Once suspended from medical school, N.S. man now disciplined by pharmacy regulator

A Nova Scotia man who was previously suspended from medical school, and has faced more than half a dozen criminal charges since 2014, isnow barred from resuming workas a pharmacist for at least as long as he continues to refuse requests from the profession's provincial regulator.

Following a hearing last fall, a committee of the Nova Scotia College of Pharmacists has found Stephen Gregory Tynes guilty of professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a pharmacist.

The hearing stems from Tynes's application to reactivate his pharmacy licence in 2017. He was first licensed in 2011 but left the profession in 2015 to attend medical school. His licence expired in 2016.

Regulations under Nova Scotia's Pharmacy Act require anyone applying for a pharmacy licence to disclose past criminal convictions, guilty pleas or outstanding charges. Tynes disclosed nothing of that kind when he applied in 2017, but the college knew he should have.

In 2015, when Tynes was a medical student at Dalhousie University, he was accused of threatening to kill an associate dean and her daughter, along with others.

Those charges were dropped, but Tynes pleaded guilty to a related weapons charge after police found a variety of guns and more than 1,800 rounds of ammunition during a search of his home.

"When he made application for resumption of practice, we recognized that we had been aware of charges certainly it was reported in the media, but he had not made those charges known to us," said college CEO and registrar Bev Zwicker.

Zwicker said it's college policy to ask for criminal records and send them to a hearing committee for review, and possible disciplinary action.

The college has been asking Tynes to provide a series of documents, including a current criminal record check, and transcripts from past court appearances, since 2018.

The court appearances were related to eight charges from five different occasions.

The charges are listed by the hearing committee as:

• 2014: One count of animal cruelty; later dropped by the Crown.
• 2015: Two counts of uttering threats and one count of threatening conduct; also later dropped by the Crown.
• 2015: Possession of a prohibited device (an over-capacity magazine); Tynes pleaded guilty in 2016 and was granted conditional discharge and a five-year ban on firearms.
• 2016: One count of assault; Tynes pleaded guilty and was granted conditional discharge in 2017.
• 2017: one count of attempted theft and two counts of breach of probation; Tynes was found not guilty in 2018.

Questioning on past charges

The 2014 animal cruelty charge was related to the death of a cat. When he was accused of theft in 2017, the allegation came from a neighbour who said Tynes tried to steal a cat.

The assault charge in 2016 was for an alleged sexual assault dating back to 2013.

The college's intent was to hold a hearing once Tynes had provided the requested documents, at which time Tynes would be questioned.

According to the hearing committee's report signed by chair Susan Mahar on Jan. 25, 2021 Tynes has failed to produce any of the requested documents since they were first ordered.

In 2019, Tynes alleged there was a conflict of interest on the hearing committee (the details of which are not given in the decision), which the hearing committee dismissed.

But Tynes's apparent distrust of the process seems to have persisted.

In preparing for the latest hearing last fall, the committee emailed Tynes and Scott Sterns, a lawyer for the college, in October about possible hearing dates in November and December.

Sterns responded by saying the college would be available for the date in November. Tynes responded by rejecting the whole process.

Tynes blocks communication from the college

"Given the results of the last meeting, my suspicions have been confirmed. Clearly the Hearing Committee is merely a puppet for Mr. Sterns and the College," Tynes said by email, as quoted in the decision.

"As such, I no longer wish to receive any correspondence from you, Mr.Sterns, the College, or members of the Hearing Committee."

Tynes also said he had blocked email addresses of all the parties involved in the hearing, and changed his own mailing address.

He wrote that he would consider any further correspondence as threatening, and evidence of criminal harassment. He said he would go to the police if he was contacted again.

The hearing committee decided to carry on without Tynes, as they had told him that they would if he didn't agree to either of the dates that were offered. Mahar said in her decision that the committee has not had any contact with Tynes since his last email.

An 'unacceptable impasse'

The hearing committee said Tynes's refusal to participate brought the proceeding to "an unacceptable impasse" that could undermine the college's function as a regulatory body, and "impair public confidence in the profession of pharmacy."

"For these reasons this Hearing Committee finds that Mr. Tynes has engaged in conduct unbecoming of a registrant. We also find that Mr. Tynes' failure to produce documents and engage with this process is disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional and as a result constitutes professional misconduct," the decision said.

The committee concluded that Tynes cannot apply for a pharmacy licence until he produces the documents requested by the college.

Zwicker said the college no longer considers Tynes's application to reactivate his licence to be active.

"For us this matter is resolved to the point that until he is co-operative, the ball is in his court."

Tynes contacted CBCseveral days after this article wasfirst publishedto dispute the college's account. He said he would have produced the criminal record check and court transcripts, but he felt the college had overreached in its order for additional documentsrelated to his past charges.

Tynes argued that because enough time has passed since his guilty pleas, which resulted in conditional discharges, for his criminal record to be considered clear, the college does not have a right to ask for the documents.