Law360 Canada ( February 25, 2026, 9:46 AM EST) -- Appeal and cross-appeal by appellant and Alberta College of Pharmacy (College) from decisions of the Appeal Panel (Panel) concerning findings of unprofessional conduct against the appellant. The appellant faced allegations arising from complaints about cosmetic services, advertising and his response to an investigation. A Hearing Tribunal found nearly all allegations substantiated, imposed a 12-month suspension, fines and costs. On appeal, the Panel held that services provided for cosmetic purposes, such as polydioxanone (PDO) thread insertion, platelet-rich plasma injections and Botox, were not professional services under the Health Professions Act and reversed related findings. It upheld findings regarding acne treatment and misleading advertising, but quashed findings about the appellant’s response to the investigation. Sanctions were reduced to a reprimand, a fine, mandatory ethics training and $20,000 in costs. The appellant argued the Panel erred in upholding findings on acne prescriptions and advertising, asserting insufficient evidence and misinterpretation of Standards of Practice. The College cross-appealed, contending the Panel wrongly excluded cosmetic procedures from the practice of pharmacy, improperly limited regulatory authority and erred in overturning findings on the appellant’s conduct during the investigation. The issues included whether cosmetic procedures fell within the practice of pharmacy, whether findings on acne prescriptions and advertising were supported by evidence, and whether the appellant’s comments during the investigation constituted unprofessional conduct....