Source: https://ddohealthlaw.com/2017/11/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:11:40+00:00

Document:
A weekly scan of new legislation and regulations important to the Ontario health sector, as well as articles of interest.
It is still under consideration of a Bill before the Standing Committee (General Government). Last consideration before the Committee was on November 22, 2017.
Ordered referred to Standing Committee on Justice Policy pursuant to the Order of the House on November 23, 2017.
The proposed amendments to O.REG 107/96 would allow for a period of time during which anyone may perform the controlled act of psychotherapy. The purpose of this exemption allows a transitional period for individuals who provide psychotherapy services to register with an appropriate regulatory College. At the end of the transitional period, individuals who have not registered with one of the relevant regulatory colleges will no longer be able to perform the controlled acts in the course of providing health care services to an individual unless it is done through legitimate delegation or subject to certain exceptions set out in the RHPA.
Social work and social service work students would also be allowed to perform the controlled act of psychotherapy under supervision, in the course of fulfilling requirements to become members of the profession. A similar provision exists for regulated health professions in the RHPA.
The Government of Canada intends to bring the proposed Cannabis Act into force no later than July 2018. To support implementation of the proposed Act, regulations would need to be enacted in a range of areas, such as cannabis product standards and packaging and labelling requirements, to ensure that the risks and harms of cannabis are appropriate addressed under the legal framework. Health Canada proposes to build on established regulatory requirements that have long been in place for current producers of cannabis for medical purposes or industrial hemp.
The purpose of this consultation paper is to solicit public input and views on the approach to these regulations. It is important that the public provide feedback as the draft regulations will not be pre-published to meet the July 2018 deadline.
Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (“CYFSA”).
Weed, cannabis, pot or marijuana: what’s the difference?
No new developments for previously reported Bills.
Second reading on November 2, 2017.
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently confirmed a health profession regulator’s authority to enact regulations in the public interest, even if no harm is occurring. In Sobey’s West v. College of Pharmacists of Alberta (2017 ABCA 36), Sobey’s sought judicial review of a College policy (incorporated into a regulation to give it the force of law) that prevented pharmacies, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians from offering inducements to clients that required the intervention of a pharmacist or pharmacy technician. Sobey’s acquired Safeway and continued Safeway’s policy of permitting Air Miles loyalty points to be collected by clients filling prescriptions at their pharmacy. While no complaints were made to the College about the loyalty points program, Sobey’s West sought judicial review of the policy, arguing that it curbed competition. At the time, Sobey’s West was challenging a similar policy in the court in British Columbia.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (the trial division in Alberta) found that the College’s policy was ultra vires (outside the authority of) the College. The Alberta Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge’s decision, indicating that the College has legislative authority to enact law that protects the public interest. Therefore, the policy prohibiting the collection of Air Miles loyalty points on prescription drug purchases was within the jurisdiction of the College. This decision is consistent with Sobey’s West v. College of Pharmacists of B.C. (2016 BCCA 41), where the B. C. Court of Appeal found a similar college policy was within the authority of the College to make (and reversed the B.C. trial division decision).
The reasoning of these decisions is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Health and Long‑Term Care) (2013 SCC 64), where the Supreme Court of Canada upheld provincial drug benefit legislation and regulations whose intent was to increase transparency in generic drug pricing on the grounds that the regulations were consistent with the stated purpose of the enabling legislation. The court explained, in a unanimous decision, that to be found ultra vires, regulations must be shown to be inconsistent with the objective of the enabling statue or the scope of the statutory mandate. The court noted that there is a presumption of validity regarding regulations, which means that the regulations should be reconciled with the enabling statute in manner that is possible to construe them as intra vires and that the onus of proving them ultra vires is on the challenger – not on the rule-maker to justify them. The court also makes a point of noting that it is not the court’s role to assess the policy merits of the rules nor the partisan, social, or economic issues that may have been the catalyst for their creation.
Does the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, together with the Supreme Court of Canada’s presumption of validity for regulations, imply that regulators have a wide berth to enact restrictive rules as a matter of public interest, and that such rules will be difficult to challenge on judicial review? While regulators do have considerable latitude to enact regulations as a matter of protecting the public, each challenge to a regulation will turn on the particular wording of the regulation or policy in question, and on the precise wording of the enabling statute. In the past, regulations preventing the charging of block fees by physicians were judged to be ultra vires the Medicine Act because the court found they were made for the purpose of preventing extra-billing rather than for protecting the public, thus departing from the statutory mandate. See: Szmuilowicz v. Ontario (Minister of Health), (1995) 125 D.L.R. (4th) 688 (Gen. Div.).
Similarly, regulations preventing dentists from advertising their services using content that was informational, accurate, and helpful to individuals choosing a dentist were struck down as contrary to the right to freedom of expression protected by the Charter: see Rocket v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, (1990) 71 D.L.R. (4th) 68 (S.C.C.).
In a third case, regulations preventing inactive physiotherapists from practising beyond their scope of practice were found by the court to be unauthorized: see Lefko v. College of Physiotherapists of Ontario, (1998) 116 O.A.C 86 (Div Ct).
These cases show that professional regulations are not impossible to successfully challenge.
Consequently, it is recommended that regulators, when seeking enactment of such rules into legislation, carefully draft the proposed rules to ensure that they are consistent with the regulator’s statutory mandate and do not exceed the scope of authority granted by the enabling legislation.
For help in drafting regulations for health professions, please feel free to get in touch: spalter@ddoheatlhlaw.com.
Introduced by Hon. Yasir Naqvi, Attorney General, the Bill was carried on Second Reading on November 2, 2017.
The purpose of the Act is to establish prohibitions respecting cannabis and to protect youth, public health and safety, and to deter illicit activities through appropriate enforcement and sanctions.
It is important to note that, subject to certain exceptions, the Act and regulations do not apply with respect to cannabis produced for medical purposes under applicable federal law.
The prohibitions set out that no person is permitted to sell cannabis other than Ontario cannabis retailers established under the Ontario Cannabis Retail Corporation Act, 2017 and that it may not be distributed unless it has been or is intended to be sold by an Ontario cannabis retailer.
Cannabis also CANNOT be sold to persons under the age of 19 or to persons who are or appear to be intoxicated. Persons under 19 years of age also cannot possess, consume, purchase or attempt to purchase, distribute, cultivate, propagate or harvest cannabis or offer to cultivate, propagate or harvest it.
There are also restrictions that prevent places where cannabis may be consumed and restricts method of transportation in a vehicle or boat, unless certain conditions are met.
request a person who attempts to rely on an exemption to provide specified confirmation of such exemption.
seize cannabis or any other thing in specified circumstances.
request that premises be vacated if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Act is being contravened on the premises and to restrict persons who are required to vacate from re-entering the premises on the same day.
temporarily close premises other than residential premises if a charge is laid under the Act.
arrest a person without a warrant in relation to apparent contraventions of the Act.
refer persons who are charged with prohibited activities by persons under 19 years of age to youth education or prevention programs that are approved.
Arrangements and agreements may be entered into with respect to the sale, distribution, purchase, possession, consumption, cultivation, propagation or harvesting of cannabis on a reserve.
Education Act: List of purposes of the code of conduct is amended to refer to discouraging the use of cannabis, except by a medical cannabis user; and amend list of activities leading to possible suspension.
Liquor License Act: The Act is amended to incorporate referrals to youth education or prevention programs under that Act, as a parallel to the corresponding provisions in the Cannabis Act.
The Act provides for the establishment of the Ontario Cannabis Retail Corporation (OCRC), which has the exclusive right to sell cannabis in Ontario subject to certain exceptions.
Appointment, composition and duties of the OCRC Board are provided for. An individual who is a member of the LCBO is eligible to be appointed as a member of the OCRC board, and if appointed does not have a conflict of interest simply because they are a member of the LCBO.
OCRC must enter into a MOU with the LCBO.
OCRC may make by-laws and the MOU with the LCBO may provide that the certain by-laws of the Corporation must be approved by the LCBO.
OCRC may enter into agreements with the LCBO.
OCRC may enter into agreements for the sale of cannabis by agents, if authorized by the Minister.
OCRC’s financial matters are to be audited annually by Auditor General.
Certain restrictions on the Corporation’s operations are established in connection with applicable federal law.
Complementary amendments are made to the Liquor Control Act to allow LCBO to oversee Ontario cannabis retailers established under the OCRCA, and enter into agreements with the retailers.
This new Act applies to tobacco products, vapour products and medical cannabis, and to other products and substances that may be prescribed in the regulations. For example, it is prohibited to sell or supply tobacco products, vapour products and prescribed products and substances to persons under 19.
This prohibition for consumption in certain places is subject to certain exemptions such as controlled use areas in long-term care homes and designated hotel rooms. Obligations are placed on employers and proprietors with respect to places where the prohibition apply.
The Act amends provisions as it relates to novice and young drivers regarding driving with alcohol or drugs present in the body. For example, if a novice or young driver is found to contravene the condition of not having drugs in the driver’s body while driving, they will be guilty of a fine between $60 to $500 dollars. A young driver’s license may also be suspended for 30 days, and license of an novice drive may be suspended, cancelled or changed in accordance with the regulation.
Other provisions of the Act are amended as well. For example, the maximum fine for contravention of the Act or regulation is increased from $500 to $1000.
It is important to note that subject to certain exceptions, the Act and regulations do not apply with respect to Cannabis produced for medical purposes under applicable federal law.
The prohibitions set out that no person is permitted to sell cannabis other than Ontario cannabis retailer established under the Ontario Cannabis Retail Corporation Act, 2017 and that it may not be distributed unless it has been or is intended to be sold by the Ontario cannabis retailer.
Cannabis cannot also NOT be sold to persons under age of 19 or to persons who are or appear to be intoxicated. Persons under 19 years of age also cannot possess, consume, purchase or attempt to purchase, distribute, cultivate, propagate or harvest cannabis or offer to cultivate, propagate or harvest it.
request that premises to be vacated if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Act is being contravened on the premises and to restrict persons who are required to vacate from re-entering the premises on the same day.
OCRC has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person except as limited in the Act or the regulations.
Appointment, composition and duties of the OCRC Board are provided for. An individual who is a member of the LCBO is eligible to appointed as a member of the OCRC board, and if appointed does not have a conflict of interest simply because they are a member of the LCBO. OCRC must enter into a MOU with the LCBO.
Other provisions of the Act is amended as well. For example, the maximum fine for contravention of the Act or regulation is increased from $500 to $1000.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.