Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A pharmacist promoted a prize contest that the disciplinary body found linked to the exercise of pharmacy, violating the Code of Ethics.

• The Conseil de discipline concluded the public would perceive the promotion as tied to receiving professional services.

• The Tribunal des professions upheld the disciplinary decision, finding no breach of fairness or legal error.

• The Superior Court rejected judicial review, applying the reasonableness standard and affirming the decision's internal logic.

• The applicant argued on appeal that the wrong legal standard was applied to a question of law regarding article 50.

• The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, ruling no novel legal issue or serious injustice was raised.

Background and facts of the case

Ahmad Hassan, a pharmacist operating a pharmacy and a retail store under the Uniprix banner at the same address, published a newspaper advertisement in 2017. The ad promoted a contest offering a chance to win a trip, with entry tied to purchases at the retail counter, while simultaneously advertising his pharmacy and professional services. In 2018, a disciplinary complaint was filed, alleging a breach of article 50 of the Code de déontologie des pharmaciens, which prohibits pharmacists from offering advantages related to their professional practice.

In 2019, the Conseil de discipline de l’Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec found that the combined advertisement improperly associated a promotional benefit with professional services. The Council concluded that the public would interpret the ad as suggesting that visiting the pharmacy and entering the contest were linked. It emphasized that presenting such advertising as a package—mixing commercial incentives with regulated professional services—would risk undermining ethical standards. An administrative fine of $5,000 was imposed.

Appeal to the Tribunal des professions

Hassan appealed the decision to the Tribunal des professions. In 2022, the Tribunal upheld the disciplinary finding. It rejected his claims that the Conseil had failed to observe fairness and dismissed arguments that the promotional content was clearly separate from pharmacy practice. The Tribunal reaffirmed the ethical breach and the fine.

Judicial review before the Superior Court

Hassan subsequently applied for judicial review. He argued that the Tribunal had erred in law by applying a reasonableness standard where a correctness standard was appropriate—particularly because the case involved the interpretation of a legal rule (article 50 of the Code). The Superior Court, in a 2024 decision, found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s reasoning. The Court held that the Tribunal’s decision was coherent, reasonable, and adequately addressed the facts and purpose of the ethical rule, especially its role in protecting public trust.

Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal

Hassan then sought leave to appeal the Superior Court’s judgment. He claimed that his case raised new and important legal questions, particularly about how advertising regulations apply to dual commercial and professional settings. He also argued that there was no clear evidence that the promotion was directly tied to his pharmacy services.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in 2025, denied the request. Justice Judith Harvie concluded that the appeal did not meet the strict requirements under article 30(2)(5°) of the Code de procédure civile. She held that the case did not raise a novel question of law or an issue of principle beyond the applicant’s individual interests. The judge also found no manifest legal error or injustice in the Tribunal’s interpretation and application of article 50.

Conclusion and final decision

The Court refused to grant leave to appeal, emphasizing the importance of judicial economy, deference to administrative tribunals, and the narrow scope of appellate review in professional discipline matters. Legal costs were awarded against Hassan.

Winner: Tribunal des professions and the Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec

The ruling confirms that appeals in such cases are only permitted when there is a clear public interest or significant legal uncertainty—not merely dissatisfaction with the outcome.