmacist’s legal costs. On Oct. 3, 2022, the court ruled that the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy Board’s discipline tribunal was wrong to penalize St, John’s pharmacist Beverley Vey with a 42-day licence suspension, an order to complete an ethics course and to pay investigation and hearing costs totalling more than $90,000. The tribunal made the discipline and sanction decision after Vey refused to subject her business to a practice-site assessment. The province’s appellate court concluded that the pharmacy board had no authority to conduct the assessment. Vey’s troubles began after she completed a renovation—which had been approved by the board—to add a private consulting area to her pharmacy. The renovations were subject to inspection by the board—a condition with which Vey was willing to comply. Read: NL court ruling affirms regulator's right to conduct full site assessment But when the board told her the inspector would also conduct a pratice-site assessment, Vey objected, citing provisions in the province’s Personal Health Information Act that required the board to appoint a quality assurance committee that would, in turn, engage an assessor. Failure to follow this process could compromise confidentiality of patients’ records. A Newfound and Labrador Supreme Court judge took the board’s side in 2019. But in the latest legal decision, the three appellate court judges have ruled that the Supreme Court erred in agreeing with the pharmacy board tribunal’s argument that it was not legally mandatory for the board to appoint a committee and that the board had the authority to conduct quality assurance assessments. “Had the legislature intended the board to have parallel powers to those of the quality-assurance committee, that could have been achieved with appropriate language,” wrote one of the appellate judges in the decision. All three judges agreed Vey’s conduct was not deserving of sanction. They overruled the tribunal’s decision and ordered the board to pay Vey’s legal costs for both of her appeals. Read: Troubled transition: Pharmacist failed to do proper handoff, gets 2-year ban, more than $17K in costs

Regulator who ordered pharmacist to pay $90K loses in court and must now pay her legal costs

Register for free access or login.

Related Topics