Brief Summary

The member was contacted about a large-breed dog with a rapid heartbeat and breathing as well as unproductive retching. The member suggested the client look for barrel-chesting for possible gastric dilatation-volvulus (GDV) and advised the client to monitor the dog for the next couple of hours and to call back if the condition worsened.

The next morning, the client took the dog to the clinic and reported her symptoms remained largely the same - tachypnea, tachycardia, disinterest in food or drink, restlessness, weakness, non-productive retching, and she was also more lethargic. The dog was examined, blood was drawn for CBC/biochemistry and abdominal radiographs including a Barium series were taken. 

The client went to pick the dog up and was told the member hadn’t had a chance to review the x-rays. The client was advised to return the next morning; the dog’s condition remained the same. The next day, further abdominal and chest x-rays were taken. 

The member advised the client they ran tests and suggested the problem was a lung infection, and discussed potential causes. The member said he would prescribe antibiotics and antihistamines and the client could pick up the dog in about 30 minutes when the prescription was filled out.

Shortly after this conversation, the member called the client and indicated the dog was found dead by the veterinary technician who went to get her. He added that he was not sure what happened, but that it appeared the dog coughed up some blood. The member indicated the dog had been fine earlier in the day.

Allegations of Professional Misconduct

• failed to properly assess/reassess the dog
• failed to contact the client to discuss the case
• failed to reassess, adequately monitor and/or treat the dog
• failed to maintain proper records
• failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession
• an act or omission relevant to the practice of veterinary medicine, that having regard to the circumstances, would be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional
• conduct unbecoming a veterinarian

Decision

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

Penalty

The member signed an undertaking to resign his licence with the College and to not apply for a licence to practise veterinary medicine in Ontario or elsewhere.

Panel's Reasoning

The panel found the College proved the member failed to reassess the dog’s condition once tests were performed; failed to contact the client; failed to reassess, adequately monitor, and treat the dog; and failed to maintain proper records. The Panel concluded this conduct constituted professional misconduct.

The panel did not find professional misconduct within the meaning of conduct unbecoming. The panel also did not find a failure to properly assess the dog on her first day at the clinic. However, the panel did find a failure to reassess once tests were performed on that date. 

In reaching these conclusions, the panel considered the chronology, the significance of timely reassessment following diagnostic testing, the need for effective and timely communication with the client, and the requirements for adequate medical record-keeping in companion animal practice. The cumulative deficiencies established, particularly in reassessment, monitoring, communication, and records, met the threshold for professional misconduct.

Penalty 

The penalty phase was initially contested, particularly around the length of the suspension. The member retained counsel and the parties reached an agreement on penalty.

The member agreed to sign an undertaking, promising to resign from the College and to refrain from seeking to re-apply in Ontario or elsewhere. The undertaking acknowledges the panel’s findings and decision. 

The undertaking eliminates any prospect of future practice by the member, obviating the need for remediation and specific deterrence. As well, the public posting of the findings, decision, and undertaking ensures transparency, general deterrence, and maintenance of confidence in the College’s regulatory processes. 

These are unique circumstances as the member represented himself unsuccessfully, then retained counsel and pursued a compromise. The merits hearing and penalty phase, although contested, were completed in less than 1.5 hearing days. This should not be interpreted as a precedent which supports that any member facing a penalty can fight unsuccessfully and then resign to avoid an order or to prevent the risks of having to pay costs. Whether a joint submission is consistent with the public interest or risks undermining the perceived integrity of the tribunal must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the panel has no concerns.

Further, the College’s reassessment of its penalty position considering the undertaking is principled and consistent with its objectives of ensuring professional regulation of veterinarians in Ontario.

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.