Court upholds sanctions against pharmacist who used a fake name to place orders for pet meds through a veterinarian

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has upheld sanctions against a pharmacist who was found to have inappropriately ordered veterinary drugs to her pharmacy under a fake name.In its Jan. 19, 2026 ruling, the court dismissed the appeal from Alice Rusli, who had been the designated manager at Glen Shields Pharmacy in Vaughan, Ont. Back in November 2011, Rusli had received a four-month suspension by the Ontario College of Pharmacists Discipline Committee and ordered to pay $137,000 in costs in November 2024.Prior to 2015, there were no restrictions on how much medication veterinarians could sell to pharmacists. But in November 2015, Regulation 1093 under the Veterinarians Act was implemented, prohibiting veterinarians of dispensing a drug to a pharmacist except in “in reasonably limited quantities in order to address a temporary shortage.”Rusli’s pharmacy had placed orders for veterinary drugs from a veterinary wholesaler via a veterinarian. (Due to a publication ban, the veterinarian and the veterinary wholesaler cannot be named.) Back in 2019, when the events of this case took place, the wholesaler did not allow direct sales to pharmacists. The veterinarian had allowed Green Shields and two other pharmacies to place orders in his own company’s name by setting up subcategories on his account on the wholesaler’s online ordering portal. In turn, the vet’s company would charge the pharmacies a 5% fee.The wholesaler’s portal required the accounts in each subcategory to provide a contact name. For the subcategory that Glen Shields was using, the contact name was “Theresa Holdes,” who the veterinarian admitted was not a “real person.”For the use of the fake name on the online ordering portal, the college’s discipline committee found her guilty of professional misconduct for “signing a document that she knew or ought to have known contained a false or misleading statement” in contravention of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Pharmacy Act. The discipline committee also found her guilty of misconduct for “permitting the commission of an offence against any Act relating to the practice of pharmacy,” given the violations of Regulation 1093, and engaging in conduct that is “disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.”In addition to the costs penalty and suspension, the discipline committee ordered Rusli to take an ethics course and a course on jurisprudence, offering to remit one month of the suspension remitted upon the completion of the courses. The committee also banned her from acting as a designated manager or a director/voting shareholder of a pharmacy for three years.The veterinarian also faced disciplinary action from the College of Veterinarians of Ontario, which ruled that his actions amounted to professional misconduct and issued a one-month suspension. He appealed this decision all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, which declined to hear his case in May 2024.In her defence, Rusli’s counsel submitted before the court that beaching Regulation 1093 should not be considered an “offence against any Act,” arguing that the Veterinarians Act falls outside of the college’s jurisdiction and pointing out that the veterinarian was not a party to the proceeding. However, the court disagreed.“The Committee did not err when it refused to interpret the word ‘offence’ as being limited to convictions arising from acts that have been prohibited under a statute, rather than a regulation,” Justice Nancy Backhouse wrote in the decision.Rusli also argued that the discipline committee should have considered previous decisions from the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC)—the college’s screening committee that makes an initial decision after a complaint has been received. In previous decisions on complaints against Rusli and other pharmacists on similar issues, the ICRC took no action, suggesting that the college approved of the pharmacy’s practices. However, the court took the side of the committee, which ruled that ICRC decisions are not admissible, given that the ICRC is simply a screening committee and “does not adjudicate matters, interview witnesses, make credibility findings, or make legal interpretations.”In addition, Rusli argued there was a lack of official guidance from the college on how to interpret Regulation 1093, but the college’s committee noted she did not reach out to a practice consultant or anyone else at the college. “The court will show significant deference to the Committee’s choice of remedy. The appellant has not shown that the penalty is clearly unfit,” Justice Blackhouse wrote, ordering Rusli to pay the college an additional $10,000 in costs.Since this case transpired, it has become easier for pharmacists to stock their shelves with veterinary medicine.In October 2024, the Competition Bureau of Canada issued a recommendation calling on provinces and territories to mandate the supply of pet medications to pharmacists. After pressure from the Competition Bureau, the wholesale company that was involved in this case changed their policies to allow pharmacists to place orders on their platform.That same year, the Ontario legislature passed Bill 171, requiring veterinarians to inform pet owners about their right to have their prescription taken elsewhere.

Court upholds sanctions against pharmacist who used a fake name to place orders for pet meds through a veterinarian

Register for free access or login.

Related Topics