In parallel to all these petitions, the petitioner applied for an additional extension to provide his response to the hearing, and with the respondent's consent, an extension was granted until June 16, 2024. Close to this date, another extension was requested, and again the petitioner was granted an extension until June 23, 2024. At the same time, during the month of May 2024, the petitioner filed a tort claim in the Tiberias Magistrate's Court against the District Pharmacist, which is currently being heard (Civil Case (Tiberias) 57872-05-24).
- For the sake of completeness, we will mention three more petitions filed by the petitioner from the end of 2023 until May 2024: In the petition from August 2023, the petitioner petitioned to transfer the handling of his case from the district pharmacist in the Northern District to a pharmacist in another district, due to his claim that he was acting in a conflict of interest. Following the hearing on December 21, 2023, the petitioner withdrew the petition and the petition was deleted (Administrative Petition (Jerusalem) 40663-08-23, the Honorable Judge D. Gidoni); A similar petition was filed in October 2023 and deleted on December 25, 2023 (Administrative Petition (Jerusalem) 51918-10-23, the Honorable Judge A. Avman-Muller); In May 2024, the petitioner's petition was filed, in which he attacked the very licensing guidelines and claimed that they were determined without authority. This petition was dismissed on May 12, 2024, without a response being requested (Administrative Petition (Jerusalem) 8002-05-14, the Honorable Judge A. Darel).
- Ultimately, the petitioner's response to the hearing was submitted on June 23, 2024, in which all of his arguments were presented (after previously, his arguments were submitted only in the matter of the Kiryat Ata branch). Among other things, the petitioner announced that the branch in Hadera had been closed and therefore no longer required a business license to operate it, and that the ownership of the branch in Rosh Pina had been replaced, and therefore no further decision was required regarding the license application. On the merits of the arguments, the petitioner claimed, inter alia, that all the deficiencies discovered in the inspection conducted at the Tiberias branch had been treated and that it was currently under the management of the pharmacist in charge, Jabareen, with the approval of the district pharmacist, and also raised claims regarding defects in the audit conducted and in the hearing process, which he also reiterated in his petition, as will be further detailed.
- Summary of the decision at the hearing
- The hearing was discussed before the head of the Economics, Regulation and Innovation Division at the firm, Ran Ridnik, the director of the Pharmacy Division, Yuval Landschaft, and the acting director of the Pharmacy Division, Mr. Eli Marom. Their decision at the hearing, in which the petition was filed, was given on July 25, 2024. With regard to the professional aspects required for the purpose of the decision at the hearing, the composition of the hearing relied on the detailed and comprehensive opinions of three district pharmacists (Mag. Ben-Zion Rodel, District Pharmacist in the Jerusalem and Ashkelon Districts, Mr. Miri Treinin, District Pharmacist in the Tel Aviv District, and Ms. Eti Stern, District Pharmacist in the Central District) dated June 13, 2024, which, as stated in the heading, deals with"Professional Pharmaceutical Issues Regarding the Hearing of Mr. Maor Algali". Among other things, their opinions examined the claims of selective enforcement by the District Pharmacists, which were required to take into account the circumstances in which the inspections are conducted in remote homes and the criteria for conducting them; the issue of the hierarchy of actions and powers in handling audit findings in pharmacies; an analysis of the audit activity at the Tiberias and Hadera branches; Various issues raised in the petitioners' arguments regarding the conduct of the district pharmacist in the north, including the failure to stop the activity of dealing in dangerous drugs other than cannabis in pharmacies, the implications of the issue of the passage of time, the termination of the license to practice the Tiberias branch in December 2023, and the like.
The decision at the hearing is a very comprehensive, detailed and reasoned decision (13 pages), which is based on all the factual findings that the respondents had and, as stated, on the professional and independent opinion of three district pharmacists in the Ministry of Health. It also discussed all of the petitioner's arguments.
- From what is presented in the decision, it emerges that the petitioner is not only the main owner and manager of all the companies (all the chain's branches), but also the "living spirit" of all the pharmacies, where poor management was found and systematic violations of the binding provisions of the law were found. It also emerged that the petitioner's conduct was found to be defective in a manner that directly affected the conduct of the pharmacies, including the functioning of the pharmacists in charge. In this regard, the decision referred to the Section 11a(b) IIPharmacists Ordinance which establishes the responsibility of the pharmacy owner for his activities and the work of the employees, as well as his duty to supervise them and take all the measures listed in the section.
The decision emphasized that anyone who receives a license to practice cannabis, and in particular a designated license to operate pharmacies that sell medical cannabis to patients, must act with utmost caution and responsibility due to the fear of harm to public health. Despite this, the petitioner's conduct and the manner in which he expresses himself publicly vis-à-vis the supervisory bodies is extremely unusual and unparalleled by any other non-supervisor. This conduct, the decision states, attests to his lack of perception of his role as a supervisory body and his lack of understanding of the magnitude of his responsibility stemming from operating a business that sells dangerous drugs, especially cannabis.
- In the decision, it was clarified that the hearing dealt with all the branches owned by the petitioner and the petitioner himself, after detailing the factual background and all the arguments raised by the petitioners in their comprehensive and detailed response (24 pages and 30 pages of appendices), all of their arguments were discussed and rejected.
Among other things, the following arguments were rejected: the claim of conflict of interest on the part of the supervisory authorities was rejected (paragraphs 17-21); the argument of invalidity of the evidence extracted from the audit proceedings used for the hearing was rejected (paragraphs 22-23); it was held that the claim of selective enforcement was found to be unfounded, inter alia, in view of what was explained in the opinion of the district pharmacists (paragraphs 24-30); the claim of lack of authority to conduct the hearing was rejected (paragraphs 31-36); the claim that time had elapsed between the audit and the hearing was rejected (paragraphs 37-38); the management of the inventory of dangerous drugs in the chain's branches was flawless (paragraphs 39-42); the argument that there was no justification was rejected to close the Tiberias branch due to correcting the deficiencies and drawing lessons, emphasizing that the findings indicate that "the opposite is true, since, as stated, gaps were again found in the management of cannabis" (paragraphs 43); it was held that there was no basis for the claim that the prohibited utensils held in the Tiberias branch arrived due to an incorrect shipment (paragraphs 44); the claims regarding the publication were rejected, and in any event, it was held that this was only an additional layer and not the main reason for the decision (paragraphs 45-46); the argument of lack of authority to order the cessation of the sale of cannabis in the Tiberias branch was rejected (paragraphs 47-50); It was held that there was no substance to the claim that there was a flaw in the fact that the sale of cannabis was prohibited in the Tiberias branch, but the sale of other dangerous drugs was not prohibited (paragraphs 51-53); The petitioner's argument that he did not interfere with the audit and that he should not be disqualified from engaging in the field of cannabis was rejected (paragraphs 54-57); The claim of infringement of the freedom of occupation was rejected and it was held that in principle freedom of occupation does not require the granting of an occupation license to the petitioner (paragraphs 58-61); The argument that the disqualification of the distancing houses in question amounts to unreasonableness and disproportionality (paragraphs 62-63).
- After examining all the documents that were examined and examining all of the petitioner's claims, it was determined that in light of the picture that arose, the appropriate officials in the Ministry of Health could not rely on responsible conduct in the pharmacies in the petitioner's chain. Nor can it be relied upon that there will be responsible adherence to the required procedures, and therefore there is a concern of harm to public health. In light of these conclusions, it was decided as follows.
- The petitioner is no longer allowed to engage in the field of medical cannabis, because he has shown a complete lack of insight into the responsibility required of those engaged in this field and due to his irresponsible conduct in practice, as detailed in the decision. This concludes that he will not be able to be an "interested owner" in the field of cannabis, either by himself or through a corporation or legal body in which he is an interested party, a CEO or an employee with a license to practice.
- In the case of the Tiberias branch, it was determined that it could continue to hold the license, which is valid until December 10, 2024, in order to enable the petitioner to remove his hand from the ownership and involvement there, if he so chooses. However, the validity of the license will not be extended if the petitioner continues to be the owner or if the new ownership is not approved.
III. The application of the Kiryat Ata branch to obtain a license to engage in cannabis was rejected, as long as the petitioner is the owner or other functionary of the distant house or the company that owns it. No decision was required regarding the branches in Hadera and Rosh Pina, but it was clarified that they would be able to submit new applications for a license to practice cannabis, only if the petitioner was not the owner, interested party or office holder in them.
- If in the future the petitioner sees a material change in circumstances, his application to engage in cannabis will be examined in accordance with the law.
The main arguments of the parties