Public Notifications

1. Nature of Action: The Inquiry Committee of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (the “College”) conducted an investigation into the practice of Registrant Normand Joseph Richard (the “Registrant”), pursuant to section 33(4) of the Health Professions Act, RSBC 1996 c 183 (“HPA”).
   
   The Inquiry Committee and the Registrant have agreed to resolve all matters arising from the investigation by way of a Consent Agreement under section 36(1) of the HPA.
   
   The section 36(1) disposition is published pursuant to section 39.3(1)(b) and direction of the Inquiry Committee.
    
2. Effective date: January 20, 2026
    
3. Name of registrant: Normand Joseph Richard
    
4. Location of practice: Victoria, BC
    
5. Admissions and Acknowledgements: The Registrant acknowledges that the Inquiry Committee considered the following actions of the Registrant to be in contravention of applicable legislation, regulations, bylaws, and policies:
   1. The Registrant practiced outside of his scope as a pharmacist when he diagnosed and prescribed treatment for a variety of acute conditions, including traveller’s diarrhea, strep throat, skin infections, and pyelonephritis.
       
   2. On at least thirty-two (32) occasions, the Registrant provided emergency supplies of medications in a manner that contravened existing legislation.
       
   3. On at least two (2) occasions, the Registrant submitted claims via the Minor Ailments and Contraceptives Service (“MACS”) for medical conditions and medications that were outside of the scope of a pharmacist to diagnose and prescribe.
       
   4. The Registrant dispensed medication without an authorized prescription on at least one (1) occasion.
       
6. Disposition: The Registrant entered into a Consent Agreement with the College’s Inquiry Committee, wherein the Registrant consented to terms that include the following:
   1. To not provide or dispense any medications with himself listed as the prescribing practitioner for the purpose of an emergency supply for continuity of care, or MACS, until he has successfully completed requested learning activities and received confirmation from the College that this limit on his practice has been removed;
       
   2. To thoroughly read and review legislation, standards, and policies relevant to the conduct which this matter relates, and thereafter to submit a Declaration of Understanding to the College;
   3. To successfully complete, at his own cost, the College’s Jurisprudence Exam;
       
   4. To review and complete the Code of Ethics: Educational Tutorial by the College;
       
   5. To complete learning activities as directed by the College; and
       
   6. To receive a reprimand.
       
7. Rationale:
   The Inquiry Committee considered that the Registrant did not appear to understand his scope of practice as a pharmacist and failed to adhere to existing legislation that is in place to ensure safe pharmacy practice.
   
   The Inquiry Committee considered that the Registrant’s conduct appeared to demonstrate a pattern of practice that could pose an ongoing risk to public safety if not corrected. Additionally, the Inquiry Committee considered that the Registrant’s out-of-scope practice may diminish trust in the pharmacy profession from the public and other healthcare professionals.
   
   The Inquiry Committee also noted that the Registrant’s conduct did not appear to be driven by ill-intent or financial benefit and appeared to be primarily motivated by concern for the wellbeing of his patients. The Inquiry Committee considered this to be a mitigating factor in the Registrant’s conduct.
   
   Overall, the Inquiry Committee considered the terms of the Consent Agreement necessary to protect the public, to uphold the integrity of pharmacy practice, and to send a clear message of deterrence to the profession against conduct of a similar nature.

1. Nature of Action:The Inquiry Committee of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (the “College”) conducted an investigation into the practice of pharmacy technician Tri Khai Vien (the “Registrant”), pursuant to section 33(4) of the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183 (“HPA”).
    
   The Inquiry Committee and the Registrant have agreed to resolve all matters arising from the investigation by way of a Consent Agreement under section 36(1) of the HPA.
    
2. Effective date: November 20, 2025
    
3. Name of registrant: Tri Khai Vien
    
4. Location of Practice: Kelowna, BC
    
5. Admissions and Acknowledgements: The Registrant has admitted and/or acknowledged the following:
    
   1. On or about December 2023, the Registrant was reminded by his employer of his responsibilities for respectful conduct and personal space/boundaries.
   
   
   2. On September 25, 2024, the Registrant inappropriately touched and breached the personal space of a female co-worker when he touched their shoulders and kissed the top of their head. On numerous other occasions, the Registrant engaged in “unprofessional horseplay”, often of a sexually suggestive nature, with female co-workers.
   
   
   3. The Registrant admitted to the following:
       
      1. He gave his personal phone number to a female co-worker;
          
      2. He made inappropriate remarks and comments of a sexual nature in the presence of female co-workers;
          
      3. He referred to female co-workers by pet names;
          
      4. He breached the personal space and did not maintain professional boundaries with female co-workers;
          
      5. He engaged in behaviours (including physical contact) and made sexual remarks that his employer categorized as sexual harassment;
          
      6. He continued to make inappropriate comments and referred to female co-workers by pet names, despite receiving a ten-day suspension from his employer.
          
   4. The Registrant did not adhere to standards 6A, 7A, 7B, and 9I of the Code of Ethics. Therefore, the Inquiry Committee determined his conduct was unethical.
       
   5. The Registrant engaged in sexual misconduct as defined under section 26 of the HPA as he engaged in conduct that his employer categorized as sexual harassment.
       
   6. Disposition: The Registrant entered into a Consent Agreement with the College’s Inquiry Committee, wherein the Registrant consented to the following terms:
       
      1. To be suspended as a registrant of the College for 60 days from November 20, 2025 to January 19, 2026;
          
      2. To receive a letter of reprimand;
          
      3. To complete and pass an ethics course for healthcare professionals within 180 days of signing the Consent Agreement; and
          
      4. For a one-year period, to notify all current and future employers of the Inquiry Committee’s disposition of the investigation and public notification of the matter.
          
   7. Rationale:
      The Inquiry Committee determined that the Registrant engaged in behaviours that could undermine patients’ trust in registrants and society’s trust in the pharmacy profession. The Inquiry Committee categorized the Registrant’s conduct as professional misconduct of a sexual nature, and by extension, sexual misconduct and unethical.
       
      In reaching their decision on a disposition, the Inquiry Committee considered the Registrant’s lack of prior discipline history, his cooperation with the investigation, admissions and reflection to his conduct to be genuine and mitigating factors in its disposition. However, the Inquiry Committee ultimately determined that a suspension was appropriate to address the seriousness of the misconduct and the fact that the Registrant’s conduct continued despite receiving a ten-day suspension from his employer.
       
      The Inquiry Committee also considered similar cases reviewed in other jurisdictions. The Inquiry Committee recognized the similarities and differences between the Registrant’s conduct with these cases and determined that a two-month suspension is warranted and appropriate given the contributing mitigating and aggravating factors present in the matter.
       
      The Inquiry Committee considered the terms of the Consent Agreement necessary to protect the public, as well as send a clear message of deterrence to the profession.

The Inquiry Committee has approved a change to the pharmacist’s registration back to Full Pharmacist - Active status after they had previously been suspended for an indefinite period on July 9, 2025. The pharmacist registrant’s name has been withheld pursuant to s. 39.3(4) of the Health Professions Act.

July 9, 2025

The Inquiry Committee, pursuant to section 32.3(3)(b)(ii) of the Health Professions Act, has reached an Agreement with the pharmacist registrant to voluntarily suspend their registration as a pharmacist effective July 9, 2025. The Agreement remains in effect until further notice. The Inquiry Committee considers the Agreement necessary to protect the public. The pharmacist registrant’s name has been withheld pursuant to section 39.3(4)(a) of the Health Professions Act.

1. Nature of Action: The Inquiry Committee of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (the “College”) conducted an investigation into the practice of Samy Samir Farag Hanna (the “Registrant”), pursuant to section 33(4) of the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183 (“HPA”).

The Inquiry Committee and the Registrant agreed to resolve all matters arising from the investigation by way of a Consent Agreement under section 36(1) of the HPA.

2. Effective date: July 18, 2025

3. Name of registrant: Samy Samir Farag Hanna

4. Location of Practice: Prince George, BC

5. Admissions and Acknowledgments:
   The Inquiry Committee determined, and the Registrant has acknowledged that while practicing as a pharmacist and pharmacy manager, he:

1. Provided emergency supplies of methadone to a patient who had missed six (6) consecutive doses, which were determined to be inappropriate and did not meet the requirements outlined in Professional Practice Policy-31 – Emergency Supply for Continuity of Care.
2. Failed to notify the original prescriber of any missed methadone doses, or the cancellation of the patient’s methadone prescription after four (4) consecutive missed doses, contrary to the principles of Professional Practice Policy-66 – Policy Guide for Methadone Maintenance Treatment.
3. Did not ensure the correct practitioner’s credentials were transmitted to PharmaNet when processing prescription transactions for the patient.
4. Did not perform an adequate final check prior to dispensing methadone prescriptions for the patient.
5. Did not maintain adequate policies and procedures related to dispensing Opioid Agonist Treatment.

This incident was the fourth time that the Registrant’s practice has been the subject of an Inquiry Committee matter related to the inappropriate dispensing of OAT prescriptions. The Registrant had previously signed Consent Agreements, where he provided undertakings to remediate his practice to prevent recurrences of a similar nature.

6. Disposition:
   The Registrant entered into a Consent Agreement with the College’s Inquiry Committee, wherein the Registrant consented to terms that included (but are not limited to) the following:

1. To be limited from acting in the capacity of a pharmacy manager, or preceptor for pharmacy students for a period of 180 days from July 28, 2025 to January 24, 2026; 
2. To pay a fine of $500;
3. To, at his own cost, successfully complete and pass the “BCPhA Opioid Agonist Treatment Compliance and Management Program for Pharmacy” within 180 days of signing the Consent Agreement, and submit a certificate of completion to the College;
4. To not dispense any narcotic or controlled drug substance(s) intended for Opioid Agonist Treatment, until he has successfully completed the “BCPhA Opioid Agonist Treatment Compliance and Management Program for Pharmacy” and received confirmation from the College that this limit on his practice has been removed;
5. To receive a letter of reprimand, which will placed in the College register for a period of two (2) years;
6. To thoroughly review and read legislation, standards, and policies relevant to the conduct to which this matter relates; and
7. To thoroughly review and complete the Code of Ethics: Educational Tutorial.

7. Rationale:
   The Inquiry Committee determined that the Registrant’s actions did not appear to have been carried out with ill-intent and appeared to be out of concern for the patient’s well-being in a specific circumstance. However, his actions lacked objective consideration for patient safety given the clinical context and demonstrated a deficiency in his professional competence and judgment. The Inquiry Committee also considered that the Registrant’s conduct showed a disregard for his responsibilities as a pharmacist and pharmacy manager, especially given his previous undertakings to address similar practice concerns related to OAT dispensing.
   
   The Inquiry Committee considered the terms of the Consent Agreement necessary to protect the public, as well as send a clear message of deterrence to the profession.