Statements Draw Reprimand And Fine

The Quebec Disciplinary Board has found misconduct and imposed a sanction based on the following complaint:

The complaint is worded as follows:

1.          In Longueuil and Montreal, from or around June 9, 2011 to or around August 4, 2011, on three occasions, prepared (or had prepared) and/or transmitted (or authorized the transmission of) statements and/or information to the Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec (OPQ) to the effect that Mr. JYP was not/no longer co-owner with Mr. FXM of the pharmacy located on HB Boulevard in Montreal, knowing or ought to have known that this information was false, thereby contravening the provisions of section 4.02.01d) of the Code of Ethics of Lawyers (as it then read – re: RLRQ, c. B-1, r.3) and section 59.2 of the Professional Code ;
2.          In Longueuil and Sherbrooke, on or around September 6, 2012, falsely represented to his colleague, Me LRB, that ID was the only buyer of the pharmacies located on C. and St-J. streets in Granby, knowing or should  have known that this information was false, thereby contravening the provisions of sections 4.02.01 d) and 4.03.03 of the  Code of Ethics of Lawyers  ( as they then read – re: RLRQ, c. B-1, r.3 ) and section 59.2 of the  Professional Code ;

Findings

 In order to comply with J.-Y. Perreault’s instructions , the respondent sent inaccurate letters and statements to the OPQ confirming that J.-Y. Perreault was not one of the shareholders of the company acquiring the pharmacy referred to in count 1, even though he knew that J.-Y. Perreault was one of them by nominee agreement.

As a result, the respondent misleads the OPQ and hinders it in its mission of protecting the public.

The OPQ syndic’s office discovered the illicit maneuvers of its members relating to nominee agreements and multiple investigations were opened targeting eleven pharmacists, including J.-Y. Perreault. Complaints were filed and heavy fines of up to $7,500 were imposed on the majority of the offending pharmacists.

Under count 2, and still in order to comply with J.-Y. Perreault’s instructions , the respondent transmitted false information to the lawyer Mr. LRB, representing the sellers of the two pharmacies, confirming to him that the pharmacist Isabelle Dupont was the sole purchaser of the latter, while he knew that J.-Y. Perreault was the co-purchaser of the said pharmacies by nominee agreements.

A fine was imposed on the first count and a public reprimand on the second charge.