Allegations of Professional Misconduct

• failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession
• abused a client verbally or physically
• provided false or misleading information to the College
• an act or omission relevant to the practice of veterinary medicine that would be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional
• conduct unbecoming a veterinarian
• contravening a law if the purpose of the law is to protect or promote the health or welfare of animals or to protect or promote public health, or the contravention is relevant to the member’s suitability to practise veterinary medicine

Brief Summary

The member made physical contact with a client in a manner that made her feel uncomfortable at two appointments. At the first appointment, the client held her small breed puppy while the member vaccinated the dog. After administering the vaccinations, the member rubbed the area of the vaccination and the back of his hand contacted the client’s breast. 

At the second vaccination appointment, the member used his stethoscope to check the dog’s heart and rubbed the stethoscope on the client’s breast. Following the vaccination, the member again rubbed the client’s breast while rubbing the vaccine area on the dog. The client backed away and the member touched her breast again. The client immediately left the room.

Following the second appointment, the member was charged with two counts of sexual assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. The member failed to disclose this information to the College.

One sexual assault charge was withdrawn and the Crown accepted the member’s guilty plea to the lesser offence of common assault. He received a conditional discharge and probation for one year.

Decision

The member was found guilty of the allegations of professional misconduct.

Penalty

• Reprimand
• The member’s licence is suspended for six months.
• The member is to begin therapy with a psychotherapist or a psychologist for the duration of the suspension. The therapist will provide the Registrar with an assessment of the member’s risk of harm to the public.
• The member will be assessed by a psychologist or psychotherapist within 60 days of the end of his suspension to determine the member’s status with respect to the sexual assault of a client, remorse, likelihood of reoffending, and risk to the public.
• The member is to successfully complete the PROBE: Ethics and Boundaries program prior to the end of the suspension.
• The member is to successfully complete the PROBE Plus program prior to the end of the suspension and, in any event, before returning to practice
• Following the suspension, the member cannot be alone with a female client for at least 12 months and is subject to four unannounced visits.
• The member must inform employers, partners, colleagues and practice staff of the restrictions.
• The member must also ensure clients are aware he is practicing with restrictions on his licence.
• All costs of the penalty are the member’s responsibility.
• The member must pay costs to the College of $43,450.38, payable over one year.

Panel's Reasoning

Penalty decision: The Panel found the client to be a credible witness; she appeared to be honest, and her recounting of events was consistent. The information she provided was also largely consistent with the evidence of the clinic staff and mostly consistent with the member’s testimony, except regarding the member’s alleged comments to her of a sexual nature and his alleged grabbing of her breast.

The Panel considered the client’s reliability as a witness. There were events that she could not recall, particularly the time after the member alleged to have grabbed her breast. It is plausible this reaction was within the expected spectrum of behaviour of a victim of sexual assault. She also could not recall if she told the OPP officer the member grabbed her breast, but she believed she did.  

The Panel considered the member’s credibility and reliability. The member agreed to all the allegations except those of a sexual nature.  He described his inappropriate touching as unintentional and he appeared to truly regret it.  His testimony was calm, although at times defensive. He had excellent recall of the visits; he attributed this to consulting his notes.   

The member’s testimony regarding the puppy’s behaviour was inconsistent with that of the clinic staff and the client.  He characterized the puppy as aggressive, whereas the others described it as rambunctious and nervous. The member indicated he didn’t mention the puppy’s behaviour to the client or record it in the medical record because it was normal for a puppy of that age.  If the puppy was as aggressive as he described, that ought to have been noted in the medical records to avoid injury at future appointments.

Further, the Panel found the member’s evidence was inconsistent when describing his new standard operating procedure about whether a female client would be allowed to hold her animal while undergoing veterinary examination and procedures. He initially said he would ask a female client’s permission before touching her breast, and then said a female client would not hold their animal but rather the veterinary assistant would restrain it when necessary.  

The panel considered the member’s testimony regarding whether he could hear a person speaking while wearing a stethoscope. Evidence through a staged examination suggested the member could hear outside voices while using his stethoscope. This undermines the credibility of the member’s testimony that he could not have heard the client’s comments during the examination of the puppy.

Although the member testified that he was uncomfortable touching the client during his examination and vaccination of the puppy, he didn’t modify his activities to avoid the contact.  

The Panel also considered whether the member offered to check the client’s heart and whether he made an inappropriate sexual comment about her breasts. The Panel decided the evidence indicated the member heard the client ask him whether he was checking the dog’s heart or hers and replied with the offer to check hers. The member indicated he was uncomfortable with touching the client’s breast while auscultating the puppy’s heart and rubbing the vaccination site. However, he did not modify those procedures, despite this behaviour occurring on two separate visits. The Panel felt this undermined the member’s credibility as a witness.

The Panel considered the charge of sexual assault was dropped against the member after he pleaded guilty to simple assault. As criminal cases and civil cases have different burdens of proof, the Panel cannot take this as evidence, that a sexual assault did not occur. The court, based on the Panel’s reading of the transcript of those proceedings was satisfied with the guilty plea to assault and the terms and conditions imposed.

The Panel finds that on a balance of probabilities the member did physically and verbally sexually assault the client as alleged.  The Panel found the client to be a credible witness. The member’s evidence was not credible. He did not always answer questions directly, and he provided inconsistent evidence. Further, the Panel had serious concerns that the member did nothing to alter his actions when he was rubbing the client’s breast during the puppy’s examination and vaccination procedures.  He ought to have known the physical contact was problematic. 

Penalty & Costs: The Panel’s findings are serious and require a significant penalty, which includes a lengthy suspension, and which also must address general and specific deterrence, remediation, and public confidence in the regulatory process.  

The Panel noted this is the first time the member has appeared before the Discipline Committee, and while he did not admit the most serious of the allegations, he did cooperate with the College and entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts and admitted the allegations relating to his failure to advise the College of his criminal charges. His cooperation saved the College and the Discipline Committee some time and resources.  

The Panel considered the aggravating factors in the case. The touching occurred on more than one occasion and the client was significantly impacted by the misconduct. The Panel also considered the member’s failure to advise the College of his criminal charges to be an aggravating factor.  

Further, the Panel received information about the member’s relevant history before the Executive Committee.  In 2017, the member was charged with sexually assaulting a staff member at his clinic.  Those charges were withdrawn in exchange for the member entering a Peace Bond, which included a provision of no contact with the individual. The Executive Committee did not refer this matter to discipline, but did issue a written caution to the member regarding maintaining professional boundaries. He was cautioned further to use his professional judgement to be aware of situations where boundaries may be at risk and to set and manage healthy boundaries in a wide variety of circumstances.

When determining a penalty, the Panel must provide specific and general deterrence, specific to the member and general to other veterinarians.  The six-month suspension is a severe deterrent and provides a length of time for reasonable assurance of rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation is a cornerstone of the penalty as it serves to assist the member and protects the public from further risk. The Panel has concluded the member has not demonstrated full remorse for his actions. Thus, the requirement for the member to successfully complete counselling, and the Probe and Probe Plus course is critical for protection of the public. 

Decision

Since 2024, decisions have been posted on the CanLII website, the Canadian Legal Information Institute. A complete copy of this decision is available on CanLII.