Brief Summary

At the beginning of the hearing, the member consented to dealing with two matters together, as both related to the member’s record keeping and failure to maintain the standards.

In the first case, an individual purchased a puppy from a breeder. The member had allegedly vaccinated the puppy at the breeder’s location. However, the puppy developed parvovirus enteritis and died after 12 days of hospitalization.

The member’s medical records consisted of an examination sheet which was used for all the puppies vaccinated in one visit when he attended the breeder’s property. However, the records did not contain specific details of the puppies. It was not possible to identify the puppy and determine whether it was vaccinated. Regarding the puppy who died, the member either failed to examine the puppy sufficiently or failed to adequately document the examination.

The member’s records were deficient in the following areas:

• lack of detail such as individual patient information to distinguish each animal from one another
• lack of individual physical exam findings, assessments, and treatments
• the member kept the same record for separate litters
• sick animals were not definitively identified
• breeder/owner’s address was incomplete
• the puppies were not weighed individually – instead, a range of weights was recorded
• no assessments were recorded
• no vaccine serial numbers and other relevant information were included

In the second case, an individual purchased two puppies from a puppy breeder and then discovered one of the puppies had an umbilical hernia. Both puppies were returned to the breeder a day or two later due to illness.

The member’s medical records indicate they examined six puppies from the litter but the puppies were not distinguished in the medical records. The umbilical hernia and other concerns were not noted.

The member’s records were deficient in the following areas:

• a single examination sheet was used for all six puppies examined
• no notes differentiated the puppies
• dates of birth, breed and colour/marking were the same for all puppies;
• weight was an estimate encompassing all puppies but not noted for each puppy
• there were no notes indicating each puppy was examined or about any abnormalities found on any puppy
• vaccine information (including serial numbers) and vaccination sites were not recorded in the examination sheet/medical records
• the owner’s address was incomplete
• the assessments were not legible

The member either failed to examine the puppies adequately or at all, or he failed to adequately record the results of his examinations.

Allegations of Professional Misconduct

In both cases, the member:

• failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession
• failed to make or retain the records required by the Regulation

Decision

The member pleaded guilty to all the allegations of professional misconduct. The Panel accepted the member’s plea.

Penalty

• Reprimand
• Review the College’s three-part Medical Record Keeping Module for Companion Animals
• Following completion of the module, the member has to send eight medical records to the College for a peer review. The records must record individual patient information to distinguish each animal in a litter from one another, as well as individual physical exam findings, assessments, and treatments. Medical records must represent individual patients and litters. At least two of the medical records must be for a patient the member has provided veterinary services to on more than one occasion, whether the patient was healthy or sick. The medical records must include entries which were made following review of the medical record module.
• If the records are not deemed satisfactory, the member must submit another eight records. Should the second set of records be unsatisfactory, the member must submit a final set of eight records.
• The member must pay costs to the College of $5,000.

Panel's Reasoning

The Panel finds the member engaged in professional misconduct in both cases as he failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and failed to make or retain records required by the regulation. Having carefully reviewed the current framework regarding professional misconduct under the Veterinarians Act, the Panel found the member’s conduct qualified as professional misconduct. The member’s records were deficient and did not meet the standard.

Penalty and Costs: The Panel was satisfied the proposed penalty and costs were reasonable and in the public interest. The Panel found the penalty and the costs agreed upon were appropriate and met the goals of public protection and rehabilitation. This was the member’s first referral to discipline in 20 years of practice in Ontario and the member was co-operative.

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.