Ontario's Divisional Court has criticized a pharmacy regulator's suggestion that it might investigate pharmacists over documents their lawyer filed in a Saskatchewan court, but refused to interrupt the ongoing Ontario investigation.
In El Kabbani v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, 2026 ONSC 5820, dated October 14, 2026, Justice Schreck quashed the pharmacists' judicial-review application as premature. He found no exceptional circumstances warranting court intervention before the administrative process had run its course.
The judge described the suggestion in the regulator's February letter as inappropriate and ill advised. But he also emphasized that no investigation had been opened because of the court filing, and that the College's counsel at the hearing had expressly withdrawn the comment. The Ontario College of Pharmacists clarified that it would not investigate the applicants for tendering those documents in Saskatchewan.
An investigation spanning two provinces
The applicants were pharmacists Mayada El Kabbani, Mohamed Aga, Tamer Elokda and Ahmed Hassan. The Ontario investigation began in April 2025 after the Saskatchewan College of Pharmacy Professionals supplied information about a high-risk compounding pharmacy in Regina that they operated and alleged non-compliance with registration requirements.
Those were allegations underlying a regulatory investigation, not findings of misconduct by the Divisional Court. As of the reasons, Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee had not decided whether to refer the matter to a Discipline Committee.
The Ontario committee approved the appointment of investigators on April 29, 2025. The pharmacists received notice on May 2 and an investigative report on July 21. They sought judicial review in January 2026 to quash the decision to begin and continue the investigation and obtain declarations.
Meanwhile, El Kabbani and Aga had started a separate judicial-review proceeding in Saskatchewan in October 2025. Their supporting material included documents from the Ontario investigative report.
A document dispute and a withdrawn comment
On February 5, 2026, an earlier lawyer for the Ontario College, not the counsel who appeared at this hearing, wrote to the applicants' lawyer. The letter relied on an Ontario statutory restriction on using regulatory records in civil proceedings and asserted that the documents filed in Saskatchewan were inadmissible.
It went further, suggesting that the College might open an investigation and consider other legal recourse unless the lawyer removed documents relating to the College matter from the affidavit.
The pharmacists filed a second judicial-review notice in March concerning the letter. Their lawyers said this was to preserve their rights, and the two notices were treated as one application.
Schreck accepted that counsel could state a legal position about admissibility. What was inappropriate was suggesting the clients might be investigated if their lawyer disagreed about which documents could be filed. The judge also said the Ontario evidence restriction did not apply to proceedings in another province.
Still, no new investigation followed the filing. The comment was withdrawn at the hearing, and the College clarified its position. Whether the documents were admissible under Saskatchewan law was for the Saskatchewan Court of King's Bench to decide.
Why the challenge was too early
The College asked the court to quash the application as premature or, alternatively, because it was filed outside the usual 30-day judicial-review period. The pharmacists acknowledged the general rule against judicial review during an investigation but argued their case was exceptional.
The court explained that intervention before an administrative process finishes is reserved for very rare circumstances. Allowing that process to run its course avoids fragmented proceedings and unnecessary costs and gives a reviewing court the benefit of the regulator's findings and a complete record.
On this motion, the question was whether it was plain and obvious that no exceptional circumstances justified immediate review. Schreck concluded that standard was met.
The pharmacists argued that the Ontario College had persuaded its Saskatchewan counterpart to recast a complaint as a report, thereby denying protections associated with the complaint process. They pointed to requirements for notice within 14 days and dealing with complaints within 150 days, and to a potential remedy before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board for delay.
Schreck did not rule that every step of the investigation was proper. Relying on the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Abdul, he explained that a registrar-initiated investigation is not automatically prohibited merely because the matter began as a complaint. Whether proceeding that way causes unfairness depends on prejudice to the member.
If the matter is referred for discipline, the pharmacists can raise those concerns before the Discipline Committee, including their argument that the February letter tainted the investigation. If unsuccessful, they can seek judicial review with the benefit of a fuller record. The court found the letter did not justify bypassing that process now.
Saskatchewan remedies and the outcome
The pharmacists also alleged that the Ontario College had unfairly assisted the Saskatchewan regulator, including through disclosure decisions and the investigation itself. Schreck held that any remedy for unfairness in the Saskatchewan process had to come from the Saskatchewan tribunal or court. Ontario's Divisional Court had no jurisdiction over that regulator.
The court quashed the judicial-review application under both file numbers. Because prematurity disposed of it, Schreck did not need to decide the request for an extension of time. The ruling was not a dismissal for missing the filing deadline.
The applicants must pay the Ontario College $8,000 in agreed costs, including taxes and disbursements. That is a litigation-costs award, not a regulatory fine.
The decision leaves the investigation in place without deciding misconduct, imposing a licensing sanction or endorsing every investigative act. It also makes clear that the court's criticism of counsel's letter did not, on these facts and after its withdrawal, justify immediate judicial review.
