Accused of selling fake vaccination proofs for money
A Montreal student pharmacist is accused of having sold hundreds of fake vaccination proofs for cash, via social media, during the height of the pandemic. This item says nothing about formal charges – and he’s still allowed to practice.
Joey 10:54 on 2025-06-13 Permalink
The story points out that the Order of Pharmacists cannot sanction a pharmacist member for actions undertaken while they were a student. I suppose this is probably for the best – I don’t think we would want professional orders to have jurisdiction over activities that did not occur while individual was a member of that order. The Order has, appropriately, sanctioned the pharmacist who enabled the fraud (committed by the student and anotherr – unnamed – individual), and will presumably sanction the fraudster once he’s convicted criminally, since they have the ability to sanction members who have committed criminal activity (the criminal inquiry is still ongoing).
Nicholas 11:35 on 2025-06-13 Permalink
Joey, it’s pretty common to have a good character requirement to join a professional order. Would we let a law student who committed legal fraud become a lawyer, or an engineer who committed engineering fraud become an engineer? This is not like the student was unaware of the specific ethical rules they hadn’t learned yet or taken an oath to: it’s like a non-engineer approving structural plans they have no right to approve, for cash. It could have killed someone. The least we can do is ensure that people who don’t sell away our safety for personal profit don’t get work in that field that requires ethics and public trust, and holds people’s lives in their hands. Would you want to be served by this pharmacist?
Joey 11:55 on 2025-06-13 Permalink
No, obviously not, but it sounds like when he became a member of the order he had not yet been flagged as a fraudster. The Order can’t (and, IMO, shouldn’t) investigate activity conducted by non-members (or by individuals prior to their membership) . The positive ‘loophole’ is that they can act on the basis of his eventual criminal conviction. Basically, once he’s proven to have committed fraud, he will fail the good character requirement. I guess my point is that the negative spin is really about the protocol of sanctioning a pharmacist, and not about the Order turning a blind eye or justice not being done.
Kate 12:02 on 2025-06-13 Permalink
He is accused of using the facilities of an existing pharmacy as a means for his fraud, and the article says he was in his fourth year of studies, so he may have been serving an internship. The terms of his internship would probably define the limits of his responsibility. (The Order might want to check out how carefully that pharmacy oversees their interns, too.)
Nicholas 14:58 on 2025-06-13 Permalink
I understand if the rules need changing, but if I were to go practise medicine or law tomorrow I would probably get in trouble with the Crown, but I would also expect that, even absent that, the Orders would, at a minimum, if, subsequent to my unethical behaviour, I joined the order and was able to legally practise medicine or law, investigate and sanction me as part of my subsequent membership in the Order. I don’t want someone who the Order has found practised medicine without a licence and committed fraud while doing it to be treating me unless that person has served their punishment and the Order’s sanctions committee has determined is able to practise again.
H. John 00:20 on 2025-06-14 Permalink
@Joey suggests that “the Order of Pharmacists cannot sanction a pharmacist member for actions undertaken while they were a student.” @Nicholas points out that ”it’s pretty common to have a good character requirement to join a professional order. Would we let a law student who committed legal fraud become a lawyer.”
On this one, I think Joey is wrong, and Nicholas is completely on point.
When applying to become a lawyer, like everyone else I had to complete a form which asked questions about my prior behaviour including did I have a criminal record, had I ever been sued, etc..
I checked a few of the boxes which meant I had to appear before a committee to explain why, amongst other things, I had had a complaint against me at the Quebec Human Right Commission for discrimination.
I had been an administrator responsible for a university’s legal information service (Dean of Students office). A student asked the office to provide a lawyer for them to deal with a minor incident in court. I explained that that was not a service the office provided – it only provided information.
The student went to the Rights Commission and complained that they had been discriminated against based on race.
I met with the Commission’s investigator, with the lawyer paid for by my employer at my side. After explaining that the student was complaining that we didn’t provide them with a service that we didn’t provide to anyone, she quickly said there was obviously no discrimination. She then went on to say she hoped I would understand that it would take a month or two before she issued a finding because she thought if she was too quick, the complainant would go after her.
It may seem frivolous, but at least the Bar took the time to look at who they were admitting. I would expect any professional order to do the same.
Joey 10:09 on 2025-06-14 Permalink
I’m just reporting what’s in the article:
L’OPQ indique de son côté que Mohammed-El Mahdi Zakaryaa demeure pharmacien. L’Ordre affirme qu’il ne peut pas sévir contre le vingtenaire parce qu’il n’était qu’un étudiant au moment des faits allégués.
«Par contre, si un pharmacien (donc un membre de l’Ordre) était reconnu coupable d’une infraction criminelle, nous pourrions décider de le radier, suspendre ou limiter son droit de pratique», précise Mme Villeneuve.
H. John 21:32 on 2025-06-14 Permalink
@Joey Sorry but you weren’t just reacting what the article wrote, you personally wrote “I don’t think we would want professional orders to have jurisdiction over activities that did not occur while individual was a member of that order.”
I think that’s what you got wrong.
The Journal de Montreal let the Order get away with saying that it wasn’t its responsibility. I think it was. Did the Order ask the appropriate questions concerning honesty before admitting him?
Professional orders like the Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec (OPQ) have a legal responsibility to protect the public. This obligation is laid out in the Professional Code, the law governing all professional orders in Quebec.
Their responsibility includes assessing the good character and suitability of applicants.
Before admitting a candidate, the order must:
Ensure the person is of good moral character, especially for professions involving public trust (like pharmacists);
Conduct background checks where necessary (criminal, disciplinary history in other jurisdictions);
Inquire into any past acts that could affect the candidate’s fitness to practise the profession (e.g., dishonesty, professional misconduct, incapacity).
OPQ application forms include declarations about honesty, criminal convictions, and past professional conduct.
If the complaint to UPAC is founded, then the Order will be required to decide if the applicant was completely truthful in completing his application.
But, in my opinion, they don’t have to wait for a finding of criminality. They should carry out their own investigation, and if he didn’t answer honestly when applying, they should act now.
“The board of directors may refuse to issue a permit to a person if the person has been guilty of an act derogatory to the dignity of the profession.”