Shouhoud (Re)

A pharmacist-supervisor accessed a subordinate employee’s radiographic examination results on Netcare while refilling her prescriptions — after the employee had explicitly declined the offer. The adjudicator found contraventions of the Health Information Act and ordered safeguards to be implemented.

Background

The complainant was employed as a Beauty Boutique Manager at a drug store, where her supervisor was a pharmacist. The complainant underwent a medical radiographic examination, of which her supervisor was aware. While both were at work, the pharmacist asked whether she had received the results and offered to check them on Netcare. The complainant declined, stating that she wanted to be with her doctor when she received the results. Subsequently, while purportedly refilling the complainant’s prescriptions, the pharmacist accessed the examination results on Netcare and verbally disclosed to a nearby colleague that the results were “good” or “fine.”

The complainant also filed a complaint with the Alberta College of Pharmacy under the Health Professions Act. The College’s Hearing Tribunal found that the complaint was not proven on a balance of probabilities.

Issue

Did the pharmacist contravene the Health Information Act (HIA) by: (a) accessing the complainant’s health information on Netcare without authorization; and (b) disclosing that information to a colleague?

Decision

The adjudicator found that the pharmacist accessed the complainant’s health information on Netcare without proper authorization. The pharmacist’s assumption that the complainant wanted her prescriptions refilled did not constitute a valid health service under section 27(1)(a) of the HIA, as the complainant had not requested the service.

The adjudicator determined that the pharmacist disclosed the complainant’s health information to a colleague by verbally stating that her test results were “good” or “fine” in the colleague’s presence. This constituted health information under the HIA, as it related to the complainant’s diagnostic results.

The pharmacist failed to demonstrate that he had implemented adequate safeguards to protect the complainant’s health information. The presence of the colleague during the disclosure and the lack of administrative and physical safeguards indicated non-compliance with section 60 of the HIA. The pharmacist was ordered to cease unauthorized use and disclosure of health information and to implement the required safeguards.

Citation: 2026 CanLII 8085 (AB OIPC)