Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Ankit Parikh, a registered pharmacist and pharmacy licensee, was found guilty of five instances of unprofessional conduct — including sexual abuse and misconduct — by a hearing tribunal of the Alberta College of Pharmacy.
   
• Central to the appeal was whether the amended Health Professions Act provisions on sexual abuse, which came into force on April 1, 2019, were properly applied to conduct that also predated those amendments.
   
• Credibility was a determinative issue, with the hearing tribunal resolving conflicting accounts between the appellant and the complainants in large part through its analysis of text messages exchanged in December 2019 and January 2020.
   
• Parikh argued that text messages relied upon by the hearing tribunal had only been entered as an exhibit for identification and were not properly before the tribunal for use in reaching its decision.
   
• On costs, the Court of Appeal found it appropriate to vary the costs orders of the hearing tribunal and the council in accordance with principles recently set out in Charkhandeh v College of Dental Surgeons of Alberta, 2025 ABCA 258.
   
• Both the substantive appeal and the costs appeal were addressed, with the former dismissed and the latter allowed in part.

Facts of the case

Ankit Parikh was a registered member of the Alberta College of Pharmacy and the licensee of a pharmacy in a small town in Alberta. In March 2020, a former employee who was also a patient of Parikh (Individual A) filed a complaint alleging sexual abuse and misconduct. During the investigation, the complaints director identified three additional individuals — Individual B, Individual C, and Individual D — who were also both patients and employees of the appellant and who may have similarly been subjected to his inappropriate behaviour. A Notice of Hearing dated July 7, 2022 listed six allegations of unprofessional conduct. Individual A, Individual B, and Individual C testified during the hearing; Individual D did not appear despite being issued a notice to attend.

On November 24, 2023, the hearing tribunal issued its Merits Decision finding Parikh guilty of five instances of unprofessional conduct: (a) sexual abuse of Individual A, including using his body to block her against a fridge, threatening to rape her if she did not have intercourse with him, and engaging in non-consensual sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions between October 2018 and September 2019; (b) sexual misconduct towards Individual A, including approaching her and telling her he wanted a kiss and that he masturbated to the thought of her; (c) sexual abuse of Individual B, including asking her to perform oral sex on him for an advance on her paycheque and engaging in sexual intercourse with her without her consent on multiple occasions; (d) breaching his duties as a licensee by causing Individual C to feel uncomfortable through repeatedly staring at the nametag on her chest; and (e) repeatedly consuming alcohol on the pharmacy premises while it was open to patients and while he was the pharmacist in charge.

On April 4, 2024, the hearing tribunal issued its Sanctions Decision, cancelling Parikh's practice permit and registration, fining him $5,000.00, and requiring him to pay 75% of the costs of the investigation and hearing. On October 3, 2024, a Panel of Council of the Alberta College of Pharmacy dismissed Parikh's appeal of the Merits and Sanctions decisions (Appeal Decision). On November 27, 2024, the council issued a further decision requiring Parikh to pay 100% of the costs of the appeal, up to a maximum of $40,000.00 (Appeal Costs Decision). Parikh appealed both council decisions to the Court of Appeal of Alberta.

Policy, legislative, and statutory provisions at issue

The appeal engaged provisions of the Health Professions Act, RSA 2000, c H-7 (HPA), as amended by An Act to Protect Patients, SA 2018, c 15, which came into force on April 1, 2019. The amendments introduced a definition of "sexual abuse" under s 1(1)(nn.1) of the HPA as "the threatened, attempted or actual conduct of a regulated member towards a patient that is of a sexual nature," including sexual intercourse between a regulated member and a patient. The amendments also provided under ss 45(3)(a), 81.1, and 82(1.1)(a) that a regulated person's permit and registration must be cancelled if findings of unprofessional conduct based on sexual abuse are established. Parikh challenged the application of these amended provisions, arguing they should not apply to conduct predating April 1, 2019, and that the Notice of Hearing did not distinguish between pre- and post-amendment conduct. The admissibility and use of text messages exchanged between Individual A and the appellant in December 2019 and January 2020 was also at issue, with Parikh arguing they had been entered for identification only and were not properly before the tribunal for substantive reliance.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court of Appeal reviewed the council's Appeal Decision and Appeal Costs Decision on appellate standards, applying the framework from Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 and Alsaadi v Alberta College of Pharmacy, 2021 ABCA 313.

On the statutory regime issue, the Court found that the Notice of Hearing clearly alleged non-consensual sexual intercourse with Individual A on multiple occasions between October 2018 and September 2019, and that the hearing tribunal's finding of post-April 1, 2019 conduct was supported by Individual A's testimony that the non-consensual intercourse occurred multiple times a week from April 2019 through September 2019. The amended HPA provisions applied beginning in April 2019, and it was open to the tribunal to find that the regular non-consensual intercourse during that period constituted "sexual abuse" under the amended HPA. The Court also noted that Parikh had raised his arguments regarding the HPA amendments and adequacy of the Notice of Hearing for the first time before the Court of Appeal, and that it was incumbent on him to have raised those arguments before the hearing tribunal and council first.

On credibility, the hearing tribunal's findings turned substantially on its resolution of conflicting accounts provided by the appellant and the complainants. The text messages exchanged between Individual A and Parikh in December 2019 and January 2020 were considered by the tribunal not to determine the truth of the sexual misconduct allegations, but to reject Parikh's assertion that Individual A had recently fabricated those allegations in response to his efforts to recover debts she owed to the pharmacy. The tribunal found Parikh's evidence regarding the text messages was not credible and made adverse credibility findings against him generally. The Court of Appeal rejected Parikh's characterization that the tribunal and council drew unsupportable generalizations, finding instead that they had provided detailed explanations for the inferences drawn. The Court further declined to reweigh the evidence, noting that the appellant's arguments effectively invited the appellate court to substitute its own assessment — which is not the role of an appellate court.

On the admissibility of the text messages, the Court found that the HPA, s 79(5) provides that "[e]vidence may be given before the hearing tribunal in any manner that it considers appropriate, and it is not bound by the rules of law respecting evidence applicable to judicial hearings." The text messages were initially introduced in a joint exhibit book at the outset of the hearing and subsequently introduced through witnesses in direct examination and put to the appellant in cross-examination. The Court found no procedural unfairness or substantive error in the tribunal's treatment of the documentary evidence and concluded the appellant's objection was based on an erroneous assertion that the documents had not been formally admitted.

On costs, the Court noted that since the hearing tribunal and council's costs decisions were released, the Court of Appeal had modified some of the applicable principles in Charkhandeh. The respondent provided records to substantiate the quantum of costs and proposed specific reductions to the amounts initially ordered; the appellant agreed to the proposed reductions. The Court found it appropriate to vary the costs orders of both the hearing tribunal and the council in accordance with the respondent's proposal dated April 17, 2026, pursuant to s 92(1)(b) of the HPA.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court of Appeal dismissed the substantive appeal in its entirety, upholding the council's confirmation of the hearing tribunal's findings of unprofessional conduct, the cancellation of Parikh's practice permit and registration, the $5,000.00 fine, and the requirement to pay 75% of the costs of the investigation and hearing. The appeal of the costs decisions was allowed in part: the costs orders of both the hearing tribunal and the council were varied in accordance with the respondent's proposal, with the exact quantum of the varied amounts not specified in the decision. The Alberta College of Pharmacy was the successful party on the substantive appeal.