Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central issue concerned whether a regulated professional found guilty of sexual abuse under the Health Professions Act (HPA) can seek an immediate stay of the automatic interim suspension of their license imposed by s 81.1(1) after the merits decision but before the sanction decision.

• Interpretation of the 2019 HPA amendments, which mandate immediate suspension and subsequent cancellation of a professional’s permit upon a finding of sexual abuse, was required.

• The chambers judge held that a stay could be sought after the merits decision; the Alberta College of Pharmacy argued it was only available after the sanction decision.

• The Court of Appeal agreed that a stay of the interim suspension is available before the final sanction, but for different reasons than those given by the chambers judge.

• The Court clarified that s 65 of the HPA allows a regulated professional to apply to the Court of King’s Bench for a stay of the interim suspension prior to the final sanction order.

• The decision clarifies the statutory framework for stays of interim suspensions in professional disciplinary proceedings under the HPA.

Background and context

In July 2023, a hearing tribunal of the Alberta College of Pharmacy found that Muhammad Maqbool Ahmed, a registered pharmacist, had committed unprofessional conduct by having a consensual sexual relationship with a patient. The tribunal concluded that the conduct fell within the definition of “sexual abuse” under s 1(1)(nn.1) of the Health Professions Act (HPA) and suspended Ahmed’s permit to practice pharmacy pending its decision on sanction, as required by s 81.1(1).

In September 2023, an appeal panel of the council refused to accept Ahmed’s notice of appeal on the ground that there was no right to appeal the merits decision before the sanction decision was issued. A stay committee of the council also refused to stay the interim suspension due to lack of jurisdiction, stating there was no “decision” under appeal.

Ahmed applied to the Court of King’s Bench for a stay of the interim suspension pending the outcome of his appeal of the merits decision, relying on s 86(3) of the HPA. On September 14, 2023, the chambers judge stayed the interim suspension of Ahmed’s practice permit until the council’s decision on the merits appeal and ordered the council to accept Ahmed’s notice of appeal.

The Alberta College of Pharmacy appealed the chambers judge’s decision to the Court of Appeal. On November 17, 2023, the hearing tribunal issued its decision on sanction, cancelling Ahmed’s practice permit and registration as required by s 82(1.1) in cases of sexual abuse, and imposed other sanctions. An appeal panel of the council heard Ahmed’s appeal of the merits and sanction decisions in April 2024 and issued a decision largely dismissing the appeal in July 2024. A decision on costs followed in October 2024. Ahmed has appealed those decisions to the Court of Appeal, and the appeal is set for hearing in December 2025.

Discussion of policy terms and statutory interpretation

The Court of Appeal analyzed the relevant statutory provisions, including sections 65, 81.1(1), 82, 86, and 87 of the HPA. The Court agreed with the College that the right to appeal generally arises after the hearing tribunal has issued its written decision on sanction and a copy has been given to the regulated professional. However, the Court found that section 65 provides an independent right for a regulated professional to apply to the Court of King’s Bench for a stay of any interim suspension imposed before the final sanction order. The Court stated that the mandatory interim suspension under section 81.1(1) must be interpreted as a type of interim order governed by section 65, preserving the professional’s right to seek a stay in court.

The Court noted that this interpretation avoids confusion and unfairness that could arise with different appeal periods for merits and sanction decisions, and maintains clarity about when a final decision is made and when an appeal period is triggered. The Court also emphasized the importance of fair treatment for regulated professionals, including access to interim relief pending the hearing tribunal’s final decision.

Outcome

The Court of Appeal concluded that a regulated professional subject to a mandatory interim suspension for sexual abuse under section 81.1(1) of the HPA may apply to the Court of King’s Bench for a stay of that suspension before the final sanction decision is issued. The Court’s decision resolves the statutory ambiguity and provides guidance for future disciplinary proceedings. As the appeal was moot, no further order was made regarding the specific parties, and no monetary amount was awarded or ordered in this decision. The ruling clarifies the law for all regulated professionals in Alberta under the HPA.