Court rejected the finding that he 'distributed' or 'sold' controlled drugs
The Alberta Court of Appeal has quashed the finding of unprofessional conduct against a veterinarian for allegedly distributing or selling controlled drugs.
In Sahi v Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2023 ABCA 368, a tribunal of the Alberta Veterinary Medical Association found Dr. Bikramjit Sahi guilty of eight counts of serious unprofessional conduct. The findings stemmed from Dr. Sahi's admission that he used large amounts of hydromorphone purchased as a registered veterinarian. Hydromorphone is a Schedule 1 controlled narcotic under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Registered veterinarians have professional and statutory obligations related to its handling.
Dr. Sahi elevated the case to the Alberta Court of Appeal, challenging three misconduct findings. He argued that the evidence did not support the findings and that the sanctions were unreasonable.
The central issue in the appeal revolved around Dr. Sahi's use of hydromorphone, which he had purchased in large amounts for his veterinary practice. Dr. Sahi admitted to personal use, but the tribunal found him guilty of dispensing hydromorphone in a manner not compliant with the association's guidelines. The court examined the guidelines and concluded that, in the context of the allegations and framing of the charges, the term "dispensed" could reasonably include supplying a controlled substance to oneself.
However, the court found an error in the tribunal's interpretation of the charge related to the distribution and sale of hydromorphone. The court said that the tribunal failed to consider whether the term "distributed and/or sold" could encompass personal use. Specifically, the court found that it was not clear that the allegation that Dr. Sahi "distributed and/or sold" hydromorphone was intended to capture personal use. The court referred to the case, stating, "It is a fundamental principle of professional disciplinary proceedings that the tribunal cannot find the member guilty based on matters not in the formal charges."
The court noted that the terms "distribute,” and "distribution" fall within the meaning of the word "sell" under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The court explained that in a criminal law context, there is no distribution when the narcotic is given to one person only for their personal use. The court noted from case law that "distribution means the allocation to a number of persons."
The court said it was unreasonable to conclude that the "distributed and/or sold" allegation in this case was intended to extend to, or could be proved by, Dr. Sahi's personal use. The court highlighted that the tribunal could not conclude that Dr. Sahi was "selling" the hydromorphone or giving it to someone else. Consequently, the court quashed the fining that Dr. Sahi "distributed and/or sold" hydromorphone "in amounts and/or in a manner that was not in accordance with the provisions of" the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Narcotic Control Regulations.
