Complaints

2016 Code Complaints

Company A vs Company B

Summary: Company A alleged that Company B’s patient support programs violate Guiding Principles 2, 3, 8, as well as sections 2.1 (Privacy of Patient Information), 14.1.1 (Patient Support Programs), 14.2.2 (Ensure integrity of the industry), and 14.2.3 (Conflict of Interest) of the Innovative Medicines Canada Code of Ethical Practices (the “Code”).
Status: No Infraction
Breach: No Breach
Complaint Completed: December 20, 2016
IPRC Decision

Company C vs Company D

Summary: Company C alleged that Company D’s patient support programs violate Guiding Principles 2, 3, 8, as well as sections 2.1 (Privacy of Patient Information), 14.1.1 (Patient Support Programs), 14.2.2 (Ensure integrity of the industry), and 14.2.3 (Conflict of Interest) of the Innovative Medicines Canada Code of Ethical Practices (the “Code”).
Status: No Infraction
Breach: No Breach
Complaint Completed: December 20, 2016
IPRC Decision

Company X vs Company Y

Summary: Company X alleged that Company Y’s patient support programs violate Guiding Principles 2, 3, 8, as well as sections 2.1 (Privacy of Patient Information), 14.1.1 (Patient Support Programs), 14.2.2 (Ensure integrity of the industry), and 14.2.3 (Conflict of Interest) of the Innovative Medicines Canada Code of Ethical Practices (the “Code”).
Status: No Infraction
Breach: No Breach
Complaint Completed: December 20, 2016
IPRC Decision

2015 Code Complaints

Company X vs Company Y

Summary: Company X alleged that Company Y induced a group purchasing organization’s members’ physicians by providing inappropriate incentives as part of signing a purchasing agreement in contravention of guiding principle #8 and section 12.2.4.
Status: No Infraction
Breach: No Breach
Appeal: No Appeal
Complaint Completed: April 2, 2015
IPRC Decision

2013 Code Complaints

There were no IPRC decisions for this year.

2012 Code Complaints

Individual X, Patient Group Member vs. Company Y

Summary: Complainant alleged that Company Y engaged in disguised marketing to patient group members in contravention of Section 12 (Market Research) of the Code of Ethical Practices.
Status: No Infraction
Breach: No Breach
Appeal: No Appeal
Complaint Completed: March 20, 2012
IPRC Decision

2011 Code Complaints

Purdue Pharma vs. Janssen

Summary: Allegation that the Janssen voucher program re:
Nucynta Cr and Jurnista (the Janssen voucher program) violates Guiding Principle 1 of the Rx&D Code of Ethical Practices (Code). Guided by the Appeal Panel decision (Purdue Pharma vs. Mr. Ken Burns, Pharmacist) the Industry Practices Review Committee (IPRC) determined that the Janssen voucher program contravenes Guiding Principle 1 of the Code.
Breach: Guiding Principle # 1
Appeal: No Appeal
Complaint Completed: October 20, 2011
Status: Infraction
IPRC Decision

Company X (non-member) v. Company Y Inc. re: Product Z (generic)

Summary: That Company Y violated the Code of Ethical Practices in connection to its campaign (Study 123) to create the false impression among Canadian Health Care Professionals that generic Product Z is less safe, less pure and less effective than its brand Product A.
Breach: No Breach
Appeal: No Appeal
Complaint Completed: October 20, 2011
Status: No infraction

2010 Code Complaints

Company X vs. Company Y

Complaint Withdrawn: the complaint was to have been heard and adjudicated by the IPRC. However, before the meeting Rx&D received a written notification from Company Y withdrawing the complaint. Therefore, the matter was not discussed by the IPRC and Rx&D has closed the file.
Breach: No Breach
Appeal: No appeal
Complaint Completed:
September 8, 2010
Status: Complaint withdrawn

Servier Canada Inc. vs. Mr. Gabriel Baddour, Pharmacist

Summary: Allegation that a Servier sales representative made inappropriate comments regarding potential safety concerns associated with prescribing a generic competitor. The IPRC believes that one or more violations of Section 8 (Role of the Representative) have occurred.
Breach: Breaches section 8
Appeal: No appeal
Complaint Completed: September 8, 2010
Status: Infraction

Company X vs. HCP Y

Summary: Allegation that Company X was promoting a drug for a use that is not stated on the Product Monograph and this in turn contravenes a guiding principle of the Code.
Breach: No Breach
Appeal: No appeal
Complaint Completed:
April 28, 2010
Status: No infraction

2009 Code Complaints

Company X vs. Company Y

Summary: The program at issue is a patient support program created by a Member to assist with the health of patients with a particular disease condition. The allegation is that this program contravened Sections 1, 9.1, 11.1 and 11.3 of the Code of Ethical Practices.
Breach: No Breach
Appeal: No appeal
Complaint Completed: October 14, 2009
Status: No infraction

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals vs. Eli Lilly Canada

Summary: Allegation that an advisory board held by Wyeth was in contravention of Section 13 of the Code of Ethical Practices. The IPRC believes that there has been an infraction of Section 13.
Breach: section 13
Appeal: No appeal
Complaint Completed: October 14, 2009
Status: Infraction

2008 Code Complaints

Servier Canada Inc. vs. Abbott Laboratories, Limited

Summary: Advertising Promotion for Coversyl. Referred by the Pharmaceutical Advertising Advisory Board (PAAB) The promotional material in question constituted a violation of the PAAB Code that should also be considered as an infraction of the Rx&D Code (Section 2.2.)
Breach: Section 11
Appeal: No appeal
Complaint Completed: September 15, 2008
Status: The IPRC was sufficiently concerned by the infraction of the PAAB Code by the member that they considered that it should also be deemed to be an infraction of the Rx&D Code.

Schering-Plough Canada vs. Nycomed Canada

Summary: Omnaris Prescription Sticker Dispenser
Breach: Section 11
Appeal: No appeal
Complaint Completed:
September 15, 2008
Status: Nycomed is not currently a member of Rx&D, having resigned in June 2008. Had Nycomed been a member, this infraction would have been its first infraction for the calendar year, and accordingly a $10,000 fine would have been applicable under Section 15.4.

Amgen vs. Schering-Plough Canada (referral from PAAB)

Summary: Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Remission Journal Ad
Breach: Section 2.2
Appeal: No appeal
Complaint Completed: September 15, 2008
Status: Under Section 15.4 of the Code, this is Schering’s first Code infraction this calendar year. Accordingly, the Code prescribes publication of the infraction and a fine of $10,000.