Case: Ontario College of Pharmacists v.
1724665 Ontario Inc. (Global Pharmacy Canada)
Drug: Generic prescription drugs from India sold in the United States
Nature of case: Injunction Application pursuant to the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act
Successful party: Ontario College of Pharmacists
Date of decision: June 10, 2013
Global Pharmacy Canada ("GPC") is an online prescription drug retailer that sells drugs sourced in India to customers in the United States. GPC is a Belize company, but has a contractual agreement with an Ontario corporation located in Mississauga, RX Processing Services Inc. ("RXP Ontario"), which takes customer orders, processes payments for drugs, and ensures that the orders are filled in India and shipped to customers. The drugs never enter Canada. The Ontario College of Pharmacists ("the College") is entrusted with regulating and policing the retail sale of prescription drugs in Ontario. The College applied for and obtained an injunction preventing GPC from selling prescription drugs from any location in Ontario and to stop using the terms "pharmacy", "pharmacist", "drug", or "drugs" in relation to their business.
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently heard GPC's appeal of the injunction order. The two issues on appeal were whether GPC was selling prescription drugs, by retail, in Ontario, and whether GPC was subject to the College's jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that GPC was selling drugs in Ontario, and that GPC was subject to the College's jurisdiction.
The Statutory Framework
The Court stated that three Ontario statutes regulate pharmacists, pharmacies, and the retail sale of prescription drugs in Ontario: the Pharmacy Act, the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act, and the Regulated Health Professions Act. This framework requires that all retail pharmacies be accredited and owned by registered pharmacists. The College polices these requirements in a manner that best serves and protects the public interest. In doing so, the College alleged that GPC was selling drugs without being an authorized health professional, was operating a pharmacy without accreditation, and was selling prescription drugs without a valid prescription, among others.
The Sale of Prescription Drugs in Ontario
GPC argued that it was not selling drugs in Ontario, as all significant aspects of its business involved activities outside of Ontario. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument and upheld the application judge's finding that GPC was selling drugs in Ontario. Rather than adopt a strict commercial definition of "sale", the Court applied a purposive approach to determine the issue. Given the College's duty to serve and protect the public interest, the Court stated that it was the "substance, and not the form, which is relevant when determining whether the sale of prescription drugs takes place in Ontario." Because all GPC documentation contained the Mississauga address, and RXP conducted critical aspects of the sale transaction, the Court found it was clear that the substance of the sale transaction took place through RXP in Ontario.
The College's Jurisdiction
GPC also argued that there were "few and relatively insignificant points of contact" between GPC and Ontario, and as such, it was not subject to the College's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument and upheld the application judge's finding that the College properly exercised its jurisdiction based on the sufficient connection between Ontario and GPC. The connection was based on the factual findings that the organizational distinctions between RXP and GPC were blurred. In fact, the Court found that RXP served as GPC's agent, or its "sales force", in matters relating to GPC's business.
The Court of Appeal also rejected GPC's submission that the College was "overreaching" by assuming jurisdiction over GPC. The Court found the College was fulfilling its legislated duty "to serve and protect the public interest", and that "[t]he College's reach is not defined as, or limited to, the Ontario public." Finally, the Court noted "[i]n the domain of pharmaceutical drugs, reputation is based on regulation. If a company trades on Ontario's reputation for quality and strong regulatory standards, and sites [sic] a critical part of the sale process in Ontario, it will be subject to Ontario's regulation."
Link to decision:
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Norton Rose Fulbright is a global legal practice. We provide the world's pre-eminent corporations and financial institutions with a full business law service. We have more than 3800 lawyers based in over 50 cities across Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.
Recognized for our industry focus, we are strong across all the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy; infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; and life sciences and healthcare.
Wherever we are, we operate in accordance with our global business principles of quality, unity and integrity. We aim to provide the highest possible standard of legal service in each of our offices and to maintain that level of quality at every point of contact.
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc) and Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, each of which is a separate legal entity, are members ('the Norton Rose Fulbright members') of Norton Rose Fulbright Verein, a Swiss Verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein helps coordinate the activities of the Norton Rose Fulbright members but does not itself provide legal services to clients.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.