STAY CONNECTED: Have the stories that matter most delivered every night to your email inbox. Subscribe to our daily local news wrap.
(Photo Credit: Alberta College of Pharmacy)
By Nathaniel Leigh
Medical

Alberta College of Pharmacy tribunal suspends Grande Prairie pharmacist

Mar 19, 2025 | 2:40 PM

A pharmacist that previously operated in Grande Prairie has been suspended for 30 months for unprofessional conduct.

Emery Ostrosky’s suspension, along other sanctions, were ordered by a Hearing Tribunal for the Alberta College of Pharmacy after they were found to have committed several offences.

Ostrosky was found to have stolen from his pharmacy employer, diverted drugs for a close personal friend, family members and himself in the absence of valid prescription, forged prescriptions, and created false transaction records while practising as a pharmacist.

The tribunal says Ostrosky’s actions had, in part, breached his obligations to ACP, created the potential for patient harm, and undermined the integrity of the profession.

Ostrosky accepted responsibility for his conduct and did not substantively dispute the allegations.

Sanctions ordered by the Tribunal are as follows:

  • A suspension of Ostrosky’s practice permit for a period of 30 months, with the suspension to occur from January 7, 2025, to July 7, 2027 (Note Ostrosky’s practice permit has been subject to conditions since April 12, 2022, imposed as a result of the allegations in this matter);
  • Ostrosky must successfully pass the Centre for Personalized Education for Professional’s Probe Course at his own cost, and satisfactorily complete ACP’s Ethics & Jurisprudence Exam, prior to the suspension being lifted;
  • Before reinstating his registration, Ostrosky must complete all ACP registration requirements;
  • Upon reinstating, Ostrosky’s practice permit to be subject to practising under direct supervision for a minimum of 500 hours and he must advise the licensee and proprietor of any pharmacy in which he is employed of the Hearing Tribunal’s decisions for five years;
  • Ostrosky is prohibited from being an owner, proprietor, or licensee of a pharmacy for 10 years;
  • A $5,000 fine;
  • 25 per cent of the costs of the investigation and hearing (total costs approximately $75,000);
  • The Hearings Director to provide a copy of its written decisions and the record of hearing to the Minister of Justice.

Rationale for the Tribunal’s decision is reflected in its following statements from its September 12, 2024, decision:

  • The public would expect that when providing a prescription to a patient, a pharmacist would only do so when a valid prescription exists, and that a pharmacist would be careful, in each instance, to check the validity of the prescription and to ensure that it is not expired.
  • The public would expect that any patient receiving a prescription from a pharmacist would be paying the proper amount for that drug, and not receiving some of those drugs for free by the pharmacist manipulating the system and diverting drugs for free. This demonstrated an overt lack of judgement on the part of Mr. Ostrosky and a complete disregard for the manner in which drugs are recorded and dispensed in Alberta.
  • The public would be very concerned to know that a regulated pharmacist would be able or willing to conceal the diversion of drugs by replacing the proper tablets with another tablet. The public expects pharmacists to have respect for the integrity of the medications being prescribed, and to be careful about where pills are stored, and the possibility of the wrong tablets being dispensed.
  • Mr. Ostrosky knew, or should have known, that no prescriptions should be entered into a system if the prescriber has not authorized it – either verbally or with a written prescription. His justification, that [the doctor] had an agreement with him that he could prescribe at his own discretion, made no sense to the Hearing Tribunal and was, frankly, not credible.
  • Pharmacists are required by their Code of Ethics to only dispense medications to family and close friends in very narrow circumstances, and only if it meets one of the exceptions set out in the Code of Ethics. The reason for this rule is to ensure objectivity and impartiality in the profession, and to allow patients to have neutral and professional care.
by Nathaniel Leigh